kaspermarstal

I switched from Opus 4.6 -> Opus 4.7 -> GPT 5.5 and tried Flash 3.5 tonight and I was not impressed. It is straight up unreliable, e.g. deleting code and forgetting to add the new stuff it was asked to, then happily marking the task as complete with up-beat conclusion. I personally appreciate GPT 5.5 toned-down, objective style so really dislike how this model feels. I get that it's a flash model and not in the same league as GPT 5.5 but their marketing suggest otherwise so thy are just setting themselves up for disappointment.

I’m quite sure that’s the en state of software except without the software around it. There will only be an AI and interface. For now, though, while tokens cost a non-trivial amount of energy, I think you can do something more useful if you have the LLM modify the program at runtime because it’s just may orders of magnitude cheaper. Fx, use the BEAM, it’s actor model, hot code reloading, and REPL introspection and you can build a program that an LLMs can change, e.g. user says “become a calculator” and “become a pdf to html converter”.

I’m not just making this stuff up of course, got the idea yesterday after reading Karpathy’s tweet about Nanoclaws contribution model (don’t submit PRa with features, submit PRs that tell an llm how to modify the program). Now I can’t concentrate on my day job. Can’t stop thinking about my little elixir beam project.

Cool, thanks for sharing!

Can you share technical details please? How is this implemented? Is it pure prompt-based, plugins, or do you have like script that repeatedly calls the agents? Where does the kanban live?

Ooooh, graphs that goes up! I want that.

Looks really cool, great job.

> The Wolf maintainer has done heroic work ...

I commend the fact they acknowledge the maintainer's work, but seeing the singular 'maintainer', I can't help but notice the weight on that one person's shoulders.

Keyboard Princess is good, Artificial Manager is even better.

Techno bureaucrating is unironically a better term than vibe coding.

Naming things is hard for a reason. It shapes how we think and communicate. When I'm pointing an LLM at PostgreSQL internals vs. asking it to make a navbar prettier, I'm collaborating in fundamentally different ways. Having distinct terms helps us share ideas and set appropriate expectations.

My point exactly, it is not vibe coding so it should not be called vibe coding. What should we call it then?

Cool, I did not know that. That makes perfect sense.

We need a new term for LLMs actually solving a hard problems. When I help Claude Code solve a nasty bug it doesn’t feel like “vibing” as in “I tell the model what I want the website to look like”. It feels like sniping as in “I spot for Claude Code, telling how to adjust for wind, range, and elevation so it can hit my far away target”.

Thanks, appreciate it. Indeed, and Anthropic did something similar for Google sheets a year ago. I am dying to know why they decided this should not be part of their excel effort. They obviously put a lot of work and thought into claude for excel so it must be intentional.

Anyone from Anthropic here that would like elaborate?