231–240 of 245 posts
It’s really annoying to me (and sad for society) that everything everywhere only supports github for code hosting. There are a million places to do dev that aren’t Microsoft, but you’d never know it from looking at app launches. It’s almost like people who don’t use GitHub and Gmail and Instagram are becoming second class citizens on the web.
Can’t wait to try this! Codex and codex cli are the best from what I have tested so far. Codex is really neat as I can do it from ChatGPT app.
You're the first person I've seen say this about codex. Have you tried Claude Code / aider / cursor? What did you need to do differently to get it to work functionally? I feel like the common experience has been universally poor.
As for the use case of “Give a simple or detailed prompt and the entire project and let the model do its stuff” codex has done much better than Claude code. Claude code assumes a lot of things and often ends up doing a lot more making the code very complex and also me having to redo it later with cursor. With codex I have not seen this issue.
I also feel that codex cli as a cli tool is much better mainly due to its OSS nature where I can choose different model. Claude really missed this big time IMHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a name for these people: Google Developer Experts (in reality: "Evangelists"). https://developers.google.com/community/experts
Oh god, the GDE program. That title used to mean something, i.e. this person is a real expert in the topic. Now it's just thrown to anyone who's willing enough to spam linkedin/twitter with Google bullshit and suck-up to the GDE community. Think everyone in the extended Google community got quite annoyed with the sudden rise in number of GDE's for blatantly stupid things. This pops up especially if you're organising…
> Thanks for your interest in Jules. We'll email you when Jules is available. Well here's to hoping it's better than Cursor. I doubt it considering my experiences with Gemini have been awful, but I'm willing to give it a shot!
Jules encountered an unexpected error. To continue, respond to Jules below or start a new task.
And appears you have limited to 5 tasks per day
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame the system, not the actors. See a recent HN submission, The Evolution of Trust by Nicky Case: https://ncase.me/trust/ If there's one big takeaway from all of game theory, it's this: What the game is, defines what the players do. Our problem today isn't just that people are losing trust, it's that our environment acts against the evolution of trust. That may seem cynical or naive -- that we're "merely" products…
Was he blaming anyone? He just pointed out the mirror of what you did: as the owning class acts one way, it will naturally produce material conditions that incentivize the working class to act in a way that would lead to the destruction/dispossession of the existing owning class (i.e. a revolution).
My claim, put another way, is that if you trace the causality back a few steps, you land at the level of the system.
Anyhow, the question "who do we blame?" can be a waste of time if we use it only for moral outrage and/or a conversation stopper. Some think "what caused this?" is an improvement, and I agree, but it isn't nearly good enough.* Still, it isn't nearly as important as "how do we change this with the levers we have _now_?"
* Relatively few scientists understand causality well, thinking the randomized controlled trial is the only way to show causality! The methods of causality have developed tremendously in the last twenty years, but most scientific fields are rather clueless about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already pay $20/month for Gemini, I clicked sign up and had access instantly.
Offtopic but how does Gemini $20 compare to the equivalent ChatGPT?
The context window difference is really nice. I post very large bodies of text into gemini and it handles it well.
So, you can assign github issues to this thing, and it can handle them, merge the results in, and mark the bug as fixed? I kind of wonder what would happen if you added a "lead dev" AI that wrote up bugs, assigned them out, and "reviewed" the work. Then you'd add a "boss" AI that made new feature demands of the lead dev AI. Maybe the boss AI could run the program and inspect the experience in some way so it could dem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you try to keep as much context history as possible when passing between agents, or are you managing context and basically one-shotting each time?
Generally, I keep the context. If I'm one shotting then I invoke a new agent. All calls and responses append to the agent's chat history. Agent's are relatively short lived, so the context length isn't typically an issue. With the pricing agent the initial data has been longer than the context window sometimes, but that just means it needs more preprocessing. Now if there is a real reason that I would want to manage…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally, I keep the context. If I'm one shotting then I invoke a new agent. All calls and responses append to the agent's chat history. Agent's are relatively short lived, so the context length isn't typically an issue. With the pricing agent the initial data has been longer than the context window sometimes, but that just means it needs more preprocessing. Now if there is a real reason that I would want to manage…
Cool! When you say “pricing system”, what is it pricing? Is it determining the price in a webshop? Or for bidding ads or so?
Funny you mention keyword bids, I use algorithms and ML models for that, but not LLMs, yet. Keyword bids are a different problem and more difficult in some ways due to sparsity. I'm actively working on an agentic system that pulls the big levers using data from the predictive models. Trying to tie everything together into a more unified and optimal approach, a long running challenge that I finally have tools to meet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So absurd. As if your boss is going to let you go play tennis during the day because Jules is doing your work. If all of these tools really do make people 20-100% more productive like they say (I doubt it) the value is going to accrue to ownership, not to labor.
Shhhh... don't tell the plebes what it really means to "2x their productivity". Seriously though, this kind of tech-assisted work output improvement has happened many times in the past, and by now we should all have been working 4-hour weeks, but we all know how it has actually worked out.
> In 1833, the Factory Act banned children under 9 from working in the textile industry, and the working hours of 10-13 year olds was limited to 48 hours a week, while 14-18 year olds were limited to 69 hours a week, and 12 hours a day. Government factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the law.
Constant work day in and out, morning and night. At least before the industrial revolution farmers only had to work as long as there was daylight, and winters meant shorter work times.
This video [2] from Historia Civilis is very relevant. The gist of ot is that to this day, we work more hours than medieval peasants did.
[1] https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-...