Pretty please ask Claude to start with benchmarks that measure your approach against other approaches. I did read all and only found:

Selected numbers from live system runs:

Scenario , Naive shell approach , Hollow API , Savings

Code search , 21636 tokens , 987 tokens , 95%

Agent drift (cons. rate) , 35% (cold start) , 70% (with handoff) , 2x

That is a lot less than enough to justify a git clone.

Still definitely a work in progress, I don’t have those numbers yet but will be getting them soon. It’s built on agentOS which is intended to be a way for the agents themselves to add improvements that would cut costs even more. If someone finds a new way to cut costs, the idea is that these agents find it on github or are told about it, then they implement it and start using it. That’s the self modification loop part of it. So numbers specifically are difficult to pinpoint at the moment. Cutting costs is definitely important but I wouldn’t say that’s what I’m trying to accomplish with this.

The eventual goal is a self modifying system that humans don’t have to touch, like how ants build an ant hill, no single agent has to get the whole picture. They just need to know their immediate job. Throw a project at it and let them do it to save on tokens is more of the consumer bonus, a big bonus, but a bonus nonetheless.

I’ve been making steady improvements, I’m hoping that by the end of the summer it’s much more robust than it already is.

there are many possible points eg. for example what happens if you rephrase your solution 2 by swapping the terms?

The gap is not technological. It is operational.

enough read

The slop is not just thick — it's viscous.

could an ADHD test be opportune here?

Blue is what gamble? there is no gain associated with choosing blue over red, just pointless risk-taking with only at best a zero outcome.

I fail to see how anyone could choose blue, the certain scenario is everyone chooses red, and this whole post is a nothingburger.

To me, the whole point of the riddle is that it reveals the most internal bias towards either yourself or others, meaning that you do things for society or for yourself. Blues don't understand reds, reds don't understand blues. The bias is invisible to the self but it is clearly there given the huge contrast in the opinions of people.

You fail to see how anyone could choose blue, even though there are plenty of people on the internet and even in the comments here who are stating they would choose blue?

> I fail to see how anyone could choose blue

Depends on the scenario… or the number of people in the experiment. A sufficiently large number of people will guarantee votes in both bins. The specific scenario (reading this outside of a vacuum) will also have knock-on effects.

Eg: reading this into the current political landscape in the US vs reading this into another toy problem about jumping off a cliff or not will have very different outcomes and ethics.

The article makes a good point with their reframing.

"Give everyone a magic gun. They may choose to shoot themselves in the head. If more than 50% of people choose to shoot themselves, all the guns jam. The person also has the option to put the gun down and not shoot it."

The "dilemma" is asking to what lengths we should go to save people choosing to commit suicide, and does that change when they are unintentionally choosing suicide due to being "tricked" into it.

I guess that just underlines how reframing can really muddy or clarify a problem. The original problem can be mapped onto many varied scenarios with wildly different ethics.

Practically at least one person will choose blue for lulz or curiosity or as a moral compass. Shall we punish them? How does it affect survival of whole population in a long term?

..instead of 2000 ?

I meant for this week

that is one extremely unsubstantiated statement

Hey poster. How is this not BS what are the actual stats? this sounds more like a diversion move from Fox.

consider that there are a lot of quite old scientists that are overdue on lifespan.

consider also that knowing you could be targeted, from the start, not because of this supposed trend, but because thats the nature of the job.

the government and its agencies are not above faking decedence to cover an asset of extreme worth.

ordinarily an obituary can be found.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/missing/who-missing-dead-scien...

The current US whitehouse counts moving to France to be able to do actual science as being a deceased person...

"Surgical "is the kind of wordage that LLMs seem to love to output. I have had to put in my .md file the explicit statement that the word "surgical" should only be used when referring to an actual operation at the block...

you're right, they are tools. that's kind of the point. PAL is a subprocess that runs a python expression. Z3 is a constraint solver. regex is regex. calling them "surgical" is just about when they fire, not what they are. the model generates correctly 90%+ of the time. the guardrails only trigger on the 7 specific patterns we found in the tape. to be clear, the ~8.0 score is the raw model with zero augmentation. no tools, no tricks. just the naive wrapper. the guardrail projections are documented separately. all the code is in the article for anyone who wants to review it.

The core issue is that the LLM is using rhetoric to try to convince or persuade you. That's what you need to tell it not to do.

Which will not work. Don't think of a pink genitalia, I mean elephant...

An LLM that can't follow instructions wouldn't be able to write code anyway.

Nonsense. But even an LLM that can follow instructions cannot follow that one.

What is intrinsic to an LLM or its training that would prevent it from following the directive that it should not try to convince you of something?