galaxyLogic

My issue is buying groceries from Amazon. You have to fill up your cart to > $30 to get a free delivery (in NYC). So you start searching for whatever you might want to include to get the free delivery. But the items like milk can come from

a) Amazon ("proper")

b) Amazon Groceries

c) Amazon Fresh

d) Whole Foods

Each of these have their own "cart" which must have goods > $25 etc. to get a free delivery. If you add an item from another list it does not count, so you must add things which you maybe don't really need just because they come from the same list as milk. Or, you will need to fill up multiple carts.

Then once you reach the threshold for free delivery and make the order, you may, or may not notice an extra line in the total bill: A tip for $5 in very small print which you have to edit away, or it is NOT FREE DELIVERY AFTER ALL, like promised.

What I lament is that Amazon is making me feel guilty for not tipping the delivery person. It is making me take extra action to NOT tip -- I must be a bad person. And it's making delivery people angry at me if I don't include the tip. And Amazon is adding the $5 there always as a default, even though they already said I have earned a free delivery.

It's a transaction between me and Amazon but now Amazon can implicitly blame bad service on the lack of tipping. I assume they would like to not pay their delivery people at all, just let them live on the tips.

"entire Deno team is joining Cloudflare .."

Whom did they work for before?

I wonder how easily could you port celld to Node.js?

Why Edge of Node.js?

We need them so you can pick and choose the one that works best for your current project.

But that points to an important aspect of the platforms-game: The interface between the runtime and everything else should be standardized, to support true pick-and-choose.

Maybe but only if that gives them a competitive advantage.

I wonder if TS could evolve into a compiler whose output would use either Deno, Bun or Node? When the exe is compiled it no longer matters what libraries it uses underneath?

And seems they want to compete with Anthropic, by having expertise on JS runtimes? A big feature I think is the ability to produce an executable application and have your AI agent-tools work well with that.

I'm using Vercel PKG to compile my JS code to executables "nicely".

But PKG is not supported by anyone any more (?) and it has an upper limit on the version of Node.js base-image it will support.

If Bun supports compiling executables nicely I hope that feature somehow stays alive and is migrated to other runtimes. Or maybe it can become a standalone tool for exe-compiling?

I wonder what happens if AI itself would make such a threat?

> getting by honestly is just a way more comfortable

I think it's also much about self-esteem -- am I proud of myself? And criminals probably think highly of themselves when they succeed in their crimes.

Are you saying AI might become the Big Brother?

Good point. I've though about my own mental attitude when interacting with AI agents. When they do something good I feel like saying "Thank You". Does that make sense? I guess it does because it communicates to the model their output was correct. But it feels silly to say "thank You" to a machine. I guess I just have to get over it?

Isn't this much the same as OpenClaw or Hermes?

I think it's a good thing that AI providers are "coalescing" on an agent-model, by producing competing agent-products.

But so what would be the benefit of "Dots" over OpenClaw, Hermes, and Muse?

The problem I encounter with async/await (in JS) is that while an async method can call a non-async-function and do somewthing with the result of that, the reverse is not true, a sync function can call async-function but can not us the result of that in any way, except pass it on or upwards.

What makes it worse is that you can not simply modify a sync-function to become an async-function, if it has existing callers because those would likely break them.

This affects the whole tree of possible function calls in my program. If at some level I have a sync function but I see it needs to get to some data that only async fuction can provide, I may need to change a whole call-chain of my call-tree, not just modify a single function in that tree.

Then as I develop my program I need to make the decision for every function; should it be sync or async? In many cases it could be either one so which should I choose? Making it async would seem to make it easier to evolve the program later. But then would it make sense to make every function async?

The British rock-band Traffic said it in their "Low Spark of High-Heeled Boys" : "... we were children once, playing with toys".

I wonder if it's true that people don't remember. People maybe remember but don't want to talk about it. It is such a cognitive dissonance.

LLMs are "readonly" I guess for several reasons:

1. Technical cost of updating the mode.

2. Inability to trust every user's "truth".

3. Ability of AGENT-HARNESSES to learn with the help of the human user.

So agents learn, LLM already knows everything it will ever know, and ESPECIALLY it has already learned how to understand human language.

No 3. above means there is no danger of the LLM getting corrupted. But the agents running on user's machine learn on behalf of that user who shares the machine with them.

Can you not just tell them: Imagine you are chatting with a very knowledgable person who knows answers to most questions, and can do many computer-related things for you ?

“The solution is something we talked about for many years,” he wrote. “Do not trust the model output.”

Is it possible to know when a request comes from an end-user vs. a bot?

I don't think it's "funny" . But AI has brought it up to the discussion. In human organizations the decision makers make it so it benefits them. But with AI it is possible to design the whole delegation-structure by anybody who designs agent-collaboration.

So its becoming more obvious that AI can actually help big corporations organize their command-structure with the help of AI to produce more profits. The boards should take notice. Does it really help produce more value if most of it goes to the CEO?

Doing lots of programming over the years I've realized that I often need to write "code for myself", in my head, to think what I should do and in what order, and also why. I write to-do notes and notes on why something was best done or had to be done in a given way. Code is instructions for the computer, but developers need instructions too.

It always seemed to require extra effort to "program myself", maybe because it requires questioning whether I'm doing it the right way and what would be some alternative ways of doing it. It's almost like "out-of-box thinking".

Whereas basic coding is often as easy as writing this note here, just write what comes to my mind. Coding tasks are often trivial, but they must be done. But they don't really burden our mind too much, not too often.

But with AI, it's all about "programming the programmer".

And that requires more thinking, asking more questions like is this really what we need to accomplish, or would some alternative way be better? What alternative way?

Asking questions like that was always part of the work but with AI it seems to be the only type of work. And it is more difficult, more exhausting, than basic coding.

Meant to support 50 developers. But I wonder, would it make sense to have some or most of those "developers" replaced by AI agents?

Depends on how we understand the word "insult". Can you really insult inanimate objects? :-)

Figuring out how to get what you want from people would seem to me to be a very different skill than figuring out how to get what you want from AI agents.

For instance, how do you motivate people to work long hours, put in extra effort, feel proud of their work? How would you do that with AI?

Reminds me of current day politics. Lots of public statements which are obviously false, and you would think the politician knows they are false, but utter them anyway because they also know lot of their supporters buy what they are saying anyway.

Now politicians also know something about their supporters so they will adapt their statements to what they think they can get away with it. But, I wonder if this leads to a two-party-system where one party attracts stupid followers and another attracts the smarter ones?

In terms of AI, we might see LLMs specialized to attract more stupid audience and others meant to attract those who appreciate correctness and facts.

Interesting. So if the LLM is having a discussion with itself, am I paying for the tokens it uses for that?

Right, but could that also be because ... the more long-winded they are, the more you pay for their output.

An observation: You can never insult an LLM, but it can certainly insult you.

You can not insult it because it does not care, because it does not have "feelings". But you do.

But if you are managing AI agents you dont' need "soft skills" do you? You don't need to be especially nice to the AI, or symphatize with it, or have fun with it to build trust,

I would imagine that managing a team of AI-agents is totally different from managing a team of people.