To me, LLMs struggle with the most important aspect of technical writing - conciseness. As Einstein put it: “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”
I have a similar mental model to the climbing harness. I think of LLMs as horses and harnesses as the saddle, reins, etc that you put on your horse. You might configure your harness for an individual rider or you might hook together several horses to pull a carriage.
> Opus went off for ~2 hours and wrote 5500 lines of code that (procedurally) rendered the story.
> it's an example where we go from "no one would ever do this" to "sure, why not, it's ~free".
How is two hours worth of token generation free?
With tech revolutions things get cheaper/faster/better/doable, but there’s still real world limits. The advent of railroads made it feasible for the average person to cross the country, but it still cost a lot of time and resources. People weren’t crossing the country every weekend for fun just because it was now doable.
Why do we treat LLMs as ~free when we are generating things that weren’t doable before but have to invest more money than the Apollo program to build AI data centers let alone account for the operating costs?
New ones don’t seem to be available any more, you probably need to go refurbished. Last year some third-party sellers still had new units available. Replacing the battery is always an option.
It doesn’t look like Apple will be going back to something smaller than the 17e. Unless you count the upcoming foldable, which while shorter than the mini, however is also wider, thicker and heavier.
The EIA says $.14 for "Commercial" but $.086 for "Industrial". I assume that the big data centers have such high electricity costs that they would be able to cut better deals that would put them in line with the lower "Industrial" rates. So, even better potential margin.
Multiple times I’ve rejected an llm’s file changes and asked it to do something different or even just not make the change. It almost always tries to make the same file edit again. I’ve noticed if I make user edits on top of its changes it will often try to revert my changes.
I’ve found the best thing to do is switch back to plan mode to refocus the conversation
> Now consider what the same analyst does with an LLM agent:
"Show me all software companies with over $1B market cap, P/E under 30, and revenue growing over 20% year over year. Build a DCF model for the top 5. Run sensitivity analysis on discount rate and terminal growth."
While I think LLMs can improve the interface and help users learn/generate domain specific languages, I don’t see how a professional can trust an llm to get a technical request like this correct without verification. Wouldn’t a financial professional trust the Bloomberg llm agent that translates their request into a set of Bloomberg commands more?
I think there's a lot of overstatement about LLM capabilities throughout this piece, but I think it's generally directionally correct. There's an attitude of "LLMs are just going to directly perform business logic" or "data extraction and ingestion" or "calculations". The reality is that deterministic human-mediated code is going to do all that stuff (and AI is going to drastically amplify human leverage in building that code), and LLM agents will call into it as tools.
It's like the people who talk about how LLMs can't count the r's in "raspberry" and don't seem to understand that GPT5 can reliably e.g. work out a transformed probability distribution function from a given PDF by integration and derivation --- in part because frontier models are smarter but more importantly because they're all presumably just calling into CAS tooling.
Real financial analysts already have DCF spreadsheets where they can just plug in numbers for any company. An LLM can help with fine tuning or catching errors but it's not a game changer.
Agents like Claude Code, Cursor, etc, natively support agents.md being in the project structure, this is the standard: https://agents.md , in saying that, nothing stops you from creating a setup where you tell the agent to read the DB to obtain its instructions.
They built it as a railroady board game instead of a sandbox video game. The rumors from their experimental workshop test and latest announcement make me hopeful for a big update in the spring. Until then, it doesn’t feel worth playing it more than a couple times through. Every game feels the same.
Trying to streamline the series into a boardgame seems to be a trend. Even Civ6 felt more like a boardgame for points than a sandbox already, even though it was still rather enjoyable.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Ed Beach has been a board game designer in the past. Which is not to say he's the wrong guy for the job, he has done some great work on Civ5 BNW and Civ6. But perhaps he went overboard on 7.
reply