If you can express a solution in Lean you can formally prove or disprove it. Formal verification is making a debut in traditional engineering toolkits.
You may be ok with the harness doing 100 things that are not what I am using it for. But none everyone is, and it’s hardly hysterical. Perhaps you are simply careless.
Llama was great for research and propelling the opensource community but they haven't been a serious competitor in a while. Whereas Google is one of the top 3 AI labs in America.
I don't want my harness doing sneaky stuff like this. I don't want my harness data mining me. I want my harness to implement the agentic loop and I want it to be transparent.
It's very simple. I have told Claude that it's my chief of staff and that it must delegate all tasks to subagents. That as my COS it must show initiative and only come to me for vision/decision making. I have hooks further enforcing this. It works really well because I am usually working on like 12 things at once. Feels like playing simultaneous chess. The COS agent helps me context switch/orchestrate everything. Subagents have their own context window so the COS context does not get polluted/filled up with low level subtask details. COS can effectively prompt the subagents. My main session does grow and I compact it from time to time. But since all the WIP is already captured in external state, compaction of the main session does not degrade performance.
I work in a completely different manner. I have a chief of staff agent, which is one Claude code instance that orchestrates work across all my projects simultaneously with sub agents. In this way the agent helps me context switch and drive work towards everything I’m working on. I only use 1 session, I compact when necessary with todos and on file system files to track wip
America used to be a great place to be.
To put it in perspective, I myself am an American in the top 5% of earning households. I am strongly considering leaving. The value is no longer here. I don't want to live in a country where my healthcare is conditional, on principal. I don't want to live in a country where the Epstein class is protected.
Your point is totally and completely wrong. Germany has public benefits that actually matter. Germany's average life expectancy is ahead of Mississippi by *10 years*. Germany ranks as one of the highest in the world in general satisfaction of the people, Mississippi does not.
Except capitalism is a zero sum game. The two people you talk about that are multimillionaires are lucky. For each person you know that has made it, there are thousands of people that are equally as hardworking/talented but are destined to slum away for the rest of their lives.
All human beings deserve to live a happy life. We live in a world where few have accumulated more capital than they could ever spend in their lives while others starve to death.
I don't think anyone with a good moral conscience can support America's brand of capitalism. We live in a world where few live, the rest survive.
My argument is that randomly accusing something of being AI and pretending that it's bad merely because you think it's AI, is not good/good faith. Whether you think some writing is AI or not is besides the point. If the writing sucks, explain why. Not everyone shares your position that if something is written by AI it's automatically bad.
And for the record, you can have a lengthy conversation with an AI to communicate your ideas and then use the AI to draft the message. It'll have AI tells in it, but so what?
