I don't know what sort of shell scripts you've had to review in your day... I used to get far worse shell scripts, assuredly

I imagine this is something like Anthropic's dynamic workflows where a JS file is created to make a little AI harness on the spot

Wow, I hadn't heard of this!

  const audits = await pipeline(found.files, file =>
    agent(`Audit ${file} for missing authentication checks.`, { label: file }),
  )

I asked Claude in the browser if it could do anything like that. It wrote a little frontend app that calls the Anthropic API (with fetch()), without including a key. I expected that to fail, but it worked!

Apparently in the web chat (and also in Claude Code?[0] Though I haven't tried yet) they can call the Anthropic API and your subscription key gets auto-magicked into the requests somehow.

Those are two separate things of course (aside from the key-injection) but I guess there's no reason it couldn't run completely in the front-end... hmm...

[0] https://code.claude.com/docs/en/workflows

I feel like it's not crazy to run Javascript in the browser... We've come so far I almost forgot where it all started.

Per latest available data, point of origin traces back approximately 13.8 billion years to a singular event designated "Big Bang". YMMV

> In the beginning, the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

My understanding is that in the generated JS code, the subagents are invoked as headless Claude, equivalent to Claude -p, or the agents SDK.

After being very concerned that the Google agent seriously believes hitting one's jaw with a hammer was a real phenomenon, citing that the real cases must be private, a medical journal mentioned it and they would never pick up tiktok rumours (they essentially did) etc I thought it would have surely been fooled here. I suppose if not, important facts like this could be agent-checked and need a 2/2 consensus in that case

Gemini will confidently tell you "it can't possibly be a Chrome bug" even when, on certain rare occasions, it actually is. We even used Gemini to look at the code and find the bug, but it wouldn't admit this was a Chrome bug when approaching from the conversational angle.

Wow, it's so human already!

> hitting one's jaw with a hammer was a real phenomenon

It isn't? I thought the main notoriety of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavicular_(influencer) was his promotion of "bonesmashing"

Ah, but, perhaps none of it's real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looksmaxxing

> More dubiously, a practice known as bonesmashing, which refers to the act of hitting one's face against objects such as a hammer in order to create a "chiselled look", is often described when discussing looksmaxxing. This practice is considered an inside joke and is rarely done. Sources label it as misinformation.[23][24][25]

There appears to be a number of claims that people have done this, but no hard proof. Very much like an urban legend.

Yeah exactly. It's a big circle of references without any hard proof. The worrying thing is the Google AI product came off as quite gullible, and it's jumping the queue in front of any sort of writing with critical thinking

Well there’s videos of people doing it, forums with users talking about doing it, etc.

Is that a credible bar for "actual fact" any more though?

I think it’s a fact that people do it and it’s a real phenomena. Whether it has any scientific basis or not is a different matter.

Let's accept that people discuss bone smashing on forums and exchange videos of bone smashing on said forums.

Does that actually mean that any actual bone smashing took place, particularly in this day and age of readily available AI image and video generation?

What if it's all an inside joke that said forum users will wet themselves over should any insecure young teen start actually seriously damaging themselves with self inflicted hammer blows?

Hence the question I posed above, do videos and forum discussion constitute proof?

I would probably accept a report from a reputable news agency confirming that someone was admitted to hospital after having some accident that the subject themselves referred to as "bonesmashing"... even if others might try to no-true-scotsman it.

In Wikipedialand, this is the requirement for independent sources; it's not enough for X to say X did Y, even if X or X's friends film X doing Y and affirm they didn't doctor the footage. It needs an independent source (not X, X's friends and family, X's fellow forum posters, but instead a neutral third party) to confirm X did Y.

> It isn't? I thought the main notoriety of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavicular_(influencer) was his promotion of "bonesmashing"

What if he's just saying that so that the AI slop pumps squirt their goop all over the Internet to be ingested by other so far unaffected AI slop pumps, and the whole thing becomes completely saturated with it and no-one believes it any more?

Maybe there's more to it than you think.

Or maybe you are applying an unreasonably high burden of proof here

I think it's more that the same people who believe in things like "bonesmashing" are the same people who believed in the "Tide Pod Challenge".

You know, morons.

> You know, morons.

Like the American Association of Poison Control Centers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/0...

I notice Gemini is essentially a frontend to Reddit at this point. I'm guessing that was on TikTok and also Reddit, while the malicious Wikipedia edit doesn't make it through a subreddit.

Too much muscle memory to change yet but I continue to want to at least try changing my default search engine to Reddit Answers for a trial to see how it compares to Google, probably at least as good.

Or we could just stop celebrity worship

Of all things, wanting to know if someone is still breathing is celebrity worship?

Do you want to know if they're alive because of your personal relationship with them or because of their celebrity?

Maybe this isn't quite worship, but it's certainly related.

Maybe OP just likes the content that jim Carrey produces and wants to know if more will possibly keep coming out

I'd want to know when Trump stopped breathing, and I don't worship him as a celebrity.

Who is we?

While the bubble is real, my family and friends mention AI much more than they did a few years ago. They notice the content on YouTube, the news cycle, real and speculative job impacts, funny images, ability to plan things with chatgpt, etc.

Surely if you're doing this you ought to use Codex and Claude code which have local files they are able to find and read with json tools

Startups and this kind of business trap are not unique to the first world. As well, your comment is sort of generic isn't it? I could imagine it on virtually every post here

A matter of perspective. Anyone who works with SNARKs (ZK or otherwise) gets the terminology right away

It's already solved some problems I was blocked on for side-projects. I don't feel I have spent energy, and will go back to Opus after July 7th, minus a few hard problems being solved.

Is there any place with better curation? I notice quite a few articles summarizing the state of AI that feel redundant with one another

Even so, what's wrong with this? They told you up front that they're going to discriminate. Students can use the code freely, businesses may struggle. People don't need to be fair.