It is not that agents can't function with a large context window, they can if that information generally has a desirable signal (like a large initial document or a well-focused session). Mistakes and the confusing signals that come out of fixing mistakes are why performance degrades. I start to trust the context window less not as a matter of size but the amount of friction we run into. The friction can be random but it is more often an issue with the path that I have us on.

I can understand wanting to minimize your interaction with LLMs, so this might not be an attractive solution. But it seems like a worthwhile feature to have on the platform level for people who would like to continue to accept pull requests without the frustration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_in_the_Sea

- I asked Claude a question about an obscure game for which there wasn't a lot of discussion or information on the web. It couldn't find the answer but it found the source code and was able to figure it out and give a complete response.

- I needed to make some edits to a minified lottie file (json that is used to produce an animation in svg or other formats). ChatGPT was able to understand the file well enough to make the edits and reproduce the rest of the content exactly as it was.

- I was working on some map features and I needed to take geolocation information and position HTML elements on the edges of a container that would indicate which direction from the current location they were. This required a lot of geometry and math that account for rotation and pitch and would have taken me some time to work through, but it was just a few seconds for the language model and it worked perfectly.

- I have some petunias that I haven't managed to kill and I heard that when a stem breaks off they can be replanted. I asked it how to do this and after warning me that selling these could constitute a black market, it helped me start several petunia plants that are thriving. My petunias are basically immortal now.

I empathize with the astroturfing concern, I file almost every statement released by Anthropic/OpenAI as bullshit. But they are an amazing tool given the right circumstances.

It's a really valuable feature that I expect will eventually be the gold standard, it was surprising how helpful it was. I think a lot of creators will embrace it, it adds credibility/authenticity. You aren't just labeling the AI content, you are labeling the content that isn't generated by AI, with a validation layer to back it up.

Every online video platform should let you label specific segments as AI generated, even better if it is a requirement with validation checks for certain kinds of content.

It has been a long time and now I feel like I should revisit it to see if that still holds.

The ideas in this work are not entirely unique or original, they fit with what many people have been saying since language models came on the scene. But it is the most articulate, earnest, and balanced that I have seen from prominent figures and institutions. It has helped me discover and question my biases. Humanity desperately needed a better champion in the conversation, and it is moving to see the Church step into that role so effectively.

I've always tried to find another solution besides closed source because it takes away a big part of what makes me want to work on a project. But I recognize that it's not always going to be the best choice.

That sounds like a worthwhile reason for something like copyleft, since funding can be a problem. I have seen a lot of companies basically implement it by providing both kinds of licensing.