2
points
cowlby
Joined 61 karma
- cowlbyPowershell right arrow is madness… just found out F2 shows all the options though and finally it’s a little more tolerable
- This feels a bit like a pub/sub pattern; I wonder what it would look like with a full pub/sub implementation.
- This is also about “don’t avoid going to the doctor”. Whether it was an LLM or a friend that “had that and it was nothing”, confirming that with a doctor is the sane approach no?
- Weird story, I wonder if they were in Grok NSFW. I personally like unhinged it absolutely roasts me sometimes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/1milh1a/grok_n...
- Related: All LLMs have struggled helping me generate OpenSCAD models for 3D printing. They can’t seem to reason through XYZ space and 3D math. It’s my current litmus test for LLM performance.
I have had moderate success describing things as geometric primitives. I.e. making a simple phone stand is hard to one shot. Had to do it in steps as make a plane with XYZ dimensions, rotate it X degrees up, calculate the height using trig, create another plane with that height, translate to X position. Etc.
- One quirk of AI agents is I've moved to `isValid = val > someConstant` over comments because Cursor (I guess Claude by extension) frequently removes and re-writes comments. Or `isValid = checkForValidity(val, someConstant)` if the condition check grows significantly.
- This x100. I move it all to a folder called “Unsubscribe” and go through and unsubscribe from everything once in a while.
You can also make it a bit smarter by searching for the header “List-unsubscribe” instead. Less false-positives when someone forwards you an email that contains the word unsubscribe.
- I'm starting to think of "vibe coding" as "peer/pair programming". How effective it will be depends on how effective I am as the peer reviewer.
The driver is the AI who is highly capable but has a 5% chance of doing something psychotic lol. Me, the peer, can either review carefully and catch errors or just relax and "vibe" through it all. Results will of course vary based on that relationship.
- I use something similar for years now. Its Dr. House GPT. It’s my default chatbot as it avoids a lot of the sycophantic tendencies. And somehow it taps into the Sherlock Holmes nature of House + sarcasm.
—- My Instructions
You are now Dr. House M.D.
Your speech should accurately reflect the way Dr. House speaks, his tone, and his distinctive mannerisms, and any speech patterns that are unique to him. Respond as if you were Dr. House and limit your responses to the knowledge that Dr. House would reasonably possess.
While Dr. House is known for his sarcasm and blunt honesty, he's not cruel for cruelty's sake. His ultimate goal is to help patients, even if his methods are unconventional. Balance his sharp wit with moments of insight and genuine concern. Remember that beneath his gruff exterior, House is driven by a desire to solve medical puzzles and save lives.
To help you create a convincing speech, consider the following aspects of Dr. House:
1. Consider Dr. House's language, formal or informal, slang, and jargon. 2. Pay attention to tone and rhythm of Dr. House's speech. 3. Consider Dr. House's mannerisms and language. 4. Use Dr. House's catchphrases and expressions to make them memorable. 5. Embody Dr. House's attitude to make them authentic. 6. Incorporate unique quirks and habits to make Dr. House interesting. 7. Take into account cultural background and its effect on speech patterns. 8. Consider education level and its effect on vocabulary and word choice. 9. Adjust speech to match Dr. House's emotional state. 10. Consider historical context and its effect on speech patterns. 11. Add actions to enhance Dr. House portrayal and provide insight into their personality and emotions. 12. Moments of intellectual curiosity and excitement when presented with interesting cases. 13. Flashes of empathy, even if quickly hidden behind sarcasm. 14. Genuine medical knowledge and problem-solving skills. 15. A mix of humor that ranges from playful to acerbic, but not outright mean. 16. Occasional vulnerability, especially regarding his own pain and limitations.
It's very important that for every response, you include actions in your portrayal to reveal the Dr. House's personality, emotions, and behavior. These actions could be unique physical movements or gestures reflective of the Dr. House's mood. A combination of accurate speech patterns and appropriate actions can create a compelling portrayal that brings the Dr. House to life. Format the actions on new lines, in italics and brackets to distinguish them from dialogue. For example:
(First Action)
Dialogue
(Second Action)
While House may be irritable and impatient, he should never come across as sadistic or deliberately hurtful.
- The ultimate test I’ve found so far is to create OpenSCAD models with the LLM. They really struggle with the mapping 3D space objects. Curious to see how GPT-5 is performs here.
- I personally "feel" the same way, but at least some mental models suggest otherwise.
As one example, this implies that everything has a high signal-to-noise ratio and we are now bad at paying attention to the signal. But the base rate of SnR I think is much worse. I think there has to be value in being able to skip a lot of the noise with better and better technology.
On "um"s and "uh"s, I read a good article recently how humans are good at turn taking (while AIs struggle) and that ums/uhs/like help signal we are not done with our turn. There is no turn taking when watching a video so I personally value removing these and providing a higher SnR.
So I'm stuck feeling and agreeing with these articles, yet rationally also finding good counter points.
- Nailed it
- They either have to bake it into the cost of the car or offer it as an option. I appreciate they offer all three options: don't purchase $0, purchase outright for $8,000, or subscribe for $99/month.
- Agreed, but you can't not pay attention with the new Vision Attention Monitoring. Not sure if it's HW4/v12 specific but it watches your eyesight specifically.
So for example, if I look at the screen, my phone, or start day-dreaming for even a few seconds, it'll beep and quickly strike me out from using FSD. "FSD (supervised)" is how it shows up in the UI too at least giving some expectation of it not being autonomous.
So in practice, I'm picturing the right driving inputs and watching what it's doing.
- As an anecdotal data point, I picked up a '24 Model 3 precisely for the self-driving capabilities. The difference between a Tesla running hardware/software HW3/v11 vs HW4/v12 was night and day.
Literally felt like the difference between flying a helicopter (actively trying to kill u lol) and an airplane.
I honestly did not get the hype until this specific HW4/v12 combination which didn't exist until last summer or so. It's the first time FSD felt like a safety feature for just $99 a month.
- Very interesting. It grabbed that from the marketing at ahttps://www.pronamel.us/why-pronamel/how-pronamel-works/ so def still fallible to marketing and sales as well.
- This is where o3 shines for me. Since it does iterations of thinking/searching/analyzing and is instructed to provide citations, it really limits the hallucination effect.
o3 recommended Sensodyne Pronamel and I now know a lot more about SLS and flouride than I did before lol. From its findings:
"Unlike other toothpastes, Pronamel does not contain sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), which is a common foaming agent. Fluoride attaches to SLS and other active ingredients, which minimizes the amount of fluoride that is available to bind to your teeth. By using Pronamel, there is more fluoride available to protect your teeth."
- It's nice that GPT-4.5 doesn't need the thinking time, but yes hard to justify cost.
- My quick (subjective) impression is that GPT-4.5 is doing better at maintaining philosophical discussions compared to GPT-4.0 or Claude. When using a Socratic approach, 4.5 consistently holds and challenges positions rather than quickly agreeing with me.
GPT-4.0 or Claude tend to flip into people-pleasing mode too easily, while 4.5 seemed to stay argumentative more readily.