211–220 of 315 posts
The thing that most disconcerts me isn't the runtime pruning, it's the cold loading. Months ago, I added a few skills and MCPs to test them, partly in the frenzy of free shopping, but then I forgot about half of them. So after I got tired of choosing by hand, and therefore also a bit blindly, I created a small tool that runs locally and analyzes conversations to tell you which skills, MCPs, or other things are always…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a carpentry shop buy hundreds of thousands of dollars of power tools without consulting with their employees to see what they actually need to get their job done more effectively? The logic of buying the tools then forcing the employees to use them "or else" is completely backwards in any sane world. (Of course, we've all had bosses that went to some marketing seminar and come back having been tricked^Wsold…
>If you want to see if the tools work, why don't you just ask your employees? Like any normal employer would? I run a small business with two employees. N=2 here, of course, but one of them will experiment with any new process you introduce (as well as plenty more that you don't!) The other will keep doing what he's always been doing, even if it's frustrating and inefficient, unless you monitor him and force him to u…
> it's usually better off in the long run to shove the new process down group B's throat.
> (…) the "Group B" employee (…) is more conscientious and reliable than anyone else we've ever hired
If employee B is proving themselves to be valuable and reliable, then you should trust them to make the best decisions for how they’re going to go about their work and support them. Leave the door open for them to try different things, but no one likes having processes shoved down their throats (your words). All you’re doing is making them unhappy and more likely to leave to go work for someone who’ll value them like they deserve.
Tokenmaxxing was just a way to force employees to start leveraging AI in a meaningful way. For companies that have measured performance based on token spend, they can now dial it back. Employees have learned to leverage AI for things they wouldn’t have prior. Now they know what’s possible and what’s not. No one is stupid enough to always measure performance based on token spend and have unlimited budget. It was alway…
That's a very good point. Our company has been very thrifty with our AI spend, until a few months ago the average employee had ~$50 of supported spend and I was trying to be an AI leader in the company and figure out what was and was not possible, I had a $100/mo spend (Claude $100 service costs $108/mo). We are now seeing that Claude Code can do a LOT of heavy lifting in our day-to-day work, but the bulk of our empl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Independent of everything else, very interesting to see how polarized the comments are here
I'm a +26 on my post so far so it seems like there are a lot of people who agree with me but most replies disagree with me. I suppose this is the nature of online forums - that those who disagree will take the time to reply but those who agree rarely do.
Why would those who agree “take the time to reply”? To say what? “This”? “Agreed”? “This guy knows it”? Those comments don’t add anything of value. When you agree, it only makes sense to reply if you have something to say which wasn’t covered by the original argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a carpentry shop buy hundreds of thousands of dollars of power tools without consulting with their employees to see what they actually need to get their job done more effectively? The logic of buying the tools then forcing the employees to use them "or else" is completely backwards in any sane world. (Of course, we've all had bosses that went to some marketing seminar and come back having been tricked^Wsold…
> The logic of buying the tools then forcing the employees to use them "or else" is completely backwards in any sane world People are stubborn. A lot of productivity improvements had to be almost forced upon farmers, for example. Even when early adopters demonstrated the benefits, a decent fraction of them just didn’t want to change.
People are stubborn, but sometimes for good reason. Let the stubborn people hold on to their practices, if the innovators are right they will eventually fold anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To use your analogy again, it's kind of like the shop boss buying everyone a table saw and then saying "The best way to use the table saw is just experiment with it, it's the fastest and most accurate straight cut we can get - the future is table saw."
Yes, this is, in fact, how adoption of table saws and other such tools looked like, while they were still new tools. The basic form and function was established and its utility proven in both testing and early adopters, but as new kind of general tool on the market, every user from "early majority" was still writing the operating playbook for their specific shop conditions and kind of work they're doing. So yes, it's…
This is the most crucial bit. Neither ramming it down developers throats nor rejecting it wholesale is particularly productive. You need the conservative people onboard as well, to discover critical edges and failure modes. Including their criticism in the adoption process instead of bluntly banning it is the smarter move. Of course, there will be a few people who just don't play, they will fold eventually or be let go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a carpentry shop buy hundreds of thousands of dollars of power tools without consulting with their employees to see what they actually need to get their job done more effectively? The logic of buying the tools then forcing the employees to use them "or else" is completely backwards in any sane world. (Of course, we've all had bosses that went to some marketing seminar and come back having been tricked^Wsold…
>If you want to see if the tools work, why don't you just ask your employees? Like any normal employer would? I run a small business with two employees. N=2 here, of course, but one of them will experiment with any new process you introduce (as well as plenty more that you don't!) The other will keep doing what he's always been doing, even if it's frustrating and inefficient, unless you monitor him and force him to u…