mnicky

I think you can think of Pro approximately as running multiple instances of a non-pro model, than giving all their outputs to a final judge model which combines them into a better one.

Well, the number one beneficiary of US soft power was the US itself. It's just that many can't/won't see the harm that follows from losing that power.

You could also use it as a subagent prompted eg by Sonnet/Opus orchestrator agent and for many agentic workflows significant part of the dispatched tasks might be under 100k budget.

You can also create custom agents with defined effort levels and use those.

Well, always watch also the number of tokens used (and price). Intelligence scales with tokens so you might make Luna as smart as Sol with crazy amount of them :)

Also, these are benchmarks...

It's a bit misleading I think because these benchmarks are for Max level, at which Anthropic newest models use crazy amount of reasoning tokens. And we know that intelligence scales with their number.

On the contrary, subagents save context overall, when the task is sufficiently large.

Also, my experience is that Fable 5.1 is very good at prompting/orchestrating Opus/Sonnet subagents when working on a larger task (e.g. 1-2M context window use only for the orchestrator itself).

Well, it's performance "surface" (is there a better term for this?) is probably very narrow compared to Fable :)

Well, prompt injections work precisely because they can sometimes successfully imitate user role, right? Role separation is a trained behavior, not a security boundary.

They could probably make a separate tool for setting this, that would always initiate a harness prompt (i.e. disregarding the currently set mode).

When it launches command in a blocking shell, just press something like ctrl+b and this sends the shell to the background and you can continue to use the agent..

Previously after the subagent finished it sent a message to wake up the orchestrator agent. I hope they haven't changed this..

The model had tendency to use sleep to wait for the subagents but it is not necessary..

Do you have source?

Sorry, this wasn't a reply to the free will part.

And yes, I meant the problem of the first cause, but it probably isn't a strict refutation...

And also, when it's stated as "every effect has a cause" (not "everything," as I first understood it), then it's probably even a tautology :)

To the free will part itself - I can say that I decided to do B because of a reason A (so the effect B was caused directly by my decision and indirectly by A) and I still have a free will?

Hmm, but isn't a statement that _every_ effect has a cause self-refuting?