I can't wait until Section 174 changes are repealed and nobody is financially invested in software from AI anymore.
America = world?
Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
171–180 of 253 posts
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#172I tried to read this on mobile but the blinking cursor makes it impossible.
Removed it! I agree it was distracting.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#173No mention of Opus there or here (so far). Having tried everything I settled on a $100/month Anthropic "Max" plan to use Claude Code. Then I learned how Claude Opus 4 is currently their best but most expensive model for my situation (math code and research). I limited out of a five hour session, switched to their API, and burned $20 in an hour. So I upgraded to $200/month "Max" and haven't hit limits yet. Models matt…
All of this was with Opus.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#174Not trying to be rude here, but that `last_week.md` is horrible to me. I can't imagine having to read that let alone listen to the computer say it to me. It's so much blah blah and fluff that reads like a bad PR piece. I'd much rather scan through commits of the last week. I've found this generally with AI summaries...usually their writing style is terrible, and I feel like I cannot really trust them to get the facts…
I agree, it's atrocious!
1. I shouldn't have used a newly created repo that had no real work over the course of the last week.
2. I should have put more time into the prompt to make it sound less nails on chalkboard.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#175Not trying to be rude here, but that `last_week.md` is horrible to me. I can't imagine having to read that let alone listen to the computer say it to me. It's so much blah blah and fluff that reads like a bad PR piece. I'd much rather scan through commits of the last week. I've found this generally with AI summaries...usually their writing style is terrible, and I feel like I cannot really trust them to get the facts…
If this was meant to be read, I might've agreed, but:
1) This was supposed to be piped through TTS and listened to in the background, and...
2) People like podcasts.
Your typical podcast is much worse than this. It's "blah blah" and "hahaha " and "ooh " and "" and "", and maybe some of the actual topic mixed in between, and yet for some reason, people love it.
I honestly doubt this specific thing would be useful for me, but I'm not going to assume it's plain dumb, because again, podcasts are worse, and people love it.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#176I’m biased [0], but I think we should be scripting around LLM-agnostic open source agents. This technology is changing software development at its foundations—-we need to ensure we continue to control how we work. [0] https://github.com/all-hands-ai/openhands
This looks like a good resource. There are some pretty powerful models that will run on a Nvidia 4090 w/ 24gb of RAM. Devstral and Queen 3. Ollama makes it simple to run them on your own hardware, but the cost of the GPU is a significant investment. But if you are paying $250 a month for a proprietary tool it would pay for itself pretty quickly.
> There are some pretty powerful models that will run on a Nvidia 4090 w/ 24gb of RAM. Devstral and Queen 3.
I'd caution against using devstral on a 24 gb vram budget. Heavy quantisation (the only way to make it fit into 24gb) will affect it a lot. Lots of reports on locallama about subpar results, especially from kv cache quant.
We've had good experiences with running it fp8 and full cache, but going lower than that will impact the quality a lot.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#177First time I heard about marp, very handy tool
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of all the things I read at uni UML is the thing I've felt the least use for - even when designing new systems. I've had more use for things I never thought I'd need like Rayleigh scattering and processor design.
UML was a buzzword, but a sequence diagram can sometimes replace a few hundred words of dry text. People think best in 2d.
>People think best in 2d.
no they don't. some people do. Some people think best in sentences, paragraphs, and sections of structured text. Diagrams mean next to nothing to me.
Some graphs, as in representations of actual mathematical graphs, do have meaning though. If a graph is really the best data structure to describe a particular problem space.
on edit: added in "representations of" as I worried people might misunderstand.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can define your problem well then you can write tests up front. An ML person would call tests a "verifier". Verifiers let you pump compute into finding solutions.
Will people be willing to make their full time job writing tests?
They probably won't. But it doesn't matter. Ultimately, we'll all end up doing manual labor, because that is the only thing we can do that the machines aren't already doing better than us, or about to be doing better than us. Such is the natural order of things.
By manual labor I specifically mean the kind where you have to mix precision with power, on the fly, in arbitrary terrain, where each task is effectively one-off. So not even making things - everything made at scale will be done in automated factories/workshops. Think constructing and maintaining those factories, in the "crawling down tight pipes with scewdriver in your teeth" sense.
And that's only mid-term; robotics may be lagging behind AI now, but it will eventually catch up.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
all of this just reads like the supposed UML zeitgeist that was supposed to transform java and eliminate development 20 years ago if this is all ultimately java but with even more steps, its a sign im definitely getting old. it’s just the same pattern of non technical people deceiving themselves into believing they dont need to be technical to build tech and then ultimately resulting in again 10-20 years of re-learni…
Of all the things I read at uni UML is the thing I've felt the least use for - even when designing new systems. I've had more use for things I never thought I'd need like Rayleigh scattering and processor design.
I think most software engineers need to draw a class diagram from time to time. Maybe there are a lot of unnecessary details to the UML spec, but it certainly doesn't hurt to agree that a hollow triangle for the arrow head means parent/child while a normal arrow head means composition, with a diamond at the root for ownership.
As the sibling comment says, sequence diagrams are often useful too. I've used them a few times for illustrating messages between threads, and for showing the relationship between async tasks in structured concurrency. Again, maybe there are murky corners to UML sequence diagrams that are rarely needed, but the broad idea is very helpful.