Is this is a Claude Code wrapper?
Yes
Microsoft Amplifier
61–70 of 171 posts
Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth does this compare to a Linux distro? What are you even talking about here?
I see a Linux distro as a collection of libraries that someone puts together following best practices and conventions (ie all config files go into /etc). The similarity with this project is that Microsoft has taken a collection of tools and best practices and put them together in an easy to install package
I find that analogy weak.
Picking a Linux distribution is a commitment, and if I want to change it out I have a lot of work to do, much of which is unwinding my own work that was distro dependent.
Changing out an agent setup is as easy as installing an IDE, and if I don’t like it I can go back easily. My work is not dependent on the setup - the value I get is transactional, and the quirks of each model or agent approach are not difficult to learn or live without.
All of which suggests that selling ease of use to someone like me will be pointless. I’m sure there are clueless F500 managers out there who might go for it. But a business model based on selling to people who don’t know anything isn’t very durable.
Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#63Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#64A lot of snark in these comments. Has anyone actually tried it yet?
[flagged]
Nothing to do with ego, but you may want to check your own projections, you know how when you speak of the others, you mainly speak of yourself (Jung or Freud, not sure). No need to be bitter about not having the grind and focus to become an engineer yourself, it is after all much harder than say, earning an MBA and you should be OK with whatever you turned out to be. Not to mention that the tools themselves, were in fact built by engineers and not by the "rest of the population", like yourself. Now having said that, I am early adopter myself, was happy to pay the premium costs for my entire company, if the tool was any kind of amplifier. But the crap just does not work. Recently the quality is degrading so much that we simply reduced it to using it for simple consultation - and we only do it because unfortunately the search has been ruined. Otherwise most of the folks both internally and externally that I know using these tools would be happy to just go back to google search and SO. Unfortunately that's not an option. Also see if your second argument makes any sense at all. Maybe it comes out of a lacking math background? Firstly, you don't need two zeroes to get a zero out at the end of the multiplication. And secondly, if an average engineer is a zero, what are folks like you then? But again, it maybe just your own projections...
Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see a Linux distro as a collection of libraries that someone puts together following best practices and conventions (ie all config files go into /etc). The similarity with this project is that Microsoft has taken a collection of tools and best practices and put them together in an easy to install package
I find that analogy weak. Picking a Linux distribution is a commitment, and if I want to change it out I have a lot of work to do, much of which is unwinding my own work that was distro dependent. Changing out an agent setup is as easy as installing an IDE, and if I don’t like it I can go back easily. My work is not dependent on the setup - the value I get is transactional, and the quirks of each model or agent appro…
You may not be the target user for this project then and that’s fine! They are releasing this as a research project so a business model was not probably one of the key decision points.
Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#66Can we get Windows 7 back instead? Nadella rode the cloud wave in an easy upmarket, his "AI" obsession will fail. No one wants this. The Austrian army already switched to LibreOffice for security reasons, we don't need another spyware and code stealing tool.
> No one wants this There are many many people who want better AI coding tools, myself included. It might or might not fail, but there is a clear and strong opportunity here, that it would be foolish of any large tech company to not pursue.
Their own employees have to be surveilled and coerced to use their own dog food:
Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#67Starting in Claude bypass mode does not give me confidence: WARNING: Claude Code running in Bypass Permissions mode │ │ │ │ In Bypass Permissions mode, Claude Code will not ask for your approval before running potentially dangerous commands. │ │ This mode should only be used in a sandboxed container/VM that has restricted internet access and can easily be restored if damaged.
The Readme clearly states:
Caution
This project is a research demonstrator. It is in early development and may change significantly. Using permissive AI tools in your repository requires careful attention to security considerations and careful human supervision, and even then things can still go wrong. Use it with caution, and at your own risk.
Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#68Starting in Claude bypass mode does not give me confidence: WARNING: Claude Code running in Bypass Permissions mode │ │ │ │ In Bypass Permissions mode, Claude Code will not ask for your approval before running potentially dangerous commands. │ │ This mode should only be used in a sandboxed container/VM that has restricted internet access and can easily be restored if damaged.
If they didn't have this warning you'd see comments on how irresponsible they are being
Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#69I think that letting an LLM run unsupervised on a task is a good way to waste time and tokens. You need to catch them before they stray too far off-path. I stopped using subagents in Claude because I wasn't able to see what they were doing and intervene.
Indirectly asking an LLM to prompt another LLM to work on a long, multi-step task doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
I think community efforts should go toward making LLMs more deterministic with the help of good old-fashioned software tooling instead of role-playing and writing prayers to the LLM god.
Re: Microsoft Amplifier
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, it is in my bio but I updated the post in any case
ah I just realize actually u are rover dev I wonder why do you think we need rover? what is the use case? I got confused before that we ask ai with a chat feature the next we need a multiple swarm of ai why though?
The main use case why we developed Rover internally (and still is) was the ability to run agents in parallel. It allows us to go much faster but requires tooling around it.
Secondarily it makes it easier for everyone to share those best practices and tooling among us, but is less of an issue because we are a small team