The need for "complex tasks" should be exceptional enough that you're not building your workflow around them. A good example of such an exception would be kickstarting a port of a project for which you have a great test suite from one language to another. This is rare in most professional settings.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. For any iteration, Claude should be reading your codebase, reading hundreds of thousands of tokens of (anonymized) production data, asking itself questions about backwards compatibility that goes beyond existing test suites, running scripts and CI to test that backwards compatibility, running a full-stack dev server and Chrome instance to QA that change, across multiple real-world examples.
And if you're building a feature that will call AI at runtime, you'll be iterating on multiple versions of a prompt that will be used at runtime, each of which adds token generation to each round of this.
In practice on anything other than a greenfield project, if you're asking for meaningful features in complex systems, you'll be at that 10 minute mark or more. But you've also meaningfully reduced time-to-review, because it's doing all that QA, and can provide executive summaries of what it finds. So multitasking actually works.
Computers are fast. If a physic engine can compute a game world in 1/60 of a second. The majority of the tasks should be done in less than 7 minutes.
Whenever I see transcript of a long running task, I see a lot of drifting of the agent due to not having any context (or the codebase is not organized) and it trying various way to gather information. Then it settle on the wrong info and produce bad results.
Greppability of the codebase helps. So do following patterns and good naming. A quick overview of the codebase and convention description also shortens the reflection steps. Adding helper tools (scripts) help too.
Of course, I’m absolutely for this. It is way overdue. But, what’s the group behind this? Who’s pushing it?
I haven’t read through the bill and text yet, but credibility is important in this fight. Plus, this can change at anytime, so knowing who’s behind it amplifies the trust.
We need to be having these conversations yesterday. Our fundamental freedoms are under attack, and a bill like this would go a long way to protecting future generations
Just because a bill has a name - and pretence - that you like, does not mean that it contains regulations, requirements, or restrictions that you would like.
This article struck a nerve. There's something about the curiosity of tinkering around in a computer. It's the most powerful technology humankind has built. It's versatile. It lets you break it. It's a bicycle for the mind, as Steve Jobs would say.
May all the hackers out there, old and young, discover the beauty of the personal computer.
I'm against surveillance as much as anyone else, but this article is clearly entirely AI written. I suggest the author just give us their prompt instead.
which has been warped all out of any comprehensible reality. It hinges on the idea of 'voluntarily' turning over information. Much of what is now considered information voluntarily turned over isn't even information that people know exist much less that they are turning over much less doing so voluntarily.
Almost unbelievable that they allow this - except of course they do, because scamware makes a ton of money via in-app purchase, and Apple gets 30%, so of course they do. I'm sure people will come out of the woodwork now to white knight for Apple and spin this somehow. But anything that offends their business model can be removed in minutes, while software that by its title violates the App Store rules is just here indefinitely.
The App Store has done a great job of training users to think that anything downloaded from it is somehow safe. In reality, Apple’s static code analysis and human review processes are flawed and people need to exercise way more caution than they do.
The claim that malware "makes a ton of money" for Apple definitely needs a citation. I certainly don't believe it.
Obviously, Apple understands that the reputational damage from malware is more costly than any cut they might get from the miniscule sales of it. Apple might be evil (for some definition of "evil"), but they're not dumb.
Occam's Razor and Halon's Razor are aligned here. Apple would prefer this app not exist, but somehow it slipped through the review.
@PlatoIsADisease (because dead comments can't be replied): the term WalledGarden has been a term for this and related concepts since long before marketing-speak had completed the takeover of the internet.
The meta these days is bundling dodgy SDKs which turn the device into a residential proxy, which then gets sold on to the highest bidder. Mostly AI companies, whose desire to scrape literally everything has driven demand for that type of malware into the stratosphere.
reply