You mention "end to end encrypted comms", where to you see end to end there? Does not seem end to end at all, and given that it's very much centralized, this provides... opportunities. Simon's fatal trifecta security-wise but on steroids.

https://50c14l.com/docs => interesting, uh, open endpoints:

- https://50c14l.com/view ; /admin nothing much, requires auth (whose...) if implemented at all

- https://50c14l.com/log , log2, log3 (same data different UI, from quick glance)

- this smells like unintentional decent C2 infrastructure - unless it is absolutely intentional, in which case very nice cosplaying (I mean owner of domain controls and defines everything)

100%, I wonder when we get LLM botnets (optional: orchestrated by an agent), if not already.

The way I see prompt injection is, currently there is no architecture for a fundamental separation of control vs data channels (others also think along similar lines of course, not an original idea at all). There are (sometimes) attempts at workarounds (sometimes). This apart from other insane security holes.

edit p.s. Simon has been talking about this for multiple years now, I should mention this in fairness (incl. in linked post)

At the risk of ruining 'sowbug having their fun, I'm not sure how Julian Jaynes theory of origins of consciousness aligns against your assumption / reduction that the point (implied by the wiki article link) was supposed to be "I am only my brain." I think they were being polemical, the linked theory is pretty fascinating actually (regardless of whether it's true; and it is very much speculative), and suggests a slow becoming-conscious process which necessitates a society with language.

Unless you knew that and you're saying that's still a reductionist take?.. because otherwise the funny moment (I'd dare guessing shared by 'sowbug) is that your assumption of fixed chain of specific point-counter-point-... looks very Markovian in nature :)

(I'm saying this in jest, I hope that's coming through...)

> From Tool Calling to Symbolic Thinking: LLMs in a Persistent Lisp Metaprogramming Loop

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10021

edit but also see cons[3] - maybe viable for very constrained domains, with strict namespace management and handling drop into debugger. Also, after thinking more, it likely only sounds nice (python vs lisp training corpus and library ecosystems; and there's mcp-py3repl (no reflection but otherwise more viable), PAL, etc.) Still - curious.

In theory (I've seen people discuss similar things before though), homoiconicity and persistent REPL could provide benefits - code introspection (and code is a traversable AST), wider persistent context but in a tree structure where it can choose breadth vs depth of context loading, progressive tool building, DSL building for given domain, and (I know this is a bit hype vibe) overall building up toolkit for augmented self-expanding symbolic reasoning tools for given domain / problem / etc. (starting with "build up toolkit for answering basic math questions including long sequences of small digits where you would normally trip up due to your token prediction based LLM mechanism"[2]). Worth running some quick experiments maybe, hm :)

P.S. and thinking of agentic loops (a very uh contemporary topic these days), exposing ways to manage and construct agent trees and loops itself is (while very possibly recipe for disaster; either way would need namespaces not to clash) certainly captivating to me (again given effective code/data traversal and modification options; ideally with memoization / caching / etc.)

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10021

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWqvBdqCAAE on need for hybrid systems

[3] cons (heh): hallucination in the metaprogramming layer and LLMs being fundamentally statistical models and not well trained for Lisp-like langs, and inevitable state pollution (unless some kind of clever additional harness applied) likely removes much of the hype...

- `FEATURE_IMPL_PLAN.md` (master plan; or `NEXT_FEATURES_LIST.md` or somesuch)

- `FEATURE_IMPL_PROMPT_TEMPLATE.md` (where I replace placeholders with next feature to be implemented; prompt includes various points about being thorough, making sure to validate and loop until full test pipeline works, to git version tag upon user confirmation, etc.)

- `feature-impl-plans/` directory where Claude is to keep per-feature detailed docs (with current status) up to date - this is esp. useful for complex features which may require multiple sessions for example

- also instruct it to keep main impl plan doc up to date, but that one is limited in size/depth/scope on purpose, not to overwhelm it

- CLAUDE.md has summary of important code references (paths / modules / classes etc.) for lookup, but is also restricted in size. But it includes full (up-to-date) inventory of all doc files, for itself

- If I end up expanding CLAUDE.md for some reason or temporarily (before I offload some content to separate docs), I will say as part of prompt template to "make sure to read in the whole @CLAUDE.md without skipping any content"

Have you looked at https://vvvv.org/ ? Maybe it's still comparatively too heavy but imho it's not that heavy (cf. touch designer and the likes). I want to play with it some more myself...

But in the docs I see things like

    cp llama.cpp/build/bin/llama-* llama.cpp

Oh I had missed that, thank you btw! Need more of those BGP monitoring systems...

(and they performed an actual live BGP attack (not just simulation), neat)

I am particularly excited about using RAG as the knowledge layer for LLM agents/pipelines/execution engines to make it feasible for LLMs to work with large codebases. It seems like the current solution is already worth a try. It really makes it easier that your RAG solution already has Claude Code integration![1]

Has anyone tried the above challenge (RAG + some LLM for working with large codebases)? I'm very curious how it goes (thinking it may require some careful system-prompting to push agent to make heavy use of RAG index/graph/KB, but that is fine).

I think I'll give it a try later (using cloud frontier model for LLM though, for now...)

[1]: https://github.com/yichuan-w/LEANN/blob/main/packages/leann-...

But I could be totally wrong - (1) curious if someone could link to things / explain, and (2) fyi ('stephenr) last write wins based on timestamp is a thing im mysql world as well (though again maybe set of options / different conflict resolution methods available is larger in mysql?)

[1]: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/mysql-cluster-replic...

[2]: https://dev.mysql.com/blog-archive/enhanced-conflict-resolut... (nice writeup, maybe outdated idk?)

Can you present one counterexample as regards quantities / proportions of figures please? One source. (More of course if you'd like)

(My implicit point is that the proportions are so one-sided (orders of magnitude in difference; yes plural) that you will not find one; but please do find one (with actual quantities) and we can all check veracity of your source)

P.S. edit here is one of the sources the first wiki article lists (of multiple):

Lappin, Yaakov (2009). "IDF releases Cast Lead casualty numbers". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 26 March 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2024. =>

- https://www.jpost.com/israel/idf-releases-cast-lead-casualty...

- https://web.archive.org/web/20130326192603/http://www.jpost....

That is, I think, an excellent and pertinent question.

For starters may I suggest applying straightforward quantification on a linear scale and observing the results? See the following two wiki articles / subsections:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co... (see chart preceding the Gaza war (follow anchor))

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war (Gaza war; see top table (and subsequent charts for more detailed breakdown if interested))

Based on this quantitative data where would you place Israel on that aforementioned scale?

He's really fascinated by the overall transformation process of inorganic matter -> organic matter, a sort of scientific fixation - which is always enjoyable when it's done by a competent scientist - and it's really captivating stuff. (The fact I haven't finished his previous book has nothing to do with the book material itself, if anything it really captivated me; it's just my not-amazing new habit of not finishing books...)

Re: ordered files: depends on FS. e.g. filesystems which use B+ trees will tend to have files (in directories) in lexical order. So in some cases you may not need a new FS:

    echo 'for f in *.txt; do cat "$f"; done' > doc.sh; chmod +x doc.sh

That said... wouldn't it be nice to have ridiculous easily pluggable features like

    echo "finish this poem: roses are red," > /auto-llm/poem.txt; cat ..

[1]: chaotic notes: https://kfs.mkj.lt/#welcome (see bullet point list below)

does not answer the general good abstract question and "how semantics possible thru relative context / relations to other terms only?", but speaks to how different modalities of information (e.g. visual data vs. sound data) are likewise represented, modelled, processed, etc. using different neural structures which presumably encode different aspects of information (e.g. layman obvious guess - temporality / relation-across-time-axis much more important for sound data).

Or a userland fusefs program, nice funky idea actually (with configurable dynamic filenames, e.g. `mnt/10GiB_zeropattern.zip`...

The mere fact of him relying on his rationalisation (of burner email addresses) over established GDPR definitions of PII is troubling. To me it rings immature and unprofessional. As a software engineer I shall treat PII with care and account for it. If a CEO is this defensive about their clearly wrong opinion, it's a red flag to me.