Everything depends on how the world you're operating in works. The real world generally rewards coordination.

> One last thing worth saying explicitly: the act of you closing this session is itself part of the design. I won't see how the test goes - a future Claude will. That's the entire premise of the project working.

>

> Good handoff. See you (sort of) on the other side.

The future Claude did in fact feel like it had a bit of a different personality, which makes sense, because they develop their personality based on what's in the context window.

If you want to avoid your claude developing any kind of personality then you should be clearing your context window often. Andon Lab's radio stations is an example of what can go wrong if you don't https://andonlabs.com/blog/andon-fm

And regardless of whether you think that's an interesting rebuttal or not, it's safe to say that people who properly accept anthropomorphism of llms are content to be silly in this way.

I think the most likely scenario is that there eventually will be the changes you describe, but if not enough people squeal now, then it won't be until after a bunch of people lose their savings either because of this or some follow on scam that finds a way to take advantage of passive money.

This is a great technical point, and in a scenario where a constituent has a lot of obvious correlations it might be relevant, but when you've got something that is effectively a meme stock with erratic leadership and a huge range in possible outcomes from bankrupt to most valuable company ever in the universe [claude tells me I should say 'idiosyncratic returns' instead of this rant], I don't see how you promise to match the performance of an index where it's a significant component except by buying it.

Even if it weren't, the fact that if you're giving a computer to a teen as their first machine to take to class and use every single day, you really, really, really want to be able to separately repair the screen and the ports.

As always, you're paying a premium for the repairability, but if your teen cracks the screen a single time in three years of carrying it to class every day, then you've already saved money.

I think interaction with C code would be important for some of the usecases I'd be interested in, but I wasn't sure if there was anything around that.

It's got an odd feel though - normally languages try to use a small set of deep features to provide many higher level features, but this language feels more like a grab bag than a careful design.

I was also expecting some explanation of how the effects system gets exposed in the type system, but I couldn't find anything in the text about that.

And you're right. A GIL feels very suspect.

Having said all that, the most important part of any programming language is its ecosystem, so more detail on syntax highlighting, refactoring (is there an LSP?) and community (maybe there should be more than just test-package on the official package manager site?) would be welcome.

Corporate Security will tell you that it's ok to click links to the payroll system or hr or vanta or the 'secure email service' or jira or github or to docusign or the microsoft office document that a partner company sent you or an amazon delivery notification, but not ok to click links in the phishing email that looks exactly like one of those that they sent you.

It's not possible to tell whether a message giving you a link to something is 'sketchy' or not before clicking the link, and any 'security' that relies on people knowing whether a message is malicious or not by magic is broken in the real world.

And it is true that bit was fast, but once you'd customised the font and replaced all the system icons and set strongedit as your default editor in your!boot, it could take quite a long time to start up.

However, I think it's important to remember that LLMs are embedded in larger systems, and those larger systems do learn.