bradarner

You misunderstand how clearance works. Any one can get "read-on" to anything with the proper authorities giving them access.

It is an administrative step. It might undergo review but access does not need to be prevent until the review happens. It is all about who is granting the access.

The commander in chief has considerable authority to provide access.

Writing seems to have worked out pretty well.

Any time an empirical research project has to add QUOTES around a common term, it sets off the non-sense radar:

..."laziness"...

In the battle cry of the philosopher: DEFINE YOUR TERMS!!

What they really mean: new and different. Outside-the-box. "Oh no, how will we grade this?!?" a threat to our definition and control of knowledge.

I'm curious, what would be the reason for doing this?

Have there been any declarations by various AI companies (e.g. OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity) that they are actually relying upon these llms.txt files?

Is there any evidence that the presence of the llms.txt files will lead to increased inclusion in LLM responses?

Cheers...Chrome dev tools must have tricked me.

Also nice that the author didn't minify it. Interesting to read through.

This is why the internet is amazing!

Awe-inspiring. Beautiful.

How does the author build these pages? Looks like it is React. The entire blog must be custom built, no? Or is this built on top of an existing CMS?

Indeed. Which would seem to indicate that positive growth along the Kardashev scale will lead to hypertrophy not atrophy, as conjectured by the OP. One could hypothesize that growing control of energy is highly correlated with the ability to empower a population to increase in muscle mass. Of course, history would seem to indicate that there can also be a correlation to increased obesity.

Agreed, there is an economic factor here but I would see that is highly correlated with the Kardashev grade of a civilization. The conjecture of the OP is that higher Kardashev grade will result in higher atrophy. My claim is that we seem to find precisely the opposite to be true.

I'm not making a counter-argument to the OP's position. I'm only making a refutation of the conjecture.

Agreed, I was debating whether or not this was relevant to mention.

What I could have added was a caveat that sample non-obese people from each time would indicate that 2024 people have greater average muscle mass.

Personally, a more interesting question is whether growth along the Kardashev scale leads to a greater disparity in muscle mass vs body fat. The past 100 years would seem to indicate that it is possible. That being said, it could also be a uniquely American phenomenon. My hypothesis would be that avg muscle mass among French men has still grown over the past 100 years but I don't think obesity has grown to the extreme that it has in the USA.

A castle built on sand. The only way to take the premise of this claim seriously is to ignore data for the past 100 years.

When I was in the US military, we all complained about the Body Mass Index standards. They were based on the WWII era "normal". Men were smaller. Less muscle mass. Shorter. If the average fit American young man tried to fit into a pilot's cockpit from the 1950's, it would feel quite cramped. Like it was built for much small people. It was.

We have certainly climbed the Kardashev scale since the 1950's. To what degree is a matter of contention. But, all would agree that we have moved up the scale.

Muscle atrophy has not been correlated with the growth. The opposite seems true. The average American, both male and female, has more muscle mass than in 1924. A 2024 person spends significantly more time on average in a gym pushing their muscles to hypertrophy than in 1924.

In addition, it is likely that the romantic picture of the average laborer "bodybuilding" is fictive and ignores how muscle atrophy and hypertrophy works. Most laborers are NOT doing activity that leads to hypertrophy. They are staying well within cardiovascular zones of muscle activation. Hence, bodybuilders as we know them are largely a modern phenomenon. And they are certainly WAY more muscular.

Seems the model that underlies this claim is built on seemingly demonstrably false premises.

The hype of Agentic AI is to LLMs what an MBA is to business. Overcomplicating something with language that is pretty common sense.

I've implement countless LLM based "agentic" workflows over the past year. They are simple. It is a series of prompts that maintain state with a targeted output.

The common association with "a floating R2D2" is not helpful.

They are not magic.

The core elements I'm seeing so far are: the prompt(s), a capacity for passing in context, a structure for defining how to move through the prompts, integrating the context into prompts, bridging the non-deterministic -> deterministic divide and callbacks or what-to-do-next

The closest analogy that I find helpful is lambda functions.

What makes them "feel" more complicated is the non-deterministic bits. But, in the end, it is text going in and text coming out.

Yes, very good point. I would argue that what I’m suggesting is particularly well suited to startups. It may be relevant to larger companies as well but I think the politics and risk profile of larger companies makes this nearly impossible to implement.

Yes completely agree. This is hard for a PM to do.

I’m assuming that the OP is a founder and can actually make these calls.