sph87

I think of it in generational terms. Opus 3 required me to prompt and edit, iterating over functions almost one at a time. Opus 4 started to show agentic capacity but it largely bloated code and still needed frequent course corrections. If it churned for more than 15-20 minutes you knew something was off.

Opus 5 takes that and changes the game. A simple prompt goes through research, design, verification, review and self-corrects constantly. Agentic workflows can run for days without stopping, without losing the thread or devolving into slop.

I can’t even imagine what Opus 6 is going to bring.

The biggest thing holding AI back is people. People can only change so fast and yet AI doesn’t care. It just keeps accelerating.

I would argue that’s an asymmetric game. If your boss’s boss or higher already dislikes your boss, then convincing leadership would be easy. But bad bosses don’t become the big bad boss by winning over their subordinates. They spend more time with their own boss than you do, your boss is likely going to have a better relationship with their own boss than you do, simply by proximity. Assuming they aren’t just a flat asshole of course.

A vote would in turn provide a mechanism to prevent such abuse. The boss works for the people not for their boss. Likewise the boss is no longer bound to the whims of their own boss. Their boss is the people below them. A group they will inevitably rejoin with new found appreciation for the troubles of management.

Welcome to a day in the life. The company I work for prides themselves on a culture of agency and letting developers be developers. I am pushing the AI revolution but the compliance requirements and modern Luddite zeitgeist are a daily source of frustration. If the AI isn’t perfect then it’s slop. But we’ll gladly excuse the existing 2 million lines of spaghetti code because of past deadlines and lack of resources to pay down the tech debt today. Fingers crossed though. Every failure brings you one step closer to an inevitable success.

I want to add that the UC schools system has (had?) something like this. I know a good number of very intelligent people who did 2 years at a Community College and ended up going to UC Berkeley, UCLA. Not Harvard but West coast ivys at the very least.

> AGI is already here

I feel like there has been a ton of noise about this, but frankly, no one has actually defined what AGI means. I feel like the goal post is constantly shifting.

Take for example Humanity's Last Exam. It is so broad and complex that while an individual in a specific field might be able to answer their specific area of questions, they certainly would not be able to achieve >50% on the total question set.

There is this idea that AI has to be perfect to be intelligent - but we consider Humans intelligent and they are not even close. So is it the ability to generate novel ideas? Prove theorems? Pass tests?

I am not arguing that rote memorization is intelligence, or that we have achieved it, but does anyone know what AGI actually.. is?

Should have used a Fish; a bottom-feeder. Might call it a funny Flounder for Founders finding Founders, Funders, First-Timers, or Friends.

This is why I've started moving towards embedded. There is something really nice about being back on a chip with <1MB ram and a handful of Mhz. I know it's really just a leftward shift of a curve though. By the time I am getting ready to retire in 20 years these little 40mm devices will probably be running 500B parameter models.

I love modules. Honestly. I advocate usage simply as a forcing function for upstream. Tooling support is iffy because usage is low. Usage is low because tooling is iffy. All of the major players in the build space have reasonably mature levels of support though. So it's one of those things were compilers have outpaced IDE.

Modules my guy. The words “modern” and “C++” don’t go together while using headers. Also your most basic implementation requires me to write 200+ LOC and add a dozen headers. Then it’s a ton of boiler plate code duplication for every function registered.

Basically what I am saying is - you need to place more abstraction between your code and the end-user API.

Take this line:

std::string sayMessage = payload["message"].template get<std::string>();

Why not make a templated getString<“message”> that pulls from payload? So that would instead just be:

auto sayMessage = payload[“message”].as_string() or

auto sayMessage = payload.getString<“message”>() or

std::string sayMessage = payload[“message”] //We infer type from the assignment!!

It’s way cleaner. Way more effective. Way more intuitive.

When working on this kind of stuff end-developer experience should always drive the process. Look at your JSON library. Well known and loved. Imagine if instead of:

message[“code”] = “JOIN”; it was instead something like:

message.template set<std::string, std::string>(“CODE”, “JOIN”);

Somehow I don’t think the latter would have seen any level of meaningful adoption. It’s weird, obtuse and overly complex. You need to hide all that.

Where I have found Claude most helpful is on problems with very specific knowledge requirements.

Like: Why isn’t this working? Here Claude read this like 90 page PDF and tell me where I went wrong interfacing with this SDK.

Ohh I accidentally passed async_context_background_threading_safe instead of async_context_thread_safe_poll and it’s so now it’s panicking. Wow that would have taken me forever.

Correct. No one is denying that Elon loves attention. Everyone knows Elon is really an acronym for 'Elon Loves Ostentatious Notice'. Its GNU'd and everything.

Haha you feel like I’m wrong but you just can’t articulate why? I understand bro. Have a good night.

Right, but by upholding that there was no negligence in the alternative case they prevent the conditions in Wrongful Death of a Minor from being met. There is nothing left to argue.

Are you suggesting the lower court now over rules the upper court and say there was negligence? The upper court has already said there wasn’t. Just because it was settled in a side branch doesn’t reverse the decision or leave it up for discussion.

Yes. It applies to all unborn children. The central question presented in these consolidated appeals is whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children -- that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.

The circumstances of the case, that is that it involves death of embryos kept in a cryogenic nursery, is not material to the validity of the argument.

They did not say: even if they are embryos. They said all unborn children.

This does not mean embryos ARE children. That was not what was argued nor what the court decided upon. You are inferring meaning outside the scope of the ruling. They side stepped the part you are upset about. They are very, very clear that this is about unborn children. The word embryos only appear once - while discussing the surround context, not the finding of the court or the question they were answering.

Here is the text of the law: (I paraphrased the recourse portion)

If the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either then (people can sue)

You need all three elements: 1) Death 2) Child 3) Wrongful Act/Neglience

If 1 AND 2 AND 3 then ACTION

Trial found 1 true, 2 and 3 false. Ala SC said actually 2 is true, but 3 is still false.

Your reading makes no sense. “Yea its a child, so it doesn’t matter if there was negligence”. No. You need all 3.

They said: “We find lower court was wrong, 2 is reversed and now true. Since this now makes clause 3 open to discussion, we affirm that they were right in saying 3 was false. As a result the case is dismissed.”