Outside a few weird online bubbles and pockets of the US, hardly anyone disputes the claim you are objecting to.

Brainstorming, ideation and small, well defined tasks where I can quickly vet the solution : these feel like the sweet spot for current frontier model capabilities.

(Unless you are pumping out some sloppy React SPA that you don't care about anything except get it working as fast as possible - fine, get Claude code to one shot it)

They know that its a significant, but not revolutionary improvement.

If you supervise and manage your agents closely on well scoped (small) tasks they are pretty handy.

If you need a prototype and don't care about code quality or maintenance, they are great.

Anyone claiming 2x, 5x, 10x etc is absolutely kidding themselves for any non-trivial software.

The user profiles was slow to set up and not having shared filesystem between the user profiles creates friction. But I love that I can effectively sandbox my work apps, sandbox the Zuck apps etc, with different VPN profiles for each user.

Getting a burner google account (for gplay services) is a PITA if you are determined to get a clean slate from Googles tracking. Gplay is the only safe way to get certain apps at the moment, and make certain apps pass the device integrity checks.

I suspect one of the biggest barriers to mass adoption will be the fact that tap to pay doesn't work. IIUC apple/google pay are generally considered a privacy and security improvement over physical cards, since you don't give every merchant your actual card number.

Overall love the project and really nice to see such high quality open source software.

All these people harping on about: "Bro I just need to move my money without trusting anyone!, I just need a trust-less way to send currency bro!"

Trust is a good thing! Banks and financial middlemen aren't the devil. Look at how many TPS the visa network can do thanks to trust.

If it weren't for some minimum of social/institutional trust the whole of society would collapse anyway and your digital coins would finally converge to their true value (zero - or actually negative once you add in the externalities).

Feeling very frustrated with the way the internet is going lately. This plus OSA + chat control. And compounded by the imperative for AI companies to keep hoovering up any and all data they can get their hands on, wiring it into "agentic" workflows and such.

OSA and chat control have made me seriously rethink that…

Has everyone lost their mind?

There is kind of a vague sense in which this metaphor holds, but there is a much more interesting and rigorous fact about LLMs which is that they are also _lossless_ compression algorithms.

There are at least two senses in which this is true:

1. You can use an LLM to losslessly compress any piece of text at a cost that approaches the log-likelihood of that text under the model, using arithmetic coding. A sender and receiver both need a copy of the LLM weights.

2. You can use an LLM plus SGD (I.e the training code) as an lossless compression algorithm, where the communication cost is area under the training curve (and the model weights don’t count towards description length!) see: Jack Rae “compression for AGI”

In one view, you can view LLMs as SOTA lossless compression algorithms, where the number of weights don’t count towards the description length. Sounds crazy but it’s true.

Edit: the word “lack” really is the key word. This implies no choice, right?

But I think the thing that needs to be communicated effectively is that these these “agentic” systems could cause serious havoc if people give them too much control.

If an LLM decides to blackmail an engineer in service of some goal or preference that has arisen from its training data or instructions, and actually has the ability to follow through (bc people are stupid enough to cede control to these systems), that’s really bad news.

Saying “it’s just doing autocomplete!” totally misses the point.

It’s just that for N tokens, autoregressive model has to make N sequential steps.

Where diffusion does K x N, with the N being done in parallel. And for K << N.

This makes me wonder how well they will scale to many users, since batching requests would presumably saturate the accelerators much faster?

Although I guess it depends on the exact usage patterns.

Anyway, very cool demo nonetheless.

Once you chain many steps you get a very flexible distribution that can model all the interdependencies.

A stats person could probably provide more nuance, although two interesting connection I’ve seen: There is some sense in which diffusion generalises autoregression, because you don’t have to pick an ordering when you factor the dependency graph.

(Or put otherwise, for some definitions of diffusion you can show autoregression to be a special case).

Now suppose instead you have an CTM that allocates 10ms on the standard FF axes, and then multiplies it out by 10 internal “ticks” / recurrent steps?

The exact numbers are contrived, but my point is : couldn’t we conceivably search over that second arch just as easily?

It just boils down to whether the inductive bias of building in some explicit time axis is actually worthwhile, right ?

Like, yeah, we need a standard way to connect LLMs with tools etc, but MCP in its current state is not a solution.

Also if you want to wrap any existing code that logs or prints to stdout then it causes heaps of ugly messages and warnings as it interferes with the comms between client and server.

I just want a way to integrate tools with Claude Desktop that doesn’t make a tonne of convoluted and weird design choices.

In Australia for example, we are almost cashless now and most bank transfers are instant and cheap - no blockchain required.

Digital currency is a good idea - unclear what value the blockchain part actually provides?