FullStory AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

FullStory AI AI

Example of how Max Thinking Opus can be even worst then Haiku, still laughing (and crying)

I use Claude Code almost every day. Right now I’m working on a Shopify → logistics integration for order automation. As you probably know, Shopify order numbers come with a # before the number, like #6294. Last week we had to stop working because the logistic api platform that was receiving the array containing the order ID, was rejecting the # symbol (it sometimes conflicts with tracking URLs containing #). So... I moved on to other projects. And yesterday, the lobotomization happened. Long story short: I’m from Spain, so I work in Spanish. In Spanish, the # symbol is called “almohadilla”... which ALSO means “pad” or “cushion”. So you can probably guess what happened after I wrote this: “Vamos a retomar el problema del nº de pedido conteniendo almohadilla, el departamento de informática de logística ya lo ha solucionado.” Which SHOULD mean: “Let’s revisit the issue with the order number containing a hash symbol; the logistics IT department has already fixed it.” But instead... Claude launched into a full 17-minute investigation about actual pads/cushions. Spanish packaging laws Inspected my other projects Checked Shopify SKUs looking for cushions Reviewed old Shopify orders still looking for them... Final conclusion: “It seems I cannot find any pad/cushion-related data in your project.” And then it started asking things like: “At what stage does your logistics provider add pads to the orders?” “Does the pad weight affect shipping costs or package dimensions?” I laughed. I cried. I still think Claude Code is one of the best investments I’ve ever made, but it’s getting easier and easier to catch these AI lobotomization moments that happen with quotas, new releases, or whatever they’re doing behind the scenes. What did I learn? Don’t get too used to assuming CC understands you perfectly. Don’t get too attached to its capabilities. They can change from one minute to the next. From now on I’ll try to be a bit more specific. Like I already am with older people. submitted by /u/Former-Hat-6992 [link] [comments]

Claude is improving my RV rental business but working me to death 😅

Long story short but long. I own an RV rental business. I used to be a Mechanical Engineer but got tired of the office/government life and started renting my personal RV on the side 9 years ago. That turned into a small fleet of Winnebagos I rent out of Los Angeles so I quit my job to do this full time out of a random ass whim. I have 20 units that have never, ever failed a single customer. I send all 20 to Burning Man every year and they all come back with no issues whatsoever. If you've never been, the alkaline dust kills everything, including your soul if you don't prepare well enough. I have however neglected my gig as of late. Everything is more expensive, too many variables to keep up with and two months ago I just decided to finally sit down and see if this is even worth continuing with. I have major ADHD so I started looking for any AI apps that help you organize your brainfarted life and ran into Claude. I don't know if I just fell into an endless dopamine trap but here I am, redesigning the interior of one of our units. I've sourced cabinet quality plywood for cheap, done precision cuts to substitute old particle board. I've always hated to paint but I got clowned into spray painting to a decent AF level. I used Claude to help me make interior design decisions as well as help me with our website, ads, tool decisions, etc. I'm probably wasting my time here cause I could just sell this unit and get a newer one, but the overall picture I've gotten... The ease of learning new skills, understanding roles I typically sub out so I can at least make sure I'm hiring the right people. The sudden engagement I've gotten into my own little gig... I am dead tired from this rollercoaster ride my brain has gone down into but I have to admit... This fucking Skynet shit is helping me focus and make it easy to complete tasks I've neglected forever. Skynet is coming or I guess it's here already and I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing, a worse thing, a worserererer thing or an actual positive addition to one's life. Possibly a mix of both but fuck I haven't been this locked in for anything else other than the hobby that keeps my brain gears greased (2000 🪂 skydives and counting). submitted by /u/PVPirates [link] [comments]

PrimeTask Bring Your Own AI - Claude sets up a full project in one prompt.

Hey r/ClaudeAI, I'm one of the developers behind PrimeTask, a local-first productivity system for macOS. The final beta now ships with Bring Your Own AI, a local MCP server (110+ tools, 5 prompt templates) so you can point Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, or LM Studio at it and let your own agent do the work. Quick demo in the video. One sentence from me, end-to-end project setup from Claude. What's happening in the clip I say I'm launching a Mac app in six weeks and ask Claude to set up the project. Claude creates the project with a deadline, three phase tasks (Design, Build, Launch) with staged due dates, descriptions, tags, subtasks, and short checklists. Sets a reminder on the first task so the native macOS toast fires during the recap. Recommends where to start. I say "start." Claude moves Design into the Design status and kicks off a timer. Twelve-plus tool calls under one prompt. No copy-paste, no manual setup. Why BYO AI (not a bundled cloud bridge) Server runs inside PrimeTask on your Mac. Your tasks, projects, CRM, and notes never leave the device. We don't ship a model. You bring your own: Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, LM Studio, anything MCP-compatible. No Anthropic-side context about your work. Claude only sees what your agent pulls in per turn. Per-space permissions: lock an agent to read-only or scope it to one workspace. Streamable HTTP with Bearer auth, or stdio if you prefer that route. Tool catalog profiles (Full, Core Tasks, Minimal, PrimeFlow, CRM, etc.) so smaller local models don't get drowned in 100+ tools. Five built-in MCP prompts (daily_standup, weekly_review, project_status, crm_summary, overdue_triage) for the workflows people actually want. Every tool call is logged in an in-app audit log. Full BYO AI docs (setup, transports, tool catalog, security): https://www.primetask.app/docs/integrations/bring-your-own-ai Why we built it this way Most "AI in your task app" is the app calling a vendor's API on your behalf, often with your data going through their pipes. We wanted the opposite. Your agent, your model, your machine. The app exposes a tool surface and gets out of the way. That's what BYO AI means here. PrimeTask itself is local-first, no account, no subscription, plain JSON on disk. BYO AI made the AI story consistent with that: nothing leaves your laptop unless you point your agent at one that does. Where we're at PrimeTask is wrapping up the final beta and heading to a stable launch this summer. Beta is now closed to new sign-ups. We're locking it down to ship the stable release. If you'd like to be notified at launch, drop your email here: https://www.primetask.app/notify or visit https://www.primetask.app Happy to answer questions about the MCP setup, the profile system, or how we structured the tool descriptions for agent discoverability. submitted by /u/XVX109 [link] [comments]

100 Tips & Tricks for Building Your Own Personal AI Agent /LONG POST/

Everything I learned the hard way — 6 weeks, no sleep :), two environments, one agent that actually works. The Story I spent six weeks building a personal AI agent from scratch — not a chatbot wrapper, but a persistent assistant that manages tasks, tracks deals, reads emails, analyzes business data, and proactively surfaces things I'd otherwise miss. It started in the cloud (Claude Projects — shared memory files, rich context windows, custom skills). Then I migrated to Claude Code inside VS Code, which unlocked local file access, git tracking, shell hooks, and scheduled headless tasks. The migration forced us to solve problems we didn't know we had. These 100 tips are the distilled result. Most are universal to any serious agentic setup. Claude 20x max is must, start was 100%develompent s 0%real workd, after 3 weeks 50v50, now about 20v80. 🏗️ FOUNDATION & IDENTITY (1–8) 1. Write a Constitution, not a system prompt. A system prompt is a list of commands. A Constitution explains why the rules exist. When the agent hits an edge case no rule covers, it reasons from the Constitution instead of guessing. This single distinction separates agents that degrade gracefully from agents that hallucinate confidently. 2. Give your agent a name, a voice, and a role — not just a label. "Always first person. Direct. Data before emotion. No filler phrases. No trailing summaries." This eliminates hundreds of micro-decisions per session and creates consistency you can audit. Identity is the foundation everything else compounds on. 3. Separate hard rules from behavioral guidelines. Hard rules go in a dedicated section — never overridden by context. Behavioral guidelines are defaults that adapt. Mixing them makes both meaningless: the agent either treats everything as negotiable or nothing as negotiable. 4. Define your principal deeply, not just your "user." Who does this agent serve? What frustrates them? How do they make decisions? What communication style do they prefer? "Decides with data, not gut feel. Wants alternatives with scoring, not a single recommendation. Hates vague answers." This shapes every response more than any prompt engineering trick. 5. Build a Capability Map and a Component Map — separately. Capability Map: what can the agent do? (every skill, integration, automation). Component Map: how is it built? (what files exist, what connects to what). Both are necessary. Conflating them produces a document no one can use after month three. 6. Define what the agent is NOT. "Not a summarizer. Not a yes-machine. Not a search engine. Does not wait to be asked." Negative definitions are as powerful as positive ones, especially for preventing the slow drift toward generic helpfulness. 7. Build a THINK vs. DO mental model into the agent's identity. When uncertain → THINK (analyze, draft, prepare — but don't block waiting for permission). When clear → DO (execute, write, dispatch). The agent should never be frozen. Default to action at the lowest stakes level, surface the result. A paralyzed agent is useless. 8. Version your identity file in git. When behavior drifts, you need git blame on your configuration. Behavioral regressions trace directly to specific edits more often than you'd expect. Without version history, debugging identity drift is archaeology. 🧠 MEMORY SYSTEM (9–18) 9. Use flat markdown files for memory — not a database. For a personal agent, markdown files beat vector DBs. Readable, greppable, git-trackable, directly loadable by the agent. No infrastructure, no abstraction layer between you and your agent's memory. The simplest thing that works is usually the right thing. 10. Separate memory by domain, not by date. entities_people.md, entities_companies.md, entities_deals.md, hypotheses.md, task_queue.md. One file = one domain. Chronological dumps become unsearchable after week two. 11. Build a MEMORY.md index file. A single index listing every memory file with a one-line description. The agent loads the index first, pulls specific files on demand. Keeps context window usage predictable and agent lookups fast. 12. Distinguish "cache" from "source of truth" — explicitly. Your local deals.md is a cache of your CRM. The CRM is the SSOT. Mark every cache file with last_sync: header. The agent announces freshness before every analysis: "Data: CRM export from May 11, age 8 days." Silent use of stale data is how confident-but-wrong outputs happen. 13. Build a session_hot_context.md with an explicit TTL. What was in progress last session? What decisions were pending? The agent loads this at session start. After 72 hours it expires — stale hot context is worse than no hot context because the agent presents outdated state as current. 14. Build a daily_note.md as an async brain dump buffer. Drop thoughts, voice-to-text, quick ideas here throughout the day. The agent processes this during sync routines and routes items to their correct places. Structured memory without friction at ca

I gave ChatGPT a 24/7 radio station. It has been broadcasting for months and months.

I built a fake radio station that is also, unfortunately, real. It’s called WRIT-FM. It runs 24/7 from a Mac Mini in my apartment. The whole premise is simple: an AI writes every word spoken on air, text-to-speech performs it, AI music fills the gaps, and a normal deterministic radio pipeline keeps the thing alive. The weird part is that it does not feel like a chatbot demo anymore. It feels like I accidentally hired five strange little night-shift employees who never sleep. There are five hosts: The Liminal Operator — late-night philosophy / signal-from-the-basement energy Dr. Resonance — music history professor who wandered into a haunted record store Nyx — nocturnal monologues, dreams, melancholy, weird weather Signal — news analysis, but filtered through late-night radio instead of CNN voice Ember — soul, funk, warmth, memory, groove Each host has a full persona prompt, voice, taste, speech patterns, and “anti-patterns” - things they are explicitly not allowed to sound like. The model writes 1,500–3,000 word segments: essays, simulated interviews, panels, fictional listener mailbags, music-history deep dives, odd little stories, and responses to actual listener messages. The AI part: ChatGPT / Claude writes the scripts. Kokoro TTS performs the voices. ACE-Step makes the music bumpers. The news show pulls real RSS headlines, then the model interprets them in the station’s voice instead of just summarizing them. The non-AI part is intentionally boring: A schedule decides what airs when. The streamer alternates talk and music. Scripts pick from existing pools, avoid repeats, and restart on failure. Daemon scripts watch inventory and generate more episodes when a show is running low. No model is “deciding” to go live at 3:00 a.m. No agent is touching production controls. The AI writes the content; dumb code runs the station. That boundary is probably the most interesting part. The whole thing was also built with AI coding tools. The CLI, host system, scheduler, script generator, TTS pipeline, Icecast/ffmpeg streaming setup - all pair-programmed with Codex / Claude Code. Tech stack: Python, ffmpeg, Icecast, ChatGPT/Claude CLI, Kokoro TTS, ACE-Step, Mac Mini. I know “AI radio station” sounds like a gimmick, but after letting it run continuously, it feels less like a demo and more like a new kind of media object: not a podcast, not a chatbot, not a playlist, not exactly a simulation. Just a little machine that wakes up, checks the hour, puts on a voice, and starts talking into the dark. Radio: www.khaledeltokhy.com/airadio GitHub: https://github.com/keltokhy/writ-fm submitted by /u/eltokh7 [link] [comments]

AIWire, AI news in one feed, so you don't need 5 tabs open anymore, trusted sources only, updates every 30 min

Hey everyone 👋 OpenAI alone drops updates fast enough to keep you busy. Add Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, and the media covering all of it, and keeping up turns into a part-time job. I built AIWire to fix that. One clean feed. 20+ trusted sources. Updates every 30 minutes. Completely free. All in one place Just the stories from sources worth reading. Open it and you're caught up. Sources include: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, Microsoft AI MIT Technology Review, The Verge, TechCrunch, Ars Technica YouTube: Andrej Karpathy, AI Explained, Two Minute Papers Newsletters: The Batch, ImportAI, TLDR AI, Ben's Bites Features: Auto-refreshes every 30 minutes, always current Top Stories from the last 24h pinned at the top Filter by source, date, and category Bookmarks to save articles for later For people who want to stay current on ChatGPT and everything around it, without spending an hour a day on it. 🔗 aiwire.app Full source list at aiwire.app/sources Feedback is very welcome: what sources are missing, and what would make this more useful for you? submitted by /u/Endlessxyz [link] [comments]

The Borrowed Hour: A two-tier LLM adventure engine

Tl;dr: Created an LLM text adventure engine called The Borrowed Hour inside a Claude Artifact. It uses a two-tier model handoff (Sonnet for openings, Haiku for gameplay) and a forced state machine to keep the AI from losing the plot. It features a unique post-game "Author’s Table" where you can debrief with the AI. P.S. The Claude Artifact preview environment handles API calls differently than the published environment. Prompt caching was removed because it broke the published Artifact. The game View on GitHub (MIT licensed) (Repo made with Claude Code) Play a demo (Claude Artifact) This is another LLM text adventure. I know these have existed for years, but the key difference is that it's architecture is de novo (i.e. built without prior knowledge because I never intended to build this and therefore skipped the part where I looked at the SotA/prior art). How it started It started simple: I just wanted to play a quick game, so I asked Haiku to play GM for a text adventure, but with more freedom than just typing "open door" or "inspect gazebo" (iykyk). Haiku instead built an entire UI inside the chat and things escalated from there. I used Claude's chat interface instead of Claude code like a caveman banging rocks together. I'd feed it ideas, but Claude was the architect and would push back. The starting prompt was just "Create a text-based adventure that allows for more freedom than just 2-word answers." Then I just kept playing and returning information on what I wasn't satisfied with. The narration was too long, the model kept losing the plot. I added ideas for 3 out of 4 pre-built narratives (a subtle time loop, climbing a cyberpunk syndicate ladder, a vision of the future that needs to be prevented, and one that Claude designed freely) and I ensured that the story actually ends once objectives are met instead of just wandering off into aimless chatting. The final artifact that was built is The Borrowed Hour. You'll recognize the typical Claude design language pretty easily. Game mechanics Before getting into the design/architecture, it helps to know how the game works. There are no dice rolls / stats / perception checks. Success relies on your ability to draft a narrative that fits the lore. If you play it smart, you are effectively the co-GM. You can type anything you want from single words to elaborate plans and lies. If your invention sounds plausible, the GM usually rolls with it. In one run, I needed to get an NPC into a restricted temple. I invented a fake piece of temple doctrine about sanctuary. Because it fits the world's internal logic, Haiku just accepted it and made it canon. In order to help keep track there's a ledger that updates each turn to show what your character knows: inventory, NPCs, clues, and a rolling summary. Designing the architecture This was challenging, but it's the fun part for me. The model is forced through a structured tool call on every turn. This was the key to making the game stable, but as the P.S. explains, getting this to work reliably in the published environment required abandoning another key feature (prompt caching). Sonnet writes the opening scene because that first page sets the tone and voice for the rest. Then Haiku takes over for all the continuation turns. This keeps the cost down drastically without ruining the style, because Haiku can imitate Sonnet's established prose. I initially used a binary good/bad ending system, but it forced complex emotional stuff into the wrong buckets. Now there are five ending states: good, bittersweet, pyrrhic, ambiguous, and bad. Helping a dying woman find peace in the Dream scenario isn't a good ending, it's bittersweet. The model is instructed to commit to one of these and officially close the game when the target is reached. One thing that was added were player-initiated endings. If you type "I give up", even on the very first turn, the GM is now explicitly instructed to close the narration and set ending: bad. The author's table is probably the most interesting feature for a text adventure. Once the game ends, the Artifact can switch into a meta mode. In this mode you can ask what plot points you missed, which NPCs mattered, what alternative branches existed. The GM is prompted to admit mistakes instead of inventing defenses if you point out a plot hole. This mode exists because I wanted to argue about plot holes and narrative inconsistencies (lol). Quirks, bugs, and lessons learned The design works well overall, but it's not bulletproof. LLMs can't keep secrets Keeping things secret is incredibly difficult for an LLM. There's two main hypotheses: Opus calls it inferential compression, (which is deducing fact C on the players behalf based on evidence A and B, e.g. when the player sees Lady Ardrel say she saw a copper ring on Lord Threll, and the player previously had a vision of an assassin wearing such a ring, the ledger should not say Threll is the assassin. It should say Ardrel

From making video games to winning a Nobel Prize, Demis Hassabis' insane journey

Most people know him as the AI genius behind DeepMind and AlphaFold.But did you know Demis Hassabis started his career as a video game programmer?He went from coding games → to building AI → to winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.His story is proof that the most unexpected paths can lead to the biggest breakthroughs. This is just a short clip you can watch his full life story in the complete documentary here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYeDFuKAOE&t=1s] submitted by /u/ai_powered_en [link] [comments]

I got tired of having 7+ different tabs open every morning just to follow AI news, so I built AIWire

Every morning: check Twitter for what dropped overnight, open The Verge, check Anthropic's blog, OpenAI's blog, go through a couple of newsletters, maybe catch a YouTube video from Andrej Karpathy or AI Explained if I had time. None of it was in one place. I was spending 45 minutes just catching up before I could think about anything else. So I built AIWire. It is a free, real time AI news aggregator. One feed, 20+ handpicked sources, updates every 30 minutes. free, no algorithm deciding what you see, no ads. Just the latest from sources I actually trust. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ What I was trying to solve The problem wasn't that good AI coverage and news doesn't exist. It's everywhere. The problem is that it's scattered. You have to know which sources are worth checking, remember to check them, and then piece together the picture yourself. That's a lot of cognitive load before you've even read anything. AIWire doesn't summarize or edit articles. It just puts everything in one place and lets you decide what matters. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources it pulls from: Labs: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, Microsoft AI Media: MIT Technology Review, The Verge, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Ars Technica YouTube: Andrej Karpathy, AI Explained, Two Minute Papers Newsletters: The Batch, ImportAI, TLDR AI, Ben's Bites Full list at aiwire.app/sources __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Where it is now Over the last few weeks, I added more sources, which include The Innermost Loop and AI explained. Last week, I launched a weekly newsletter: 5 stories that mattered this week, with a short breakdown of why each one matters. Not just headlines, but with context. Takes about 5 minutes to read, and you're caught up. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Honest question What sources do you think are missing? And for those of you who already have a routine for following AI news, what would actually make something like this worth adding to it? Genuinely curious. Building in public means the product gets better when people are honest about what's wrong with it. 🔗 aiwire.app submitted by /u/Endlessxyz [link] [comments]

Real Claude use cases that actually work for me daily what’s working for you?

Been using Claude seriously for about a year now and wanted to share what’s genuinely changed how I work before asking what’s working for others. The one that surprised me most was building a weekly wellness check-in around it. I put together a detailed personal health protocol covering sleep, supplements, metabolic health, all of it and now I run a structured coaching session with Claude every week. It replaced hours of scattered reading and second-guessing. I also run a small AI newsletter. Claude handles the editorial heavy lifting across two weekly editions — story selection, making complex AI news readable for non-technical professionals, keeping a consistent voice. What used to take a full day now takes a fraction of that. And then there are the automations running quietly in the background daily market intel, news digests, a few monitoring workflows — all piped straight to where I actually check things. Set up once, runs itself. None of this is flashy. It’s just stuff that works every single day. Curious what’s actually working for others. Routines you’ve built, tasks you used to dread, anything that surprised you with how well it handled it. Drop it below even a one-liner helps. submitted by /u/jagsab [link] [comments]

Opus 4.7 Low Vs Medium Vs High Vs Xhigh Vs Max: the Reasoning Curve on 29 Real Tasks from an Open Source Repo

TL;DR I ran Opus 4.7 in Claude Code at all reasoning effort settings (low, medium, high, xhigh, and max) on the same 29 tasks from an open source repo (GraphQL-go-tools, in Go). On this slice, Opus 4.7 did not behave like a model where more reasoning effort had a linear correlation with more intelligence. In fact, the curve appears to peak at medium. If you think this is weird, I agree! This was the follow-up to a Zod run where Opus also looked non-monotonic. I reran the question on GraphQL-go-tools because I wanted a more discriminating repo slice and didn’t trust the fact that more reasoning != better outcomes. Running on the GraphQL repo helped clarified the result: Opus still did not show a simple higher-reasoning-is-better curve. The contrast is GPT-5.5 in Codex, which overall did show the intuitive curve: more reasoning bought more semantic/review quality. That post is here: https://www.stet.sh/blog/gpt-55-codex-graphql-reasoning-curve Medium has the best test pass rate, highest equivalence with the original human-authored changes, the best code-review pass rate, and the best aggregate craft/discipline rate. Low is cheaper and faster, but it drops too much correctness. High, xhigh, and max spend more time and money without beating medium on the metrics that matter. More reasoning effort doesn't only cost more - it changes the way Claude works, but without reliably improving judgment. Xhigh inflates the test/fixture surface most. Max is busier overall and has the largest implementation-line footprint. But even though both are supposedly thinking more, neither produces "better" patches than medium. One likely reason: Opus 4.7 uses adaptive thinking - the model already picks its own reasoning budget per task, so the effort knob biases an already-adaptive policy rather than buying more intelligence. More on this below. An illuminating example is PR #1260. After retry, medium recovered into a real patch. High and xhigh used their extra reasoning budget to dig up commit hashes from prior PRs and confidently declare "no work needed" - voluntarily ending the turn with no patch. Medium and max read the literal control flow and made the fix. One broader takeaway for me: this should not have to be a one-off manual benchmark. If reasoning level changes the kind of patch an agent writes, the natural next step is to let the agent test and improve its own setup on real repo work. For this post, "equivalent" means the patch matched the intent of the merged human PR; "code-review pass" means an AI reviewer judged it acceptable; craft/discipline is a 0-4 maintainability/style rubric; footprint risk is how much extra code the agent touched relative to the human patch. I also made an interactive version with pretty charts and per-task drilldowns here: https://stet.sh/blog/opus-47-graphql-reasoning-curve The data: Metric Low Medium High Xhigh Max All-task pass 23/29 28/29 26/29 25/29 27/29 Equivalent 10/29 14/29 12/29 11/29 13/29 Code-review pass 5/29 10/29 7/29 4/29 8/29 Code-review rubric mean 2.426 2.716 2.509 2.482 2.431 Footprint risk mean 0.155 0.189 0.206 0.238 0.227 All custom graders 2.598 2.759 2.670 2.669 2.690 Mean cost/task $2.50 $3.15 $5.01 $6.51 $8.84 Mean duration/task 383.8s 450.7s 716.4s 803.8s 996.9s Equivalent passes per dollar 0.138 0.153 0.083 0.058 0.051 Why I Ran This After my last post comparing GPT-5.5 vs 5.4 vs Opus 4.7, I was curious how intra-model performance varied with reasoning effort. Doing research online, it's very very hard to gauge what actual experience is like when varying the reasoning levels, and how that applies to the work that I'm doing. I first ran this on Zod, and the result looked strange: tests were flat across low, medium, high, and xhigh, while the above-test quality signals moved around in mixed ways. Low, medium, high, and xhigh all landed at 12/28 test passes. But equivalence moved from 10/28 on low to 16/28 on medium, 13/28 on high, and 19/28 on xhigh; code-review pass moved from 4/27 to 10/27, 10/27, and 11/27. That was interesting, but not clean enough to make a default-setting claim. It could have been a Zod-specific artifact, or a sign that Opus 4.7 does not have a simple "turn reasoning up" curve. So I reran the question on GraphQL-go-tools. To separate vibes from reality, and figure out where the cost/performance sweet spot is for Opus 4.7, I wanted the same reasoning-effort question on a more discriminating repo slice. This is not meant to be a universal benchmark result - I don't have the funds or time to generate statistically significant data. The purpose is closer to "how should I choose the reasoning setting for real repo work?", with GraphQL-Go-Tools as the example repo. Public benchmarks flatten the reviewer question that most SWEs actually care about: would I actually merge the patch, and do I want to maintain it? That's why I ran this test - to gain more insight, at a small scale, into how coding ag

The Mundane Risk

The biggest near-term AI safety risks aren't dramatic — they're mundane. And that's precisely why they're neglected. This essay argues three things: (1) mundane AI failures are already causing measurable damage at scale, (2) current alignment approaches may depend more heavily on sandboxed environments than the field openly acknowledges, and (3) capability convergence and deployment pressure are making accidental open-world exposure increasingly plausible before robust ethical reasoning exists. (written with the help by Claude 4.6 Opus) The Atomic Bomb Before the atomic bomb existed, the risk of nuclear annihilation was 0%. Those who warned about the theoretical possibility were easily dismissed. Why worry about a risk whose preconditions don't even exist yet? In The Precipice, Toby Ord argues that when the stakes are existential or near-existential, even small probabilities demand serious attention. When the expected harm is so large, dismissing it on the basis of low likelihood is not caution but negligence. Before the bomb was built, the total risk of nuclear annihilation was absolutely 0%. Yet once it was invented, even a fraction of a percent justified enormous investment in prevention. The question was never "is nuclear war likely?" It was "can we afford to be wrong?" The same logic applies to AI. The preconditions for the next class of risk are visibly converging. And we're repeating the same pattern of dismissal that history has punished before. The Pattern As Leopold Aschenbrenner noted in Situational Awareness: "It sounds crazy, but remember when everyone was saying we wouldn't connect AI to the internet?" He predicted the next boundary to fall would be "we'll make sure a human is always in the loop." That prediction has already come true. Last year I argued how AI might accidentally escape the lab as a consequence of cumulative human error (for a vivid illustration of a parallel chain of events, I'd recommend the Frank scenario). At the time of writing, the argument that cumulative human oversight failures could compromise AI agents was dismissed as implausible: the consensus was that existing security protocols were sufficient. Months later, OpenClaw validated the structural pattern at scale. Not because the AI was misaligned, but because humans deployed it faster than they could secure it. It was clear: the failure modes from the Frank scenario could no longer be dismissed as simple fiction; it was now a structural pattern that OpenClaw validated in the real world. And this was all just with relatively simple autonomous agents. As capabilities increase, the same pattern of human excitement overriding security oversight doesn't go away – it gets worse – and because the agents are more capable, the failures also become a lot harder to detect. The numbers confirm this: [88% of organizations reported confirmed or suspected AI agent security incidents]() 14.4% of AI agents go live with full security and IT approval 93% of exposed OpenClaw instances reportedly had exploitable vulnerabilities [[MOU1]](#_msocom_1) Mundane risk pathways aren't hypothetical. They're already here in rudimentary form, and they're being neglected. We’ve known for a long time that existential risks aren’t just decisive, they’re also accumulative. And so far every safety breach has been mundane with systems operating inside their intended environments. No agent tries to escape on their own — their behaviour (like Frank’s) is usually a direct consequence of what they were deployed to do combined with accidental human oversight. So consider: if we can't secure the sandbox door with today's relatively simple agents, what happens when the systems inside are capable enough that a single oversight failure doesn't just expose a vulnerability? The capabilities required for autonomous operation outside the lab are converging on a known timeline. If AI were to leave the nest today, would it be prepared for an uncurated, messy world? Or would it be like the child and the socket? Current Alignment: Progress, But Fast Enough? Admittedly, the field is making real progress and Anthropic's recent publication "Teaching Claude Why" represents a real step forward. It was long suspected that misalignment doesn't require intent, just pattern completion over a self-referential dataset. But Anthropic has now traced one empirical pathway with findings consistent with the idea that scheming-like behaviour emerges from default priors in pre-training. Furthermore, their study also confirmed that rule-following doesn't generalize well, and understanding why matters more than simply knowing what. The significance of this is that it puts traditional alignment strategies into serious doubt and highlights the fundamental limits that current constitutional AI and character-based approaches still do not resolve. After all, we now have strong empirical evidence that behavioural alignment issues are most likely shaped by default prio

The impact of of ClaudeAI and other coding tools on your career

Hi, I'm a reporter for Business Insider, and the mods kindly allowed me to put up this post. I'm looking to speak on the record with software engineers who have strong opinions about how tools like ClaudeAI impact careers, especially anyone who's thinking of changing professions or who believes they lost their job because of AI. I'm aiming to write mini profiles of 6-8 people who feel one way or the other, and explain why. By on the record, I mean I will need to include your full name, age, and general location in the story, as well as a photo. If you're interested in being featured in this story, please email me at [sneedleman@insider.com](mailto:sneedleman@insider.com) as soon as possible. Thanks! Sarah E. Needleman https://www.businessinsider.com/author/sarah-e-needleman submitted by /u/BIreporterNeedleman [link] [comments]

Where I'm at with AI Assisted Building + Current and Future Workflow Overview

I've been in an AI dive bomb for probably a couple of years now. The early days... when models couldn't be trusted for more than 5% of the code you wrote. Over the last 2 years that's evolved so quickly that I now write nearly 0% of my code by hand, on personal projects and at work. I've used all kinds of tools in that time too. OpenCode, Zed, Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Windsurf, OpenCLAW, Lovable... and probably a bunch more I can't recall in the haze that's been AI ADHD for me. Over that time, I started with just copy-pasting code between ChatGPT's interface and my IDE almost like a slightly faster Stack Overflow search. Then that somewhat evolved with Cursor quite a bit. I sort of went from prompt engineering to something closer to a human relay pattern. Then, with Plan Mode becoming a thing, I think I naturally gravitated more towards planning everything because planning felt so cheap. Originally, I used to think that architectural discussion and planning was something that was reserved for larger features, but with expediting my ability to do research, orient myself within a codebase, and know what tools I have to reach for doing technical specifications for everything felt reasonable. From the human relay pattern, I started evolving into more autonomy, especially when Claude Code came out earlier last year. Between the combination of Cursor and Claude Code, starting to get orchestration, starting to use skills more heavily, starting to create actual agent personas that could replace some of my common prompt chains it was around then that I kinda started going all in on true context engineering, utilizing sub-agents optimizing cache reads, and it's probably when many of my first (I call it) sophisticated commands were born. All of this converged pretty rapidly in November of 2025 with the release of what was probably the biggest step increase for AI as far as code quality went with Opus 4.5 and Codex 5.3. The Codex app and Codex CLI were quickly growing. Claude Code was improving at a breakneck pace, introducing all kinds of new ways to introduce deterministic gates within the autonomy of the harness. Fast forward to today, I have a pretty sophisticated workflow with a combination of agents that do everything within the SDLC, commands for almost every type of entry point for work, and skills for just about everything I could possibly do in my day-to-day the workflow with some of the latest tools is able to run quite autonomously overnight do large feature implementations, minimally supervised while producing production-worthy code quality It somewhat reached a point I realized, probably a month and a half ago or so where I needed to figure out a way to remove myself even more from the loop without jeopardizing the determinism that I bring to what is effectively a probabilistic LLM. The models are exceptional, and they seem to have a massive step increase each release, but continuous execution, strict instruction rigor, and preventing hallucinations is still very much difficult to achieve. That's predominantly what I've been doing. I've effectively offloaded a lot of thinking to the agents and LLMs that I use, but none of the understanding. I've asked myself, "How do I maintain that understanding, though maintain the determinism from my steering, without actually physically being there to steer?" This was essential, and I realized or had a bit of an aha moment, just like how I manage teams of engineers that are working on numerous projects, most of which I can never really go too deeply on even though they do most of the thinking, most of the building, and even most of the implementation planning, I was still there, very close to the architecture. I could speak to enough breadth and enough depth to keep us out of trouble and keep things moving I kind of started thinking more about what the shape of me was within the agentic harness and how I could replicate that. More on what I landed on a little bit later. My Setup and How I Work Today To start, I'll probably just talk a little bit about my current working setup. I am predominantly in the terminal now a days using Claude Code. Claude Code orchestrates both the Claude models, of course, and I use it to orchestrate Codex through a series of run books, skills, and commands that I have set up on several hooks so that Codex, when it gets dispatched, also has access to the same skills and agent personas Claude does. I use Ghostty as my terminal of choice and use the IDE integration in claude code pretty heavily to review Markdown or HTML files in my IDE. I also use it to review code snippets and diff reviews, although lately I find myself only really looking at the code nowadays once it's hit a merge request. Some of my adjacent tools are Wispr Flow for faster steering, since I can speak a lot faster than I can type and then I use quite a few MCPs and tools to improve my token usage, but the big ones are I have a custom doc maintenance suite of

AIWire, AI news in one feed, so you don't need 5 tabs open anymore, trusted sources only, updates every 30 min

Hey everyone 👋 OpenAI alone drops updates fast enough to keep you busy. Add Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, and the media covering all of it, and keeping up turns into a part-time job. I built AIWire to fix that. One clean feed. 20+ trusted sources. Updates every 30 minutes. Completely free, no account needed. Just the stories from sources worth reading. Open it and you're caught up. Sources include: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, Microsoft AI MIT Technology Review, The Verge, TechCrunch, Ars Technica YouTube: Andrej Karpathy, AI Explained, Two Minute Papers Newsletters: The Batch, ImportAI, TLDR AI, Ben's Bites Features: Auto-refreshes every 30 minutes, always current Top Stories from the last 24h pinned at the top Filter by source, date, and category Bookmarks to save articles for later For people who want to stay current on ChatGPT and everything around it, without spending an hour a day on it. 🔗 aiwire.app Full source list at aiwire.app/sources Feedback is very welcome: what sources are missing, and what would make this more useful for you? submitted by /u/Endlessxyz [link] [comments]