i_dont_know_

I realized it's so much worse than a filter bubble... there are whole worldviews that friends and online communities are a part of that get effectively censored away, even if you say you would like to know what those people and communities are talking about.

Until recently I didn't realize meditation practices were as varied as they are, and I think part of that is when we hear about things like "the benefits of meditation" or "scientists studying meditation", it's treated as though anything where you close your eyes and try to clear your mind is the same activity. Now I'm pretty sure it isn't

Assuming a model is person-like, it gets even harder when we ask "who" the model is.

Is it this particular model from today? What if it's a minor release version change, is it a new entity, or is it only a new entity on major release versions? What about a finetune on it? Or a version with a particular tool pipeline? Are they all the same being?

I think the analogy breaks down pretty fast. Again, not to say we shouldn't think about it, but clearly the way to think of it is not "exactly a person"

I wanted to talk about Anthropic's "soul" document they include in Claude's prompt, some of the issues it might be causing, and point out what we're seeing now as we're seeing it probably isn't artificial consciousness so much as prompt adherence.

I feel like these kind of things push us as a society to decide what exactly the purpose of school should be.

Currently, it's been a place for acquiring skills but also a sorting mechanism for us to know who the "best" are... I think we've put too much focus on the sorting mechanism aspect, enticing many to cheat without thinking about the fact that in doing so they shortchange themselves of actual skills.

I feel like some of the language here ("securing assessments in response to AI") really feels like they're worried more about sorting than the fact that the kids won't be developing critical thinking skills if they skip that step.

Maybe we can have

Thanks, the goal wasn't to get a full overview of the commercial space but really to understand more of the fundamentals of building, the limits and use-cases of agents in general.

Specifically I see a huge push to "build agents" and to "use agents" as building blocks for more complex interactions. I wanted to get a feel for why and my conclusions are more around that and not "what's possible"

I wanted to dig into the hype around agents and figure out both the use-cases and quirks, so I wrote this little 'review'.

I think, like most of the 'AI' sphere right now, they're overhyped but I think it's good to get a feel firsthand of when they're useful and when they're not.

I clicked - it's for a self-improvement week.

I read through and I think it's an interesting initiative (lots of good stuff around holding self and others accountable, positive reinforcement etc) but the title really makes it sound like you're recruiting for a toxic workaholic startup or something.

Really good point on open source and the nudges it provides, and definitely a point that isn't made often enough!

Thanks for the perspective. For me I think it's a matter of degree (I guess I was a bit "one or the other" when I wrote it).

These things are also concerns and definitely shouldn't be dismissed entirely (especially things like AI telling you when it's unsure, or, the worse cases of propaganda), but I'm worried about the other stuff I mention being defined away entirely, the same way I think it has been with privacy. Tons more to say on the difference between "how you use" vs "how you share" but good perspective, and interesting that you see the emphasis differently in your experiences.