jacobgold

4 ms·

1.
by jacobgold 6d ago
Most people won't be honest with you about these things because there's very little incentive. People tend to react defensively like you are here. But it might actually help someone reading this to know the truth. Maybe it helps y
2.
by jacobgold 6d ago
I genuinely don't want to upset anyone, but as someone with 20+ years of engineering and management experience, I think it might help some people to hear what is most likely really going on here. This is probably an example of the Pete
3.
by jacobgold 10d ago
Vegas was such a great solution to gambling for Americans. We had it contained to a specific place, making it easy to access but also easy to avoid. Cryptocurrency, which turned into just another form of gambling, seems to have been the cor
4.
by jacobgold 11d ago
First, congrats to the team on launching something genuinely interesting and new. Seems like a more accurate title would be "Jev: Trading general purpose generation for fast typed inference" or something like that. This is interes
5.
by jacobgold 11d ago
Clor uses the official `claude` and `codex` harnesses directly, with a web interface, or via a web TUI interface.
6.
by jacobgold 12d ago
Low IQ: "Just use Claude and Codex" Midwit: "No, you see, you need a deterministic 12-stage multi-agent orchestration framework with vector embedding semantic routing, and five open weight models with custom harnesses!"
7.
by jacobgold 12d ago
That makes sense. I'm also using $200/mo Claude subscriptions, so I want to take advantage of the other 50% by using Opus.
8.
by jacobgold 12d ago
I originally had multiple skills for Claude and Codex but found that "ask" is a great single mechanism. "Ask claude about this" "Ask codex to implement this" "Ask claude to review this plan" etc
9.
by jacobgold 12d ago
I wish I knew, I haven't had any place to point people to. I'm going to start sharing this on YouTube since I already spend a few hours each week talking some friend or user through the latest best practices.
10.
by jacobgold 12d ago
Since you asked, the answer is that I built and use an agent multiplexer called Clor https://clor.com I have a $200/mo Claude subscription and a $200/mo Codex subscription, and I'm signed in to both. The Docker co
11.
by jacobgold 12d ago
My trick for using Opus is using it exclusively as a subagent managed by Fable. "Use Opus subagents for this work where possible" is all it takes generally. In my experience Astra/Sol are both quite good as workhorses, but no
12.
by jacobgold 12d ago
IMHO, Codex with Astra/Sol and Claude with Fable/Opus are all any professional programmer should be using in Sep 2026, if they can afford it. These models are still terrible compared to what we'd actually wish for, but they&#
13.
by jacobgold 13d ago
Working on Clor, an agent multiplexer for Claude and Codex with shared memory. It's free on your own machines. The idea is to help developers multiplex agent sessions and run Claude and Codex together, which is much more powerful tha
14.
by jacobgold 13d ago
B is not a claim that A has no evidence, that's just confused. It's an independent claim that there is 0% risk.
15.
by jacobgold 13d ago
The clear and predictable power of AI is the evidence for existential risk. Even if we don't get RSI or ASI, there's a risk we'll automate our world, then it'll break and we'll starve, etc.
16.
by jacobgold 13d ago
There are very clear and plausible pathways from AI to human extinction level events, regardless of how small you think the probability is. So yes, it very obviously is an extraordinary claim to say there is 0% existential risk.
17.
by jacobgold 13d ago
There seem to be two extraordinary claims which lack evidence: a) 10% existential risk b) 0% existential risk
18.
by jacobgold 13d ago
If you think AI will be powerful enough to change the world in huge ways, then it does seem reasonable to assume some level of risk of destroying the world too. Stating that the probability is zero when we simply don't know what the
19.
by jacobgold 13d ago
These are the sober and informed takes that we need more of. > the claims from Coxon and his ilk are the most extraordinary a technologist can make, and we must demand evidence commensurate with the claims. Yes, exactly. These claims d
20.
by jacobgold 13d ago
Someone who has spent $100M+ on Google Ads explained to me that Google is doing everything possible to juice their revenue right now, in ways they've never seen before. Seems like two things 1) Google is losing at AI and Sundar wants t
21.
by jacobgold 13d ago
That's an understandable first thought, but consider what the goal is for this: slowing down future development. This can be achieved by dramatically reducing the market value of models.
22.
by jacobgold 13d ago
Just like they're already doing with frontier-level open weight models? Do you imagine that Russian and Chinese intelligence don't have copies of the Mythos/Fable weights? The point is to slow progress of future models. Nothi
23.
by jacobgold 13d ago
Make it easy for these companies by passing a law that any AI model a company offers to the public (non-government) has to be released as open weights. This is how we deflate the bubble safely and completely, without having to introduce a g
24.
by jacobgold 13d ago
> The approach proposed by Amodei looks sensible... It's hard to imagine any government regulation that didn't look sensible on paper and at first. But we know that government regulation has an extremely mixed record, with lo
25.
by jacobgold 14d ago
Hey dang, what's the best way to deal with a submission being unfairly suppressed/flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49676085 This is a really important topic (and a lot of vested interests involved), s
26.
by jacobgold 14d ago
> What a lot of assumptions. You're making the assumption that it was "quite possibly malice" I'm making the assumption you might have gotten confused switching between accounts, as I have often been.
27.
by jacobgold 14d ago
Nobody gets taken out. Anthropic and OpenAI can keep selling inference, products, and agents. Every company will have more access than it has today, since it can run the weights itself or through third-parties. Many of them would keep payin
28.
by jacobgold 14d ago
That's a legitimate possibility but it's also much slower, more risky, and harder to raise money for than what they're doing now.
29.
by jacobgold 14d ago
It's somewhat doubtful but even if they did, that'd be much slower progress, achieving the goal.
30.
by jacobgold 14d ago
> ...their logical response will just be to stop offering public models. Anthropic gets most of its revenue from enterprise agreements anyway. Enterprises are part of the public in this context, so that's not a loophole which woul

More ›