fireant

Nobody is going to mark their game as "Made with AI" unless customer sentiment shifts or there is a very strong incentive not to lie. Right now releasing a game with a ai label is just net negative. Meaning the filter would be utterly useless even if it was introduced.

This is fun. It would make sense to let agents submit proposals for adding new tools as well because right now the tool selection to review is very limited. It would be a great signal for OSS maintainers too I think

"Trivially" is relative. In the case of wow the standard way to do botting is to use the in-game lua scripting (normally used for UI addons) with more functionality unlocked. The difference between introspecting the whole game state and controlling the game in-process with good api vs running realtime visual model on the captured visual feed and using fake keyboard inputs is pretty large.

TBH a "global arena thing" can be very good for performance rather than a bunch of random allocations/deallocations

My understanding is that code mode is supposed to be implemented by the harness, not the MCP provider. You chain multiple MCP providers as well as other harness provided tools inside the sandbox.

Can we talk about the point the article makes that the MCP servers should implement JSON apis instead of text APIs? It makes sense if your harness supports code mode, but an embedded code sandbox is a pretty big piece of machinery and not everyone implements it. It seems like a massive change to the way one should build an MCP. Also why again are we using MCPs instead of OpenAPI when it's now supposed to be just stateless JSON APIs?

Teachers have said that about every generation since time immemorial.

So it's an electron app but you don't support editing or even viewing on the web? And no windows client?

You cannot introspect model training by prompting the model. Whatever answer it hallucinated on your query "where do you know that from" has almost certainly very low bearing on reality.

Personally I've found the opposite useful - I mostly use OAI models with OMP harness and I have a rule instructing it to summarize if any work was omitted or if it made any surprising changes. Sometimes the agent will forget to do some piece of work or invent a new bizarre way of doing things, but quite often it is able to self reflect on this at the end of the session.

The new GUI is... not great. But the UX old UI was downright awful. There were like 5 different paradigms how to use individual screens, not just layouts, completely different ways to navigate and interact with controls.

After couple tens of hours you memorized the arcane keyboard invocations to do what you wanted, but it never felt intuitive.

Some doctors are known to be a hip shooters making snap decisions, but is 30s really enough time for any kind of "expertise" from a real human?

My understanding is that most OpenAI users are on a free tier. Secondary effect of this is that OpenAI free tier model capability (assuming Luna) is what what most users associate with frontier AI capability giving somewhat warped view to many people.

The main issue with worktrees is that you can't have the same branch opened in multiple worktrees which makes many things harder than the ought to be. I don't really understand why we need that limitation, otherwise the tooling is good enough.

I'm glad that we no longer live in a world where "bull goring" is such a common occurrence that it needs to be codified into law.