Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building Pi with Pi

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#121

Post by tpm »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #113
meowface wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codex and Claude Code store all this too. Lately I've started having each agent regularly read each other's chat transcripts as well as their own, including even the very same session I'm in. (With big contexts they increasingly forget a few things that they re-learn by just looking at the verbatim transcript.) I don't think it's worth writing my own harness or switching to Pi and writing a plugin, but I definitely n…

It is not worth switching to Pi except as a hobbyist. Something that is overlooked: the mainstream harnesses have a huge advantage in telemetry and datapoints to use to improve the harness. They have internal teams building the tooling. They have tight integration built-in with their own backends (e.g. optimizing for caching). Are you tinkering? Or trying to build something useful? If you're trying to build something…

> Something that is overlooked: the mainstream harnesses have a huge advantage in telemetry and datapoints to use to improve the harness. They have internal teams building the tooling. They have tight integration built-in with their own backends (e.g. optimizing for caching).

> Are you tinkering? Or trying to build something useful? If you're trying to build something useful, use a tool.

Do I want to become completely dependent on the pricy pay-as-you-go tool? In the long run that will make me powerless.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#122

Post by meowface »

tpm wrote: post #121
CharlieDigital wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not worth switching to Pi except as a hobbyist. Something that is overlooked: the mainstream harnesses have a huge advantage in telemetry and datapoints to use to improve the harness. They have internal teams building the tooling. They have tight integration built-in with their own backends (e.g. optimizing for caching). Are you tinkering? Or trying to build something useful? If you're trying to build something…

> Something that is overlooked: the mainstream harnesses have a huge advantage in telemetry and datapoints to use to improve the harness. They have internal teams building the tooling. They have tight integration built-in with their own backends (e.g. optimizing for caching). > Are you tinkering? Or trying to build something useful? If you're trying to build something useful, use a tool. Do I want to become completel…

You'll be dependent on it whether or not you use the main harnesses. You pay for the model. The frontier models will likely always be better than the open source ones.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#123

Post by simonw »

dist-epoch wrote: post #66
simonw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've chosen to define "agency" as pretty much "the thing that humans can do and agents can't". To me, agency is the thing where you independently decide what it is you want to get done in the world, based on your own inherent goals. Being able to say "the one thing agents don't have is agency" is a really useful way to help people understand why people still matter. Setting software agents loose on the world to make…

You are contradicting yourself a bit. First you say "the one thing agents don't have is agency" but then "to make their own top-level decisions". Well, which one is it? If they don't have agency, then it's impossible for them to make top-level decision on their own.

Fair point. Maybe I'm arguing that they shouldn't be given agency, because all they can do is simulate it poorly.

Or... maybe it's that they can't have true agency, because it doesn't make sense to tell a big ball of floating point numbers to make decisions about how it plans to have impact in the world. It can't do that, even if it can play-act doing so.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#124

Post by rirze »

andai wrote: post #84

I'm confused though. Wouldn't LLMs be better than humans at following specific instructions for the issue format? (esp. regarding distinguishing what was observed, what is merely hypothesized, etc.) > I increasingly want issue reports to be condensed to what the human actually observed: > 1. I ran this command. > 2. I expected this to happen. > 3. This happened instead. > 4. Here is the exact error or log. A lot of p…

It's sad that you voiced an actual question and you got downvoted.

To answer your question, remember that people will only approve a LLM's output if it matches with their perspective and priors. So if you see a slop issue, it reflects on the human user who didn't see an issue in it (thus their prompt framing or refining is wrong).

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#125

Post by happimess »

burakemir wrote: post #119

Since nobody mentioned it, there was a lovely children's book called the clanker. It was about some creature that made metallic noises unlike the other creatures. The moral of the story was one of diversity and inclusion, making space for differences. My aversion with the word is that I don't want to be reminded of that clanker creature, which had feelings it wanted to express. The weights don't have feelings. My wor…

My objection to 'clanker' is simpler: LLMs don't clank.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#126

Post by KptMarchewa »

Mashimo wrote: post #120
KptMarchewa wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same principle applies.

The principle of not trying to offend because it's childish? I don't like swearing, and I really try to not offend people. But telling someone not to do something with the sole reason giving it's childish I dislike strongly. I sometimes play video games, even though some people say it's childish. Or act silly with my partner. What ever floats your goat.

The swearing is something that makes sense when it's a situation to swear. I would not trust person who never, under any circumstances swear.

The same thing would apply to a person who swears endlessly without reason.

>I sometimes play video games, even though some people say it's childish.

Who cares what you do in your own time?

Here, on the other hand, someone is trying to force his opinion on public. This, I can judge. Both on merit, and the language they use.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#127

Post by reilly3000 »

happimess wrote: post #125
burakemir wrote: post #119

Since nobody mentioned it, there was a lovely children's book called the clanker. It was about some creature that made metallic noises unlike the other creatures. The moral of the story was one of diversity and inclusion, making space for differences. My aversion with the word is that I don't want to be reminded of that clanker creature, which had feelings it wanted to express. The weights don't have feelings. My wor…

My objection to 'clanker' is simpler: LLMs don't clank.

More like they sing in coil whine.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#128

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

skinfaxi wrote: post #83
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> agency is the thing where you independently decide what it is you want to get done in the world, based on your own inherent goals If a company you work for tells you to do something, and you do it, did you have agency? Was it their goal you were accomplishing? Or was it your goal to make money? > "the one thing agents don't have is agency" is a really useful way to help people understand why people still matter Do…

> If a company you work for tells you to do something, and you do it, did you have agency? Was it their goal you were accomplishing? Or was it your goal to make money? You have agency because you can refuse. Your car can't refuse your command.

Sometimes it can refuse. It can refuse to let you put the shifter into park from drive without applying the brake petal. It can refuse to shift into a gear at an unsafe speed. It can refuse to speed up if your wheels lose traction. It can refuse to apply full brake potential if the brakes lock up. You, the human, are the one without agency in those situations.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#129

Post by hhh »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #97
stavros wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense, I don't know why some people are OK with slurs in general, as long as it's against their favourite outgroup. Let's just all mature enough to realise that slurs are universally unacceptable.

I agree but can we stop pretending like machines are in the same group as humans? They are not.

Why do you believe that?

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#130

Post by cgriswald »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #106
Mashimo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess. I'm not sure if it's the exception, but for example "rust bucket" is mostly used against old vehicles. Now I'm laying here, wondering if it's bad to be discriminating against objects.

Sometimes I’m wondering what to call people who get offended on behalf of other people or entities that they imagine might be offended by some term or other. See, they feel bad, and like small children, they assume everyone else must feel bad. Okay, in case of people and words like n___er, one could argue they have a leg to stand on. But stupid computer programs? Really? And then I remember that in my part of the gal…

I don’t have to imagine the offense of others to take offense to slurs intended to denigrate them. If I tell you not to use the n-word in my presence I’m not doing it for black people. I’m doing it for me. I don’t want to hear that shit because it offends me. The entire mindset that would think it is okay offends me.

A slur applied to anthropomorphic programs is the same mindset to someone who really believes the programs are experiencing, quite different from “rust bucket” being applied to a car they know doesn’t think and feel. While I can’t quite get offended about it, it does make me wonder if they’re not using other slurs because of the socially unacceptable nature of those slurs rather than because they’re not awful people.

Post reply on HN