> systems that cannot form intent, that have nothing to form intent with

I wonder if the OP has read https://www.anthropic.com/research/global-workspace - it seems like it directly addresses this

It doesn't.

> No more editing the system prompt as the conversation progresses, no more dynamic loading of custom tool calling formats.

Hm, aiui you can support both of these via mid-conversation system turns https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/mid-co... - and in general you'd want to to preserve the cache and recency of the instruction anyways rather than frankensteining an off-distribution transcript. Not sure though.

I really don't see how that is an option, as if appending to the system prompt was ever enough to override previous instructions. Their example isn't very confidence inspiring either:

"The user switched the workspace to read-only mode. Do not write files until told otherwise."

Great! Now we just have to trust that the model never misinterprets any of the system prompt, which has always been so reliable before. Instead of your meticulously crafted prompt, it will now be some junk like this:

"The workspace is in write mode. The user switched the workspace to read-only mode. Do not write files until told otherwise. The workspace is now in write mode again. Wait, back to read-only!"

And who knows how this integrates with their context summarisation that we will be FORCED to use. How does it summarize multiple user + assistant/thinking blocks without messing up the system "appends"? If all it did was append the mid-convo system messages right under the original system prompt then they'd be ripe for all the same distillation "vulnerabilities" as before. I guess we'll never know!

You seem intent on being mad, so maybe this isn't helpful, but context summaries are optional.

for one thing, understanding how the final code ended up that way. it's hard to tell with code alone wherever something is designed or cargo culted.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/covering-electricity-price-in... I think that they tried to?

One.

This rough question has been in the culture interview since at least 2021.

Blog post 2018, data ending 2016

https://globalnaturewatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/new-gfw-tr... (2024) looks like the regional pattern is correct but the sign is wrong with higher-granularity data. 2024 is pretty bad for Amazon fires but last couple years have been better.

screenshot: https://x.com/willdepue/status/2084750925013434768

What's that thing that lets you look at twitter without going to twitter?

xcancel or twstalker

Why? Seems fine if people want to burn more cache reads.

> Because it makes Anthropic burn more money

Fixed that for you.

"Earn"?

Cache duration is arbitrary. What it actually does (if used en masse) is decrease the amount of oversubscription their infra can handle..

Earn is synonymous with profit, and this hurts their profits. Introducing latency can benefit much more people and actually make usage more efficient. Reducing latency can sieze up a functioning system.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about how this related to fractional banking. If you were to eliminate fractional banking introduced in the US by Hamilton, you would destroy a lot of current prosperity.

It’s unknown whether our current economic model will work out long term. It mostly relies on the US being the default reserve currency for most nations. Hopefully that lasts a long time.

Source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40350519/