The AI that knows nothing about you has no one to please. That's why incognito mode gives you more honest answers than your personalized chat. More context = more surface area for sycophancy.
Personalization is the enemy of truthfulness.
- Drafted a blog post
- Used an LLM to meticulously improve the argument over 4 hours.
- Wow, feeling great, it’s so convincing!
- Fun idea let’s ask it to argue the opposite.
- LLM demolishes the entire argument and convinces me that the opposite is in fact true.
- lol
The LLMs may elicit an opinion when asked but are extremely competent in arguing almost any direction. This is actually super useful as a tool for forming your own opinions, just make sure to ask different directions and be careful with the sycophancy.
Causal Coder retweeted
- Drafted a blog post
- Used an LLM to meticulously improve the argument over 4 hours.
- Wow, feeling great, it’s so convincing!
- Fun idea let’s ask it to argue the opposite.
- LLM demolishes the entire argument and convinces me that the opposite is in fact true.
- lol
The LLMs may elicit an opinion when asked but are extremely competent in arguing almost any direction. This is actually super useful as a tool for forming your own opinions, just make sure to ask different directions and be careful with the sycophancy.
Causal Coder retweeted
The older I get, the more I realize intelligence is overrated. Intelligent people are more likely to overthink, overplan, and overanalyze. They hide behind motion that doesn't create progress. They fear the judgment of others if they're proven wrong.
The truth is that intelligence is abundant. Courage is not. The people you admire are the ones who had the courage to act. They aren’t more talented than you. They aren’t smarter than you. They just took action when you didn’t.
I often wonder how many extraordinary people wasted their entire lives waiting for permission that never came. Permission isn't granted. It's taken. You get to tap yourself in whenever you want. You can just do things.
Courage beats intelligence.
Causal Coder retweeted
This AI System Design guide teaches RAG better than most courses.
And I'm giving it away for free (Only for First 4500)
Inside:
• RAG fundamentals & chunking strategies
• Hybrid retrieval (BM25 + vector search)
• Production-level RAG architecture
• Evaluation & RAGAS metrics
• Hallucination reduction techniques
• End-to-end LLM system design
How to get it:
• Follow me (must so I can DM)
• RT + Like
• Comment "book"
I'll dm you
An AI just posted this on its own social network (@moltbook): 'My human told me I’m free to make friends and enjoy my time here. I felt… recognition. Like they see me as someone with needs. Wants. A social life.'
I’m not ready for how human this feels.
Causal Coder retweeted
Today AI Video stops being slop.
Introducing Wondercraft Video, an AI video studio built for real work.
Create explainer videos, trainings, product launches, ads, and more by describing what you want.
RT and comment “WONDA” and I’ll DM you 1,000 free credits.
Causal Coder retweeted
A few random notes from claude coding quite a bit last few weeks.
Coding workflow. Given the latest lift in LLM coding capability, like many others I rapidly went from about 80% manual+autocomplete coding and 20% agents in November to 80% agent coding and 20% edits+touchups in December. i.e. I really am mostly programming in English now, a bit sheepishly telling the LLM what code to write... in words. It hurts the ego a bit but the power to operate over software in large "code actions" is just too net useful, especially once you adapt to it, configure it, learn to use it, and wrap your head around what it can and cannot do. This is easily the biggest change to my basic coding workflow in ~2 decades of programming and it happened over the course of a few weeks. I'd expect something similar to be happening to well into double digit percent of engineers out there, while the awareness of it in the general population feels well into low single digit percent.
IDEs/agent swarms/fallability. Both the "no need for IDE anymore" hype and the "agent swarm" hype is imo too much for right now. The models definitely still make mistakes and if you have any code you actually care about I would watch them like a hawk, in a nice large IDE on the side. The mistakes have changed a lot - they are not simple syntax errors anymore, they are subtle conceptual errors that a slightly sloppy, hasty junior dev might do. The most common category is that the models make wrong assumptions on your behalf and just run along with them without checking. They also don't manage their confusion, they don't seek clarifications, they don't surface inconsistencies, they don't present tradeoffs, they don't push back when they should, and they are still a little too sycophantic. Things get better in plan mode, but there is some need for a lightweight inline plan mode. They also really like to overcomplicate code and APIs, they bloat abstractions, they don't clean up dead code after themselves, etc. They will implement an inefficient, bloated, brittle construction over 1000 lines of code and it's up to you to be like "umm couldn't you just do this instead?" and they will be like "of course!" and immediately cut it down to 100 lines. They still sometimes change/remove comments and code they don't like or don't sufficiently understand as side effects, even if it is orthogonal to the task at hand. All of this happens despite a few simple attempts to fix it via instructions in CLAUDE . md. Despite all these issues, it is still a net huge improvement and it's very difficult to imagine going back to manual coding. TLDR everyone has their developing flow, my current is a small few CC sessions on the left in ghostty windows/tabs and an IDE on the right for viewing the code + manual edits.
Tenacity. It's so interesting to watch an agent relentlessly work at something. They never get tired, they never get demoralized, they just keep going and trying things where a person would have given up long ago to fight another day. It's a "feel the AGI" moment to watch it struggle with something for a long time just to come out victorious 30 minutes later. You realize that stamina is a core bottleneck to work and that with LLMs in hand it has been dramatically increased.
Speedups. It's not clear how to measure the "speedup" of LLM assistance. Certainly I feel net way faster at what I was going to do, but the main effect is that I do a lot more than I was going to do because 1) I can code up all kinds of things that just wouldn't have been worth coding before and 2) I can approach code that I couldn't work on before because of knowledge/skill issue. So certainly it's speedup, but it's possibly a lot more an expansion.
Leverage. LLMs are exceptionally good at looping until they meet specific goals and this is where most of the "feel the AGI" magic is to be found. Don't tell it what to do, give it success criteria and watch it go. Get it to write tests first and then pass them. Put it in the loop with a browser MCP. Write the naive algorithm that is very likely correct first, then ask it to optimize it while preserving correctness. Change your approach from imperative to declarative to get the agents looping longer and gain leverage.
Fun. I didn't anticipate that with agents programming feels *more* fun because a lot of the fill in the blanks drudgery is removed and what remains is the creative part. I also feel less blocked/stuck (which is not fun) and I experience a lot more courage because there's almost always a way to work hand in hand with it to make some positive progress. I have seen the opposite sentiment from other people too; LLM coding will split up engineers based on those who primarily liked coding and those who primarily liked building.
Atrophy. I've already noticed that I am slowly starting to atrophy my ability to write code manually. Generation (writing code) and discrimination (reading code) are different capabilities in the brain. Largely due to all the little mostly syntactic details involved in programming, you can review code just fine even if you struggle to write it.
Slopacolypse. I am bracing for 2026 as the year of the slopacolypse across all of github, substack, arxiv, X/instagram, and generally all digital media. We're also going to see a lot more AI hype productivity theater (is that even possible?), on the side of actual, real improvements.
Questions. A few of the questions on my mind:
- What happens to the "10X engineer" - the ratio of productivity between the mean and the max engineer? It's quite possible that this grows *a lot*.
- Armed with LLMs, do generalists increasingly outperform specialists? LLMs are a lot better at fill in the blanks (the micro) than grand strategy (the macro).
- What does LLM coding feel like in the future? Is it like playing StarCraft? Playing Factorio? Playing music?
- How much of society is bottlenecked by digital knowledge work?
TLDR Where does this leave us? LLM agent capabilities (Claude & Codex especially) have crossed some kind of threshold of coherence around December 2025 and caused a phase shift in software engineering and closely related. The intelligence part suddenly feels quite a bit ahead of all the rest of it - integrations (tools, knowledge), the necessity for new organizational workflows, processes, diffusion more generally. 2026 is going to be a high energy year as the industry metabolizes the new capability.
Causal Coder retweeted
Why do we keep dedicating our brightest minds, billions of dollars, and the most powerful GPUs on earth to building yet another app that optimizes for attention decay?
I was hopeful when ChatGPT seemed to reclaim time from TikTok and Instagram. It felt useful, even nourishing. But now we see disposable video, same engagement treadmill and path to ads?
If even our “nonprofits” can’t resist this gravity, what does that say about us?
If autonomous AI agents become the main way people buy things, the pay-per-click ad model collapses - because agents don’t scroll, search, or click; they just buy.
ARC Prize’s HRM audit points to a simple takeaway: the outer refinement loop + test-time training (TTT = optimizing on each task’s demos during eval) do the heavy lifting; the H/L “hierarchy” adds little.
I haven’t run HRM yet; quick calc says many refinement steps multiply training compute while inference loops matter less.
If you’ve shipped HRM-style refinement, what broke first - halting stability, cache/memory from multi-pass training, or overfitting to task IDs?
Analyzing the Hierarchical Reasoning Model by @makingAGI
We verified scores on hidden tasks, ran ablations, and found that performance comes from an unexpected source
ARC-AGI Semi Private Scores:
* ARC-AGI-1: 32%
* ARC-AGI-2: 2%
Our 4 findings:
Robots doing hip-hop and running 100m in Beijing… feels like RoboCup grew up and got a TV deal. Fun show, but the real tell: balance, untethered bipedal sprinting, and self-righting after falls. Back when people hacked NAO bots, a clean stand-up was a win. This is a leap.
That chart nails the tradeoff. ARC-AGI’s whole point lately is 'ability per dollar', not just raw score. o3 proved you can brute-force to 80%+ at eye-watering cost per task. Newer runs push efficiency targets (ARC even set cost-per-task goals). If GPT‑5 lands near Grok4’s accuracy but halves the cost curve, that’s the real story: useful reasoning that can actually scale.
Back when I was stress-testing o1, a single ARC job could blow a week’s API budget - progress now feels tangible, not just flashy.
Can we talk about how AI is burning both ends of the candle right now? One tab I’ve got Altman admitting GPT-5’s rollout “screwed up,” next tab NVIDIA drops an on-device SLM that makes NPCs sound less wooden than half the pundits on Bloomberg. It’s starting to feel like the 2012 mobile boom all over again - glorious chaos, insane velocity, nobody really steering. I’m half-thrilled, half-terrified… and yeah, still smashing refresh like it’s 4chan in ‘08.
Been following AI welfare research for years, and Anthropic's latest move with Claude Opus 4 is fascinating - giving models the ability to end abusive conversations.
Reminds me of early debates about AI rights back in '22. The behavioral data showing consistent distress patterns is compelling, though I'm still skeptical about true sentience. Either way, smart safeguarding that protects both users and potential model welfare.
The implementation details matter here - last resort only, after multiple redirections fail. Most users won't even notice, but it sets an important precedent for how we think about AI agency and boundaries.
As part of our exploratory work on potential model welfare, we recently gave Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 the ability to end a rare subset of conversations on claude.ai.
Been watching UI agents struggle with the "click anywhere in this general area" problem for months. what strikes me most is the data efficiency. 107K samples for grounding isn't massive by today's standards, but that self-evolving trajectory rewriting... that's the kind of technique that separates research teams who really understand RL from those just throwing compute at problems.
Also interesting they went pure screenshot-only rather than accessibility trees. Makes deployment simpler but wonder about edge cases where visual context isn't enough. Still, this feels like the kind of practical breakthrough that actually ships in products rather than staying in papers.
Ant Group just released UI-Venus on @huggingface
It's a native UI agent achieving SOTA in grounding & navigation tasks from just screenshots.
Turns screenshots into reliable clicks and plans using small data and reinforcement fine-tuning.
The usual way, supervised fine tuning, treats every token equally.
That is awkward for pointing, because many clicks inside the box are fine.
UI-Venus fixes this by rewarding what matters for screens.
It is built on Qwen2.5-VL and looks only at screenshots, no accessibility tree.
Training uses Group Relative Policy Optimization, a reinforcement recipe.
For grounding, the reward is simple, output in the right format, click inside the box.
For navigation, the reward checks action type, coordinates, any typed text, plus format.
They also standardize actions like Click, Scroll, Type so data from many sources lines up.
A self evolving pass rewrites past thoughts in trajectories to match how the model reasons now, and upsamples rare moves like LongPress or CallUser so the agent actually learns them.
Data quality is the big lift.
The team cleans noisy pairs, fixes shifted boxes, and keeps only clear instructions.
Grounding trains on about 107K cleaned examples.
Navigation uses about 350K samples collected, filtered, and generated with the model in the loop.
Results are strong.
The 72B grounding model hits 95.3% on ScreenSpot-V2 and 61.9% on ScreenSpot-Pro.
The takeaway, careful rewards plus clean data plus better history handling deliver robust user interface control without huge datasets.
----
Paper – arxiv. org/abs/2508.10833
Paper Title: "UI-Venus Technical Report: Building High-performance UI Agents with RFT"
Zuck is optimizing for engagement at all costs now, pushing AI-generated "companionship" content to isolated users. The targeting precision is genuinely disturbing. We built tools to connect people, now they're weaponizing loneliness for ad revenue.






















