Turned Stepper (self-hosted AWS StepFunctions) into client-server. Server hosts state machines, clients poll for tasks. New resources about running . claude -p works, now thinking if I need interactive session management.
Any conversation
I find myself building bespoke tooling for my own and workflows these days, not only because of the obvious reason of software being so much cheaper to build, but also because there are SO MANY options for solving any given problem that it feels impossible to evaluate all of them.
If it's not a crucial piece of tech for a work problem then it often feels like paving my own way is both cheaper mentally (kind of amazing that's true these days) and probably a better fit.
It will become increasingly harder to find niche markets for software when those people can just build it themselves exactly how they want it. In the end, people want to accomplish tasks, and the AI is going to be building the software on-the-fly exactly for that task, why do we need generic software that may or may not be a fit?
Yeah. It makes me think that protocols for exchanging data between apps will become even more important in that landscape. But maybe, not - maybe each exchange is another bespoke AI-driven implementation?
Protocols, infrastructure, containers, those kinds of things. I was actually playing around with an idea for a minimal markup language + runtime that can be utilized by AI to spin up apps more easily, and brainstorming it with ChatGPT, I have a feeling something like that will appear soon to complement MCP.
รrdekes ez a 4, 2-es irodalmi, valamint programozรกsi hagyomรกny, amire Douglas Adams hรญvta fel a figyelmet, nรกlam ebbลl a hagyomรกnybรณl 4 a pszichiรกtriai, 2 a rehabilitรกciรณs tรฉma, ami รฉrdekes mรณdon maga is 4, 2-es, ami olyan, mintha rekurzรญv kezdene lenni, de mรฉgsem az teljesen www.textlog.hu/a-4-adel-es-2-szuzett/
This 4, 2 literary and programming tradition, which Douglas Adams drew attention to, is interesting. In my case, 4 of this tradition are psychiatric and 2 are rehabilitation topics, which is interestingly itself a 4, 2, which seems to be starting to be recursive, but it is not completely www.textlog.hu/a-4-adel-es-2-szuzett/
Hello @stagasprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog, could a default tree/flat view setting be added under Interface > Misc?
creative technologist
creator of textlog, could a default tree/flat view setting be added under Interface > Misc?been building a voice first os using jev and some small voice models. I'm surprised how well it's working and I'm very close to the point where I can go into a feedback mode and tell it what behavior I want changed, it will spin up Claude or codex inside itself and setup the build to restart itself and continue with new code. tempted to let it build itself completely
I'm doing experiments with short attention-span students and code. Starting with python, and, oddly, now working in BASIC. As a C programmer of 40+ years, I find this aesthetically and pedagogically displeasing, but I am delighted to see them getting fully absorbed in writing
130 PRINT "You have been eaten by a bear!" : GOTO 900. Yes there is spaghetti, but it's their spaghetti and they seem to take delight in debugging it. Python will come later. I subscribe to the Tony Stark school of engineering. "Sometimes you have to run before you walk." Earlier this year, I built my own static site generator. I hate literally every static site generator out there (not joking). get-taxus.org
(Opinion) People donโt like generative AI because it made the {insert creativity} too easy. Saw the HN post on โAI music banned from top 40 chart in Australiaโ and people had very strong opinions in both directions.
The hot take: If youโre ok with someoneโs creativity being outsourced to others, then you should be ok with AI doing the same.
If โAI made this and I call it mineโ is bad but โsomeone overseas on fivver made this and I call it mineโ and itโs suddenly ok, time to self reflect.
โฆ
My hot take: from the moment you use technology, be it an instrument, a synthesizer, a DAW, and now AI, it is still your idea, your effort, your time spent, and that makes it yours. Others can do the same if they choose. The same way someone chooses a classic guitar over a synthesizer, one can choose an AI over (insert ancient way of doing things).
โฆ
Youโre rolling the dice whenever you are searching for a sample or a preset in a synthesizer. Eventually itโs what โsounds goodโ, so still the effort is your judgement and the time spent finding that โdice rollโ that sounded well.
I am not a musician, so I lack the jargon to properly explain what I mean.
I used AI for creative writing (nothing too fancy, TTRPG). There, the broader the dice roll, the more generic and uninteresting the results. Slop, if you will. It was surprisingly good to build up on ideas I had however.
I imagine muisic also has building blocks. Melodies, instruments, mixing, etc. AI can perhaps be used in a similar fashion there.
I heard a perspective I sort of like: if AI is a tool then acceptable AI use is, more or less, defined as "when my audience no longer notices or cares". It's dynamic like that. Bad photoshop is detectable and annoying, so are overusing presets. Your artistry needs to expand to meet the tool.
I don't know if I 100% like that or agree. At the same time, it's a pretty straightforward line, a practical take.
I started bloggingโฆ again
mataherry.bearblog.dev
โฆ
NIH syndrome? I am guilty of it too. I love implementing things from scratch, you learn a lot by doing so and you get to own the codebase end-to-end, so no surprises and fighting around othersโ choices. It can get exhausting too though, in the end I succumb to using off-the-shelf components because my primary goals move at a higher level.
I don't see much point in trying to build software at a "higher level", like whole products and services. I'm going to go down low and train myself on the fundamentals. Hopefully in time I'll be able to contribute to the foundational bits.
You're right, it does get exhausting. At some point you just want to rebuild everything, which is not possible.