1,749 mentions · 790 chunks · 131 episodes
...en makes the case that our current best practice design process is obsoleted by LLMs. The process that was the best practice fundamentally assumes that software is extremely expensive to create.
LLMs are the universal universal computer. Code is data in a very particular shape. Now it doesn't have to be in that particular of a shape. LLMs can make...
...have been better if an LLM wrote it." It's an insult… but it's also often true. LLMs are distinctly better than the average adult at writing.
StrongDM and OpenClaw are downstream of where LLMs hit a new scaling threshold of agentic ability. They were inevitable; the time had come. They were at the right place at the right time to surf the w...
...ke a chatbot, but that's incidental. A couple of years ago people tried to wrap LLMs and create agents, but it was premature. The model quality wasn't there yet. So they concluded it wasn't possible. But it just wasn't ready yet. Now ...
...of durable ends. Those are the form factors that enable the potential energy of LLMs to blossom best.
...f you try to review every line of AI code you will go crazy. It's not possible. LLMs can produce code so quickly the only way to tackle it is to use LLMs to review it.
LLMs are like C4 explosives. Moldable, powerful… and fundamentally explosive! Skills are just a hunk of C4, perhaps with some mechanistic code embedded th...
People use LLMs as interpreters more than compilers. An LLM as compiler could make guardrails for itself that then limit bad behavior.
...red to write before: lightly held, possibly throwaway. But it's possible to use LLMs to help write code in much more disciplined ways that give compounding advantage, and that is not a flippant or unserious exercise. Agentic engineeri...
...mall enough you can clear the threshold where any LLM can answer it reasonably. LLMs are more expensive than mechanistic code, but much more flexible and able to handle variance. When you have a working amalgam of LLMs and mechanistic...
...have been too overwhelming so I decided not to. OpenClaw shows the raw power of LLMs when unleashed on your data. It's also self evidently, absurdly, catastrophically insecure. A friend described it this way: "It's basically a thought...
...r person noting that sandboxes are only a small part of the problem of securing LLMs. "I think most people focusing on securing these are focusing on isolation, but that's really step 0 of a step 3 process they'll come to understand a...
Clawdbot makes the danger of LLMs more obvious. In the past, "prompt injection" was hard to get even developers to think about. "That sounds like SQL injection, that thing we've solve...
Don't use LLMs to do things you could have done before, but faster. Use them to take on meaningful projects that you never would have attempted before.
Peter Wang calls LLMs "essence extractors." Notably, this is not just photocopying ideas. It requires judgment, nuance, and produces something structurally valuable and di...
...es Latent Space Engineering.[ci] It's why being polite and encouraging can help LLMs do better. You end up in different latent space basins by using the right words. LLMs do better when they think they can do it and are given positive...
Stuxnet was extremely expensive to create. But now LLMs have the potential to find the next Stuxnet for many orders of magnitude cheaper. Imagine a world where everyone could make their own Stuxnet to sic ...
...re was another step of the engineer actually implementing it. Now from the spec LLMs can just build it. That process of distillation of user need into software spec is more important than before, not less. Imagine if everyone had a pe...
...it required infinite patience to do it as a consumer, it wasn't viable. But now LLMs have infinite patience and you can deploy them to achieve your interests.