51–60 of 223 posts
This feels a bit like rediscovering stateless programming. Obviously the filesystem contents can actually change, but the idea of an idempotent result when running the same AI with the same command(s) and getting the same result would be lovely. Even better if the answer is right.
LLMs are one large binary that does everything (maybe, if you are lucky today) exact opposite of the unix philosophy
Well, no, they aren't, but the orchestration frameworks in which they are embedded sometimes are (though a lot of times a whole lot of that everything is actually done by separate binaries the framework is made aware of via some configuration or discovery mechanism.)
> Anyone who can't find use cases for LLMs isn't trying hard enough That's an interesting viewpoint from an AI marketing company. I think the essential job of marketing is to help people make the connection between their problems and your solutions. Putting all on them in a kind of blamey way doesn't seem like a great approach to me.
That's fair. But it's what I believe. I spend a lot of time inside giant companies and there are too many people waiting for stone tablets to come down the mountain with their use cases instead of just playing with this stuff.
I'm personally in the habit of answering even slightly complex questions by first establishing shared context - that is, I very carefully ensure that my conversational partner has exactly the same understanding of the situation that I do. I do this because it's frequently the case that we don't have a lot of overlap in our understanding, or we have very specific gaps or contradictions in our understanding.
If you're like many in this industry, you're working in a language other than what you were raised in, making all of this more difficult.
> Anyone who can't find use cases for LLMs isn't trying hard enough That's an interesting viewpoint from an AI marketing company. I think the essential job of marketing is to help people make the connection between their problems and your solutions. Putting all on them in a kind of blamey way doesn't seem like a great approach to me.
That's fair. But it's what I believe. I spend a lot of time inside giant companies and there are too many people waiting for stone tablets to come down the mountain with their use cases instead of just playing with this stuff.
I think it's the pengiun approach to risk management -- they know they need to jump in the water to get where they need to go, but they don't know where the orcas are. So they jostle closer and closer to the edge, some fall in, and the rest see what happens.
BTW, I probably shouldn't have only commenting on the small part at the end that annoyed me. I'm fascinated by the idea that LLMs make highly custom software feasible, like your "claudsidian" system... that people will be able to get the software they want by describing it rather than being limited to finding something preexisting and having to adapting to it. As you point out, the unix philosophy is one way -- simple, unopinionated, building blocks an LLM can compose out of user-level prompts.
LLMs are one large binary that does everything (maybe, if you are lucky today) exact opposite of the unix philosophy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree actually. Saying things like “everyone else managed to figure it out” is a way of creating FOMO. It might not be the way you want to do it, marketing doesn’t have to be nice (or even right) to work.
"Good marketing" doesn't have to mean "Marketing that is maximally effective" Filling food with opioids would be great for business, but hopefully you understand how that is not "good business"
I do really like the Unix approach Claude Code takes, because it makes it really easy to create other Unix-like tools and have Claude use them with basically no integration overhead. Just give it the man page for your tool and it'll use it adeptly with no MCP or custom tool definition nonsense. I built a tool that lets Claude use the browser and Claude never has an issue using it.
The light switch moment for me is when I realized I can tell claude to use linters instead of telling it to look for problems itself. The later generally works but having it call tools is way more efficient. I didn't even tell it what linters to use, I asked it for suggestions and it gave me about a dozen of suggestions, I installed them and it started using them without further instruction. I had tried coding with C…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>No, that’s not what it means. That's fair but it's what I believe. ...see? Being consistent with stating your beliefs isn't the same as engaging with and about those beliefs. Advertising isn't conversation. Evangelism isn't discussion.
I'm trying to engage with you on this, but I'm really not sure what you're getting at. You originally stated "I think the essential job of marketing is to help people make the connection between their problems and your solutions. Putting all on them in a kind of blamey way doesn't seem like a great approach to me." I agree that's the job of marketing, but I'm not someone who markets AI, I'm someone who helps large ma…
I've done exactly this with MCP { "name": "unshare_exec", "description": "Run a binary in isolated Linux namespaces using unshare", "inputSchema": { "type": "object", "properties": { "binary": {"type": "string"}, "args": {"type": "array", "items": {"type": "string"}} }, "required": ["binary"], "additionalProperties": false } } It started as unshare and ended up being a bit of a yakshaving endeavor to make things work…
I'm curious to see what you've come up with. My local LLM experience has been... sub-par in most cases.