I'm calling BS, sorry. It looks light, and barely anything beyond surface level of what we could all could guess would be in a system prompt. This smells nothing more of a "claude give a system prompt that anthropic would use as a system prompt for claude"
From what we know, there are some very specific details baked into the prompt as safety guards, where are those? Again calling BS and I'm not gonna waste more thought/words on this
The language is tough love, and I think it's important despite what the first respondent has said.
Much of the language used seems to stem from nauseating interactions that have occured in kernel world around rust usage.
I'm not a big fan of rust for reasons that were not brought up during the kernel discussions, but I'm also not an opponent of moving forward. I don't quite understand the pushback against memory safe languages and defensiveness against adopting modern tooling/languages
To add something useful, OSes are the one area where reinventing the wheel leads to a lot of innovation.
It's a complete strip down and an opportunity to change or do things that previously had a lot of friction due to the amount of change that would occur.
You'd be surprised how many people are actually doing this exact kind of solutioning.
It's also not that costly to do if you think about the problem correctly
If you continue down the brute forcing route you can do mischievous things like sign up for thousands and thousands of free accounts across numerous network connections to LLM APIs and plug away
Haha. You're 100% correct in the AGI/AI thing. I'm just sick and tired of every article being about AI, it's great people but we can't stop innovating and attending to other areas of technology.
>You can do a lot with glorified prediction systems that require human prompting
>People don't need a machine that wonders the same stuff they do; they need something that does a specific task in lieu of their own effort.
This is the problem with our current revision with AI; the way I see it those two are in conflict with each other. In lieu of their own effort, the way a vast amount of the would be users think, is "without promoting" which would lend towards AGI than AI.
>Actually, they are arguably more valuable than AGI because you can more easily communicate and utilize their value proposition.
To you and I this might be true, but to your average non-techie I don't think it's quite as true as you would like it to be.
Short term it is very true, everyone sees the value until you realize it's inherit limitations and the 'shiny, wears off
Calorie burn is dependent on weight and body fat. Individuals who are x+25kg will burn way more calories than x.
For users who come to this site to supplement their weight loss information might be misinformed in their journey, or worse,use it as a primary source and become discouraged because their idea of calorie loss is a little skewed due to the conservative numbers currently shown.
To add something constructive, think of how deamanding people can be in ordinary everday life.
Now think of how demanding they can be when something doesn't quite work how they want.
I've been on both sides of the fence being a demanding user myself and prolific contributor. I could write entire volumes on the cesspool that can be opensource contributing; obviously there's lots of good that comes with it too, good communities, good people.
But open source is an ecosystem like any other really, there are cesspools of obnoxiousness, toxic behavior, and also havens of really insightful and friendly people.
Not only this, but most US companies do not really have any incentive to focus on security.
On HN there is an echo chamber with the shunning of companies who have experienced incompetence based breaches. Your average consumer does not know (beyond the news cycle) or generally even really care.
I think you can even look at FBI and NSA public service announcements and guides about consumer electronics security as a sort of ''shit this industry stuff is pretty bad we need to think about our goal differently,'' with regards to them trying to pick up some of the security slack that US companies shit out with their products.
When the HDDVD-Bluray wars were going on China had their own implementations of optical storage, and it has been evolving ever since. Much of it is undocumented in languages other than Chinese.
Companies in China use these alternative optical discs, some of which store up to 1TB of data.
The only reference I can find to it on English Wikipedia is the CBHD