> So your argument is now RNG plays a bigger role so eventually they'll score a win by luck?
Uh, no. His argument is that the ~10% or so superiority you're fighting so hard to claim is no longer enough to have dominate sway over the overall outcome. Other factors, not random.
Just throwing it out there I've got an AX162-R (48c EPYC) with 128GB additional memory (384GB DDR5 total) that's been running a side project of mine for a year or so... I could be talked into moving that project if someone had a need for the hardware.
I'm chime in here as another Pi user, starting with OMP and then just ditching it for vanilla Pi + MCP/LSP from OMP as well as pi-cursor-sdk to get access to Composer 2.5 through Pi. I use this as my 'fast' research & report (through my project/codebase) or boilerplate/tightly-specced implementation agent that's available to my planning/orchestrator (GPT 5.5 if complex backend work, Fable/Opus if wanting the extended context or view/design heavy work).
Pi has been great in this role, as well as occasional use not as a sub-agent but by my own human hands when I want to interact with the Composer 2.5 model directly... which I do much less these days as I just use Codex 5.5 /fast. Pi's great though.
Just as a note to CC fans/users here since I had an opportunity to do so... I tested resuming a session that was stale at 950k tokens after returning from a full day or so of being idle, thus a fully empty quota/session.
Resuming it cost 5% of the current session and 1% of the weekly session on a max subscription.
But.. that doesn't solve the problem of having no indication in-session when it'll lose the cache. A nudge to /clear does nothing to indicate "or else face significant cost" nor does it indicate "your cache is stale".
Uh, it sounds like you're having trouble understanding that people in this thread are talking about two wildly different "claude code" applications. Those who are claiming the resources issues don't apply to them are referring to the cli application, ie: `claude` and those are saying things like "Just open both apps..." are surely referring to their GUI versions.
lmao - I'm not at all proud of what you called an accomplishment. I literally said it _is_ amateur hour, it's hacked together, not safe, not stylish, not well engineered. But it does work. And despite your assumption about me learning anything - I had _no idea_ how generators worked. The realization that spinning an electric motor would result in electricity being produced blew my mind and got me asking claude things related to that, then I wanted to interface a wheel against my wheel to spin a stepper motor to get a charge and had the hair brain idea to just make the whole thing the generator instead. None of this was stuff I knew.
Despite this thing I made being rather useless in the grand scheme of things it was _wildly_ illuminating in terms of my understanding of electricity and the various objects around me and how they function. Which has spurred another rabbit hole that is having _real measurable effect_ for a host of feral cats to live a more comfortable life. (Not the wheel generator thing)
> a machine told you what to do and you did it, like coloring by numbers - it doesn't make you an artist.
I never claimed to be an artist ;) And, maybe it's different for you, but someone or something showing me how to do something is quite literally the best way for me to learn. /shrug
> I have to doubt that. If you were all those things, you would have been able to complete that project with very little effort, and without a machine telling you what to do.
I've had very consistent success with plan mode, but when I haven't I've noticed many times it's been working with code/features/things that aren't well defined. ie: not using a well defined design pattern, maybe some variability in the application on how something could be done - these are the things I notice it really trips up on. Well defined interfaces, or even specifically telling it to identify and apply design principles where it seems logical.
When I've had repeated issues with a feature/task on existing code often times it really helps to first have the model analyze the code and recommend 'optimizations' - whether or not you agree/accept, it'll give you some insight on the approach it _wants_ to take. Adjust from there.
Right - it's not a big deal and it LITERALLY is amateur hour. But I did it. I wouldn't have done it prior, sure I could have done a bunch of google searches but the time investment it would have taken to sift through all that information and distill it into actionable chunks would have far exceeded the benefit of doing so, in this case.
The whole point is that it is amateur hour and it's wildly effective as a learning tool.
The fact it derived everything from things that have been done... yea, that's also the point? What point are you trying to make here? I'm well aware it's not a great tool if you're trying to use it to create novel things... but I'm not a nuclear physicist. I'm a builder, fixer, tinkerer who happens to make a living writing code. I use it to teach me how to do things, I use it to analyze problems and recommend approaches that I can then delve into myself.
I'm not asking it to fold proteins. (I guess that's been done quite a bit too, so would be amateur as well)
If I was on the "replace all the meatsacks AGI ftw" team then I would have referred to it as an oracle, by your own logic, wouldn't I have?
It's a tool. It's good for some things, not for others. Use the right tool for the job and know the job well enough to know which tools apply to which tasks.
More than anything it's a learning tool. It's also wildly effective at writing code, too. But, man... the things that it makes available to the curious mind are rather unreal.
I used it to help me turn a cat exercise wheel (think huge hamster wheel) into a generator that produces enough power to charge a battery that powers an ESP32 powered "CYD" touchscreen LCD that also utilizes a hall effect sensor to monitor, log and display the RPMs and "speed" (given we know the wheel circumference) in real time as well as historically.
I didn't know anything about all this stuff before I started. I didn't AGI myself here. I used a learning tool.
But keep up with your schtick if that's what you want to do.
So, you observed some telemetry - which would have been some sort of specific metric, right? Wouldn't you communicate that to them as well, not just "it's slow"?
"Hey, I saw that metric A was reporting 40% slower, are you aware already or have any ideas as to what might be causing that?"
Those two approaches are going to produce rather distinctly different results whether you're speaking to a human or typing to a GPU.
mferrara -. at .- gmail