Could anyone explain to me what the problem is with this? I thought I was fairly up to date on these things, but this was a surprise to me. I see the sibling comment getting downvoted but I promise I'm asking this in good faith, even if it might seem like a silly question (?) for some reason.

From what I'm reading in other comments, the problem was Claude1 got increasingly "frustrated" with Claude2's inability to do whatever the human was asking, and started breaking it's own rules (using ALL CAPS).

Sort of like MS's old chatbot that turned into a Nazi overnight, but this time with one agent simply getting tired of the other agent's lack of progress (for some definition of progress - I'm still not entirely sure what the author was feeding into Claude1 alongside errors from Claude2).

My girlfriend built a web app for meeting up in small groups. I think it's going to be fun! It's not public yet but almost there. Let me know if you live around Stockholm (or Sweden perhaps) and want to beta test it!

https://laszlo.nu just a silly landing page right now because I found a fun font and wanted to see if I could recreate the look of an old screen with scanlines using only css.

"We are highly confident this text was AI generated"

96% AI generated according to gptzero.

Which I wouldn't mind, honestly, if it had something useful, insightful, or original to say.

In a way I'm glad it doesn't seem to be written by a human:

> What used to be a disagreement becomes “emotional labor.”

> A bad mood gets labeled “toxic energy.”

This sounds like someone who dismisses their partner's feelings as fragmented memes, and sees her as almost brain-washed by the algorithm.

It contrasts this against a time where a relationship was something entirely different, where he could know everyone she's interacting with.

> And it doesn’t stop there.

> She has friends.

God forbid...

If this was a person and not an AI, they would sound incredibly controlling. Maybe the "toxicity" and "red flag" ideas didn't form in a vacuum?

Quorn is based on fungus. I'm not a huge fan of it myself but it's sold across the EU, and it's in almost all stores where I live.

"Two year of average use"?

I’m not talking grammar, I’m talking convention.

Think of it more like this: If I was selling you a car and said it would last for years, then would you expect it to fall apart after two years? I certainly wouldn’t. When talking about small quantities we tend to specify an exact number (two, three), however as the range becomes larger and less exact we use generalities (years). Because of this “years” would typically refer to a span of at least 3-5 years, and I would argue even longer.

Even given that convention, with your example, a car is a far steeper investment than this ring. The more you invest in something, the more you expect to get out of it, and this ring is designed for a very low investment point, while still being highly durable (there are other similar rings out there at even lower investment points, but they probably won't survive anything beyond a sprinkle).

I think Crystal, Nim, Julia and F# were my favorites from last year's AoC

I wrote a bit more about it here https://laszlo.nu/blog/advent-of-code-2024.html

AoC is a great opportunity for exploring languages!

> A hundred years from now, thanks to the workings of the Inhuman Centipede, I’m known as a deservedly obscure dadaist prose stylist who thought it was cool to stop his books mid-sentence.

I love the "Inhuman Centipede" definition for AI. Is that a Stephenson original or he is quoting existing usage.

I guess we've both been traumatized by modern linux distros?