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

Microsoft Amplifier

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#151

Post by redhale »

tcdent wrote: post #24

> Never lose context again. Amplifier automatically exports your entire conversation before compaction, preserving all the details that would otherwise be lost. When Claude Code compacts your conversation to stay within token limits, you can instantly restore the full history. If this is restoring the entire context (and looking at the source code, it seems like it is just reloading the entire context) how does this…

I think the idea would be that you could re-compact with a different focus. When you compact, you can give Claude instructions on what is important to retain and what can be discarded. If you later discover that actually you wanted something you discarded during a previous compaction, this could allow you to recover it.

Also, it can be useful to compact before it is strictly necessary to compact (before you are at max context length). So there could be a case where you decide you need to "undo" one of these types of early compactions for some reason.

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#152

Post by dr_dshiv »

yunnpp wrote: post #136
qlm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absurd to the point of being comical. Do you really believe that? If an “objective” test purports to show that AI is more creative than humans then I’m sorry but the test is deeply flawed. I don’t even need to look at the methodology to confidently state that.

His comment must be fueled by his own lack of creativity. He has engulfed himself in the AI, and his own knowledge gap prevents him from even scratching the surface of his own stupidity.

That’s pretty rude. And wrong.

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#153

Post by dr_dshiv »

qlm wrote: post #42
dr_dshiv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on clear, operational definitions, AI is definitely more creative than humans. E.g., can easily produce higher scores on a Torrance test of divergent thinking. Humans may still be more innovative (defined as creativity adopted into larger systems), though that may be changing.

This is absurd to the point of being comical. Do you really believe that? If an “objective” test purports to show that AI is more creative than humans then I’m sorry but the test is deeply flawed. I don’t even need to look at the methodology to confidently state that.

It’s a point, I suppose, about being clear about what we mean. In psychology, we need to define terms in terms of measures — and we’ve traditionally measured human creativity that way. Not without critique, but true!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrance_Tests_of_Creative_Thi...

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#154

Post by username223 »

nozzlegear wrote: post #55
ridruejo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I don’t understand the cynicism in the comments and they literally are just trying to make the technology more accessible

That's a very altruistic outlook on Microsoft's intent with getting everyone to use and depend on AI.

I mean this in the best possible way, but I don't think you're using "altruistic" correctly. Altruism is "showing a selfless concern for the well-being of others." I think you're looking for "naive," and Microsoft is some combination of cynical and manipulative.

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#155

Post by willahmad »

fishmicrowaver wrote: post #123
willahmad wrote: post #118

Project looks interesting, but no demos. As much I want to try it because of all cool concepts mentioned, but I am not sure I want to invest my time if I don't see any demos

I mean that's fair but doing a make install and providing your API key is pretty easy?

multiply it by 20 other similar projects and assume 20% have security issues, your environment will be messed up before you even understand if you need it or not. Not even talking about time you lost

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#156

Post by nsonha »

hansmayer wrote: post #147
nsonha wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recently the quality is degrading so much You can say it sucked and still continue to suck, but that LLM/agentic AI is degrading is simply false. Such a statement really makes me question the genuinity of the rest of the comment.

Well, unlike mine, "simply false" as we know, is the ultimate argument to prove one's point, isn´t it?

> unlike mine

"unlike"? You made a claim and has nothing to show for either. Only difference is that the claim is actually way more ridiculous. Somehow technology advanced backward and you're the only one noticed.

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#157

Post by FrinkleFrankle »

genghisjahn wrote: post #129
anditherobot wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried Scoped context packages? Basically for each task, I create a .md file that includes relevant file paths, the purpose of the task, key dependencies, a clear plan of action, and a test strategy. It’s like a mini local design doc. I found that it helps ground implementation and stabilizes the output of the agents.

I read this suggestion a lot. “Make clear steps, a clear plan of action.” Which I get. But then instead of having an LLM flail away at it could we give to an actual developer? It seems like we’ve finally realized that clear specs makes dev work much easier for LLMs. But the same is true for a human. The human will ask more clarifying questions and not hallucinate. The llm will role the dice and pick a path. Maybe we…

I'm using it to help me build what I want and learn how. It being incorrect and needing questioning isn't that bad, so long as you ARE questioning it. It has brought up so many concepts, parameters, etc that would be difficult to find and learn alone. Documentation can often be very difficult to parse. Llms make it easier.

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#158

Post by hansmayer »

nsonha wrote: post #156
hansmayer wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, unlike mine, "simply false" as we know, is the ultimate argument to prove one's point, isn´t it?

> unlike mine "unlike"? You made a claim and has nothing to show for either. Only difference is that the claim is actually way more ridiculous. Somehow technology advanced backward and you're the only one noticed.

Keep punching those "arguments" sport :)

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#159

Post by nsonha »

hansmayer wrote: post #158
nsonha wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unlike mine "unlike"? You made a claim and has nothing to show for either. Only difference is that the claim is actually way more ridiculous. Somehow technology advanced backward and you're the only one noticed.

Keep punching those "arguments" sport :)

Claiming AI regresses is like claiming that computer chips are getting slower. It's way less believable than you sucking at the basic skills of using AI (keep context poisoning I'd imagine) and get to the point that YOUR AI set up degrades. Instead of learning how to do things properly you just keep expecting magic and blaming technology for, again, somehow, going backward.

Re: Microsoft Amplifier

#160

Post by hansmayer »

nsonha wrote: post #159
hansmayer wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep punching those "arguments" sport :)

Claiming AI regresses is like claiming that computer chips are getting slower. It's way less believable than you sucking at the basic skills of using AI (keep context poisoning I'd imagine) and get to the point that YOUR AI set up degrades. Instead of learning how to do things properly you just keep expecting magic and blaming technology for, again, somehow, going backward.

> Claiming AI regresses is like claiming that computer chips are getting slower

Yeah, or maybe learn how transformer architecture with neural networks actually works and stop comparing apples to oranges.

> that YOUR AI set up degrades

Well, yeah, I did nothing but say all the time that the so-called "AI" has been degrading in my own setup, my entire company to be precise. Who knows, maybe myself and my team are just stupid and we "suck" at writing english-language sentences. Have a stroll through subreddits dedicated to cursor, claude, chatgpt. You could be onto something. So many stupid people vs. a few of those like you, who are apparently very smart. The masters of "Prompt Engineering". Or could it be, that your use-case is so trivial, and you so inexperienced, that whatever the statistical parrot spits out, seems like wonder to you?

Post reply on HN