121–130 of 133 posts
The more guardrails you provide the more it cheats.
AI is like a wild animal that needs to do something, and it takes a fair bit of work to corner it. And only when it's cornered and at the point of giving up, can you then offer it a way out.
If you don't do what I said, I can guarantee it's fooling you somehow.
"In this post, I’ll cover a third, not-so-obvious approach: building ways for the agent to validate more of its own work before a human has to step in. " this has been an obvious thing to do since at least January (since Geoffrey Huntley published "everything is a ralph loop"), and this is how I've been working: build enough orchestration tooling to be able to automate everything: development container bringup, build…
> I understand this probably does not work if you're on some subscription and not using the API (tokens burn fast), but this has been extremely productive for me. Do you have infinite money?
"In this post, I’ll cover a third, not-so-obvious approach: building ways for the agent to validate more of its own work before a human has to step in. " this has been an obvious thing to do since at least January (since Geoffrey Huntley published "everything is a ralph loop"), and this is how I've been working: build enough orchestration tooling to be able to automate everything: development container bringup, build…
What’s the cost of all that though? I don’t doubt that productivity could be gained but when I see articles like the one on the Open Claw guy spending 1.3 million on tokens in a single month I am reminded of drag racing engines that can reach incredible speeds but also need to be completely rebuilt after a single race.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Depends on the quality of your validation loop. Can the agent find the bug in a five second unit test, or does it have to run the full deployment test? I am not asking about time or completeness. I am asking if this person is spending 1 dollar to make more than a dollar, or if they are spending 1 dollar to make less than a dollar. Any other criteria is not necessary to consider, if the activity is not profitable.
Who cares about that? Vibes, baby, vibes!!!
A very long post about a simple and very obvious idea with many different implementations. The three main problems are 1) API usage is deadly expensive 2) Claude is about to make all automation very expensive 3) all the flows where a model has the initiative are strictly biased towards unwarranted stops (checkpointing). Also, I won't call that "backpressure", there is no producer-consumer disbalance or something simi…
Next, Vercel, already handle this correctly. It takes special effort to violate "least surprise" here. Cmd-click on a link, should open it in a new tab.
It does appear to be an issue with SimpleAnalytics, now Adobe's,
onclick="saAutomatedLink(this, 'outbound'); return false;"
Good sites, good blogs, *don't override onclick for links.* Or handle it correctly. I'll leave an issue on the github.
Between your footer, and dotfiles repo, OP does seem to appreciate standards & norms, in principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a contradiction; it's an augmentation. As an operations guy, I can tell you that well-constructed automation to reduce the amount of manual checking a human has to do almost always increases the quality of the overall process's output.
Of course it does, but that's beside the point. As a software developer, you must never subject your team mates to a PR that you yourself believe to be low quality. The point of code review by others is to catch things that you missed. There are multiple lines of defense for quality. Yes, automation can and should be one of them, but your own self-review always has to come before review by your team mates.
However, from an operations perspective, a dev is a piece of the qa pipeline with a nonzero error rate, and an optimal throughput rate, above which that error rate rises dramatically.
As a dev, you'll never merge a bad PR; in ops, we want to help you with that goal, and also have plans for what happens when it fails.