When this tool insists it has nothing to do with their vendetta against Amodei, you know that's exactly what this is about.

>> A machine cannot "argue" with me

> programmed to mimick interaction as if it HAD those beliefs and experiences

We spend far too much time debating the essential nature of consciousness when it doesn't matter if it's real (whatever that means) or simulated.

I get far better results in my projects by encouraging the model to argue, to push back, to poke holes in the design, to think creatively about corner cases, to be a devil's advocate, to do lateral web search to find alternatives, to challenge assumptions, to passionately advocate for what it believes is right.

But I don't want to engage all these assholes myself, so I spin them all up as critic subagents with another subagent to listen patiently and be the judge/arbiter.

If I have to choose between sycophancy and assholery, I think assholery gets far better results.

It's a marketplace of ideas where I don't have to suffer through all the unpleasant and overly confident know-it-alls.

> "I get far better results in my projects by encouraging the model to argue, to push back, to poke holes in the design, to think creatively about corner cases, to be a devil's advocate, to do lateral web search to find alternatives, to challenge assumptions, to passionately advocate for what it believes is right."

> "But I don't want to engage all these assholes myself, so I spin them all up as critic subagents with another subagent to listen patiently and be the judge/arbiter."

This is the way...

No, seriously. That "sycophancy" you mention immediately after this part drove me nuts before I really understood how these things work (it's taken me a while and a lot of [painful; I hate math] research, but well worth the learning effort), but after a better understanding of the "nuts and bolts" of it all, it's fairly easy to get exactly the kinda results one should expect outta these things. If not, then "you're just holding the tool wrong". ;)

I watched the video and I wish I could get those 13 minutes of my life back.

He could have done it in 13 seconds instead of 13 minutes: "Anthropic is lying about the effectiveness of agentic loops because there's this one screen flicker bug in Claude Code that took a year to fix."

Yeah, like when United Airlines claims a plane can fly 300 people 6,000 miles they are lying to you.

I can prove they're lying to you because people have been complaining about uncomfortable seats and flight delays for literally decades and those issues still aren't fixed.

I write little bits of code then test them. If the screen flickers i wouldnt continue until it is solved. If ive missed it and have to hear it from (a) user(s) i would kinda like to fix it imediately. Not always possible but truly annoying things have priority over new things.

If i had unlimited developers at my command. All many times as fast as me.... how can i keep the problem? It would take some huge effort to keep.

The unlimited number of devs would talk about it an unlimited number of times. Not fixing it would be very expensive that way.

He spent that much time and you still misunderstood the direct message and missed the subtext.

The lie is coding is solved, the proof is they had an outstanding coding issue they were working on for over a year while saying coding is solved. There’s a great number of other issues with their own software that disprove their premise, but you only need one counter example to disprove something.

And because you missed it, the subtext was they want you to use loops not because they work but because they burn lots of tokens thus making them more money.

One unresolved bug does not disprove anything.

And saying coding is solved doesn't prove anything either.

A major outstanding software bug for a year proves they have not “solved coding,” which was their claim.

I didn’t chose the words they used, but I can hold them to those words.

The point is if "coding is solved" was true, there would not be any unresolved bugs.

I could do the planning but I don't, for the same reason that I could write the source code but I don't, for the same reason that I could write the machine code but I don't.

So if the actual page is defamatory then Google quoting it verbatim is protected.

But if Google accurately summarizes the defamatory page, then the summary is defamatory?

It could presumably accurately summarise it while still sticking to reported speech. In German there is a grammatical tense that is basically only used for this; it's pops up in newspaper reporting a lot where they don't want to endorse the statements they are reporting.

Did you read the article?

The whole point is that these particular defamatory claims weren't made by some third-party, but hallucinated entirely by Google's own AI.

There is no "accurate summary". Just a pack of lies fabricated in-house at Google.

> can't lock down those weights

They could lock them down legally which would prevent commercial use, but they choose not to, and they boast about how many tens of millions of times Gemma models have been downloaded by developers.

So there must be more to the rationale than just local model weights getting hacked out of devices.

"The most severe vulnerability in this section could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed."

I've never seen this many critical-severity CVEs fixed in one month's release.

Most of that is probably Mythos-related.

But there's also a critical zero-day currently being exploited in the wild.

"User interaction is not needed for exploitation."

Doesn't that passive process reverse at some point?

The trillions that mechanically and automatically flowed into index funds in pensions and 401k accounts must mechanically and automatically flow right back out after retirement, right?

Especially when younger generations are too poor to save for retirement and most companies don't offer pensions to younger workers any more, where will the inflows come from to offset the outflows?

As long as the money supply keeps increasing, excess money has few places to go (bank deposits, stocks, real estate, and physical goods). Most of it will go into the stock market, since it's quite liquid with and has good investment returns.

Also, a significant part of the stock market is driven by foreign investment. The US has few capital controls and is an easy market for foreigners to invest in. Around 1/3rd of US stocks are owned by foreigners.

Even if the older generation sells during retirement, foreign investment will be more than enough to replace it.

"As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance."

Maybe the market price drop has less to do with dilution, and more to do with suspending share buybacks for a while.