babyshake

Isn't this an orthogonal issue that doesn't affect whether billing is done with credits or money?

It's a nightmare to some extent to prevent underage people from consuming alcohol if you want to phrase it that way. But we don't try to ban stores from selling alcohol because of concerns children will be drinking it. Instead we require the store checks for ID.

What about MCP Apps? That seems like a legit use case but open to learning why maybe it isn't.

This reminds me of a thought I have had that the future of education may involve a type of "school for robots" where the human students are the teachers. I am sure Neal Stephenson and others thought of this same thing decades ago but seems closer to becoming a reality.

Would you say the same for Mastra? If so, what would you say indicates a high quality candidate when they are discussing agent harnessing and orchestration?

I have been experimenting with these same type of factory pattern skills. Thanks for sharing.

There is a deluge, every day. Just nobody notices or uses them.

A good system prompt goes a long way with the latest models. Even just something as simple as "use DRY principles whenever possible." or prompting a plan-implement-evaluate cycle gets pretty good results, at least for tasks that are doing things that AI is well trained on like CRUD APIs.

Aside from speed, what would the major selling points be on migrating from pnpm to bun?

A couple points from this I'm trying to understand:

- Is the idea that MCP servers will provide tool use examples in their tool definitions? I'm assuming this is the case but it doesn't seem like this announcement is explicit about it, I assume because Anthropic wants to at least maintain the appearance of having the MCP steering committee have its independence from Anthropic.

- If there is tool use examples and programmatic tool calling (code mode), it could also make sense for tools to specify example code so the codegen step can be skipped. And I'm assuming the reason this isn't done is just that it's a security disaster to be instructing a model to run code specified by a third party that may be malicious or compromised. I'm just curious if my reasoning about this seems to be correct.

One aspect the report is very vague about is the nature of the monitoring Anthropic is doing on Claude Code. If they can detect attacks they can surely detect other things of interest (or value) to them. Is there any more information about this?

The rhetoric you see in some places about how social assistance is used on hair weaves says something about the underlying reasons for much of this concern.

This scenario only plays out if it is known what was or wasn't made with GenAI.

There is another factor to consider. The stakes of asking an AI about a taboo topic are generally considered to be very low. The number of people who have asked ChatGPT something like "how to make a nuclear bomb" should not be an indication of the number of people seriously considering doing that.

The thing is, a software based voting system with a sufficient number of checks and balances preventing tampering seems to be a lot more trustworthy to me than human poll watchers and workers. It wouldn't surprise me at this point that there may be moles in parties that are secretly from the other party.

And the other related issue is that in 2025, it simply should be possible to vote from your phone in a way that verifies your identity, if you'd like, using the faceId/fingerprint biometrics that most smartphones from recent years have.