21–30 of 318 posts
Great work, but concurrency is lost. With search-replace you could work on separate part of a file independently with the LLM. Not to mention with each edit all lines below are shifted so you now need to provide LLM with the whole content. Have you tested followup edits on the same files?
I feel the baseline comparison should be relative to the intuitive and simple "line-numbers only" schema. It's less token heavy than the proposed hash approach, and I don't think frontier LLMs hallucinate line numbers if each line in the context is prefixed with them.
What was the point of Claude code or Gemini banning the OP? Why would they care about how IDEs use the underlying API?
I assume he was using Gemini the same way as he was Claude when I make the following statement. I don’t believe it’s exceptionally unique or new that companies will revoke access if you are using an unpublished API that the apps use. I don’t see anything wrong with it myself. If you want, pay for normal token use on the published APIs. There is no expectation that you can use APIs for an application, even if you are…
It's truly disgusting.
I feel like cursors solution is still the best answer. Let the model suggest edits in whatever format it prefers using as few "extra" tokens as possible and have a small model figure it out. I don't use cursor anymore but when I did it was impressive how consistently it worked, I think there was a single time it failed. 70b might be overkill though...
What was the point of Claude code or Gemini banning the OP? Why would they care about how IDEs use the underlying API?
What was the point of Claude code or Gemini banning the OP? Why would they care about how IDEs use the underlying API?
It’s because they want to study you.
They want the data!
Great article, recommend reading all of it. > Why bother, you ask? Opus may be a great model, but Claude Code to this day leaks raw JSONL from sub-agent outputs, wasting hundreds of thousands of tokens. I get to say, “fuck it, subagents output structured data now”. This is why I find the banning of using Claude subscriptions in other harnesses is so heinous. Their harness that they're forcing onto everyone has tons o…
>re "only" the harness changed
In our experience, AI's are like amnesiacs who can barely remember what they did three minutes ago (their last autonomous actions might still be in their context if you're lucky), with no chance at remembering what they did three days ago. As such, the "harness" determines their entire memory and is the single most important determinant of their outcome.
The best harness is a single self-contained, well-commented, obvious, and tiny code file followed by a plain explanation of what it does and what it's supposed to do, the change request, how you want it to do it (you have to say it with so much force and confidence that the AI is afraid of getting yelled at if they do anything else) and a large amount of text devoted to asking the AI not to break what is already working. Followed by a request to write a test that passes. Followed by asking for its judgment about whether it broke what was already working on or not. All in one tiny crisp prompt.
With such a harness, it's able to not break the code one time in twenty. If you use reverse psychology and ask it to do the opposite of what you want, it rises to fifty-fifty odds you'll get what you're trying to do.
Don't believe me? You can watch the livestream (see my previous comments).
Baby steps toward Utopia.
Agents waste a lot of tokens on editing, sandboxes, passing info back and forth from tool calls and subagents.
Love the pragmatic mix of content based addressing + line numbers. Beautiful.