corv

Perhaps because it's easier to reinvent the wheel nowadays?

I'm also tending towards the generous stance:

1. The value of software is tending towards nil while it's ever easier to tailor bespoke solutions.

That suggests to me that I'm losing less by sharing, and it's probably not even going to be taken wholesale and kept verbatim.

2. The labs have already trained on everything and will keep on doing so.

Therefore continuing to contribute to OSS doesn't just benefit my own future self but the entire ecosystem.

(Yes, I need to get over how it appears a select few are making off with the lion's share but that only differs in degree in comparison to the past)

At least now the cards are being shuffled elsewhere...

Bend would make Dijkstra happy even when proof checking can’t verify if the laws are what was actually meant.

I actually think Asimov is more instructive here, while Gödel and Tarski tell us the tool can’t prove itself…

Nonetheless, it is a worthwhile endeavor and I hope more rigorous practices like this catch on.

I initially went with OpenCode's v2 client-server rewrite until I noticed how that wasn't ready for prime time.

Turns out I didn't need a fancy TUI at all when desktop, web and mobile interfaces are already provided by or available for Hermes.

I believe Hermes offers something comparable now.

Personally, I’m not convinced that a cascade of LLM judges lets me sleep soundly at night.

My agents stay in their sandbox and escalating changes to that env or prod is solely in the (human) operator’s domain.

Obviously this is less convenient but I think it’s a necessary tradeoff for security and correctness.

While sub-agents could theoretically stack turtles indefinitely, there’s limited room when going up the stack because someone will have to take responsibility beyond “git blame”, and that lands squarely with a person or legal entity.

My own findings are in line with this research:

Having a coding harness is critical but the differences between them are overstated.

Personally, I’ve replaced OpenCode with a thin wrapper around Pydantic-AI as the pythonic analogue to Pi-Agent for headless use via Hermes

They’d all do the job - I just prefer to compartmentalize for access control.

Keeping the harness’ surface area tiny had the added benefit of preserving my understanding and being able to adapt it to my preferred workflow effortlessly

I like your constructive outlook and I want to believe that we can now focus on the bigger picture, but I'm not really seeing it around me. Most everyone I know that's "AI-pilled" has spent the newfound capacity on throughput instead of altitude.

Is anyone actually seeing a shift towards improved structure rather than more code, faster? We seem to be living in the Gatling-gun version of the picture John Carmack drew when modernity also ushered into precision marksmanship...

One could also try to leverage git notes but those don’t sync by default which causes its own kind of friction

I’m interested to see if jujutsu changes the equation

Future so bright I need to wear sunglasses — at night

thanks for sharing, I can appreciate those qualities

I’m currently using gbrain as provider-agnostic memory but miss how lightweight SQLite is in practice, so this is interesting!

Hard to keep track of a project that keeps renaming…