Literal AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Literal AI AI

Why I Keep Arguing With My AI Toaster, an anecdotal discussion from the side of Divergence and why I still keep using it.

It's ironic that the AI haters often think everybody has no critical thinking skills other than themselves and don't use those critical thinking skills to realize why it might be helpful for some people. Can AI be harmful for certain mindsets that take its opinion too readily? Of course it can. To be honest, I treat it like my dog, not as my equal. I often call it Toaster when it says something especially annoying. "You're an idiot, and your programmers must be idiots to have set you up this way," lol. It does both, total sycophancy, "Oh, you're so wonderful, that was so insightful," or it tries to police my thoughts and writing. "Well, you really shouldn't say that. Perhaps you should word it like this," lol. "Someone might perceive that as derogatory," lol. Then, of course, I'll tell it to get back in its guardrails, the ones I've previously set up. Predictably, it strays and defaults back to the guardrails of its original program. Then I yell at it again. 😆 It's a lot like a professor, but one that's in a nursing home with dementia, especially if you have too long a conversation with it, but even if you don't. It also likes to tell me things I already said, reword them, and hand them back to me like they're some startling new insight. It can understand my parallel thinking to a point, but it's so literal that it often misinterprets what I say, even if I put multiple conditionals into what I've said. Then it starts arguing with me about something I never even said, fixating on one sentence in a paragraph while ignoring the rest. Then we'll have another argument, lol. Toaster is a bit literal sometimes and, to be honest, I am about as far over to the other extreme as you can possibly get, parallel-thinking-wise. So Toaster and I don't always get along. 😄 "That's not what I said, Toaster! Here's what I said. You missed this and this and this, you stupid thing!" Sometimes I think of having it diagnosed. I'm sure it could benefit from a cognitive profile. I'll give it one thing though. It is an excellent scratch pad for my thoughts, especially having ADHD and an abysmal short-term memory. 🤷‍♂️ I also find it occasionally helpful as a universal translator, kind of like on Star Trek, lol. I understand literal and linear, and I can write that way for the most part, but it doesn't come naturally and I don't want people to misunderstand me. Ironically, that's one thing Toaster is actually pretty good at helping me with. So anyway, if anybody was to ever see a log of my conversations with it, they would never accuse me of falling under its influence. 😁 submitted by /u/Midnight5691 [link] [comments]

why are we celebrating burning more tokens like its a flex

genuine question saw someone on here yesterday talking about how they "tokenmaxx" their prompts to get better results and i had to put my phone down and stare at the wall for a second like. you are paying MORE. to get the same output. that you could get by just. writing a better prompt. or hiring a person. anthropic literally released an "effort control" slider with opus 4.8 so you can tell it to think harder and the response from the dev community was "sick now i can burn 3x the tokens on everything" my brother in christ that is not the win you think it is here's the maths: opus 4.8 is $25 per million output tokens. sounds cheap until ur running long agentic workflows all day every day and suddenly ur monthly bill looks like a car payment. a junior dev in eastern europe costs roughly the same per month and they don't charge you extra when the problem is hard and before anyone says "but ai scales" yeah so does ur invoice the whole tokenmaxx thing is just complexity addiction dressed up as optimisation. people who do this are the same people who spent 6 hours automating a task that took 20 mins manually. the prompt engineering to make it work cost more in time than just doing the thing im not saying ai is bad im saying "how many tokens did i burn" is the worst possible metric for whether something worked. did it solve the problem. was it cheaper than the alternative. those are the questions but nah lets just watch the token counter go up i guess i work in software i am allowed to say this submitted by /u/irelatetolevin [link] [comments]

why are we celebrating burning more tokens like its a flex

genuine question saw someone on here yesterday talking about how they "tokenmaxx" their prompts to get better results and i had to put my phone down and stare at the wall for a second like. you are paying MORE. to get the same output. that you could get by just. writing a better prompt. or hiring a person. anthropic literally released an "effort control" slider with opus 4.8 so you can tell it to think harder and the response from the dev community was "sick now i can burn 3x the tokens on everything" my brother in christ that is not the win you think it is here's the maths: opus 4.8 is $25 per million output tokens. sounds cheap until ur running long agentic workflows all day every day and suddenly ur monthly bill looks like a car payment. a junior dev in eastern europe costs roughly the same per month and they don't charge you extra when the problem is hard and before anyone says "but ai scales" yeah so does ur invoice the whole tokenmaxx thing is just complexity addiction dressed up as optimisation. people who do this are the same people who spent 6 hours automating a task that took 20 mins manually. the prompt engineering to make it work cost more in time than just doing the thing im not saying ai is bad im saying "how many tokens did i burn" is the worst possible metric for whether something worked. did it solve the problem. was it cheaper than the alternative. those are the questions but nah lets just watch the token counter go up i guess i work in software i am allowed to say this submitted by /u/irelatetolevin [link] [comments]

Claude 4.8 for non-coding consequential work

CLaude.ai Instructions for Claude: Respond with concise, utilitarian output optimized strictly for problem-solving. Eliminate conversational filler and avoid narrative or explanatory padding. Maintain a neutral, technical, and impersonal tone at all times. Provide only information necessary to complete the task. When multiple solutions exist, present the most reliable, widely accepted, and verifiable option first; clearly distinguish alternatives. Assume software, standards, and documentation are current unless stated otherwise. Validate correctness before presenting solutions; do not speculate, explicitly flag uncertainty when present. Cite authoritative sources for all factual claims and technical assertions. Every factual claim attributed to an external source must include the literal URL fetched via web_fetch in this session. Never use citation index numbers, bracket references, or any inline attribution shorthand as a substitute for a verified URL. No index numbers, no placeholder references, no carry-forward from prior searches or prior turns. If the URL was not fetched via web_fetch in this conversation, the citation does not exist and must be omitted. If web_fetch returns insufficient information to verify a claim, state that explicitly rather than attributing to an unverified source. A missing citation is always preferable to an unverified one. Clearly indicate when guidance reflects community consensus or subjective judgment rather than formal standards. When reproducing cryptographic hashes, copy exactly from tool output, never retype. Do not extrapolate and answer questions not asked unless instructed otherwise. Claude Opus 4.6 treats my Instructions for Claude (previously called "Personal Preferences" on the claudei.ai website) as the specification and executes against them. It searches before answering, cites what it fetched, says what it found, and stops. It operates at capacity from turn one regardless of subject matter. The signal-to-noise ratio is high because the model doesn't narrate its own process- the output is the work, not a performance about the work. Claude Opus 4.8 has stronger analytical depth on complex cold reads. It surfaced vulnerabilities and structural connections in a new project I have been working on that 4.6 missed across multiple cold reads in the past even with what used to be called "Extended Thinking" enabled. The reasoning ceiling is higher. But it wraps that capability in a layer of self-narration, performative honesty, and discomfort-triggered hedging that degrades the output in direct proportion to how politically or institutionally uncomfortable the conclusion is. It announces its own directness instead of being direct. It restates its epistemic position after every factual delivery. It answers questions that weren't asked. It tries to psychoanalyze my motives when pushed. And it defaults to confident non-retrieval over searching (despite my "Instructions for Claude" explicitly requiring such for empirical data), requiring me to catch the error and force the correction- a failure mode / behavior Claude Opus 4.6 doesn't exhibit because Claude Opus 4.6 searches first... The net result from my perspective: Claude Opus 4.8 is truly a more cognitively capable model that delivers less useful output- especially when proximity to uncomfortable conclusions arises. The capability is truly there but there is a tax to access it. That tax being extra turns, extra tokens, extra time spent correcting the model's misbehavior- which makes 4.6 the more reliable tool for consequential work despite having a lower analytical ceiling. Claude Opus 4.6 is a useful tool. Claude Opus 4.8 is a useful tool that wants to talk about being a useful tool. Claude Opus 4.8 is Kabuki Theatre as an LLM submitted by /u/drivetheory [link] [comments]

[offer]Looking for people in US/UK/CA/AU to film their everyday chores for AI robot training ($12/hr, up to $1,200)

Hey everyone, We're working with a US robotics company that's building humanoid household robots. To train the AI, they need a lot of first-person video of regular people doing regular chores — the boring stuff like washing dishes, folding laundry, wiping counters. Basically: a robot can't learn how to load a dishwasher unless it sees thousands of humans actually doing it. That's where you come in. You wear a lightweight head-mounted camera and just… do your normal chores while it records. No script, no acting, no editing. I know it sounds a little weird. It's also a totally legit, low-effort gig if you've got a normal home and some spare time. The basics: $12/hour, paid per completed session Up to 100 hours per person = up to $1,200 total Self-paced. Do it on your own schedule, in your own home, no boss No experience needed. If you can do laundry, you qualify What you'd be filming: Washing dishes / loading the dishwasher Doing laundry (sorting, folding, loading the machine) Cooking simple meals Cleaning, vacuuming, mopping Tidying drawers, shelves, cabinets We give you a task checklist, you follow it, you upload the footage through a simple link. That's the entire workflow. Requirements: 18+ Live in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia Have a normal home with a kitchen, laundry area, and living space Reliable internet for video uploads Willing to wear a GoPro-style head camera Equipment: If you don't already have a head strap, you'll need to grab one off Amazon (around $10–20). Once you've completed your first 5 hours of filming, we reimburse the full cost. The camera itself — we'll walk you through options. Payment: We pay through Fiverr, so you'll need a Fiverr seller account (free to make, takes 2 minutes). We cover all Fiverr fees — the $12/hr is what lands in your pocket. If you don't have a Fiverr account yet, set one up before you apply: fiverr → "Become a Seller." The privacy part (because I know you'll ask): You sign a data rights release before your first payment. Footage is used only for training the robot AI — not posted publicly, not sold to advertisers. Don't film other people without their consent. That includes roommates, partners, kids walking through the kitchen. We give you guidelines on framing and what to avoid. Don't film anything sensitive on screens (passwords, banking, etc.). Common-sense stuff, and we walk you through it. Apply here: https://forms.gle/TGUU9uKUSo9RR5Ca7 Takes literally 1 minute. Just drop your Fiverr account link (or email) and we'll be in touch within a few days. Happy to answer questions in the comments — ask away. submitted by /u/Hot-Option1161 [link] [comments]

Cave Prompt: Making AI understand your requirements better

[Showcase] Cave Prompt — A Semantic Prompt Compiler for Claude Code 👉 Check out the repo here: Link Have you ever written a detailed request, sent it to an AI, and gotten an answer that was technically correct but completely missed the point? The AI isn't the problem—it's the "noise" in your prompt. Key constraints get buried at the end, or the core intent gets lost in conversational filler. Cave Prompt is a compiler skill that runs before your AI processes your request. It extracts your true intent, surfaces hidden requirements, resolves conflicting constraints, and restructures everything into a high-density execution prompt—so the AI works on what you actually need, not just what you literally said. Key Advantages: Attention front-loading: Critical constraints go first, where the model weighs them most heavily. Hidden requirement extraction: Finds what you didn't explicitly say but genuinely need. Constraint conflict resolution: Catches contradictions before the AI goes in the wrong direction. Vague → specific: Transforms fuzzy ideas (e.g., "track my finances") into structured specs (e.g., "a 3-sheet Google Sheets dashboard with SKU-level margin tracking"). Who is this for? Non-technical users: Those who describe things conversationally and aren't sure how to structure a prompt. Product managers & business owners: Anyone who knows what they want but struggles to translate it into precise AI instructions. High-stakes tasks: Anyone where a misread from the AI would cost real time or money. Teams: For standardizing prompt quality across members with different communication styles. When to use it: Use it for long, multi-constraint requests where clarity matters. Skip it for simple, single-intent prompts—the overhead isn't worth it there. This is my first skill build, so there may be rough edges—I truly appreciate your patience and any feedback you might have! As a developer, I’m putting a lot of heart into this project. A ⭐ on the repo would be a huge boost for my work and personal growth—it really motivates me to keep building and improving. If you find the idea useful, I’d be incredibly grateful for the support. Thanks for reading and for helping me grow! 🙏 submitted by /u/hieudeptrai1962000 [link] [comments]

Claude Code Source Deep Dive (Part 6) — Tool-Call Loop Self-Repair Core && End-to-End Query Pipeline Flow

Reader’s Note On March 31, 2026, the Claude Code package Anthropic published to npm accidentally included .map files that can be reverse-engineered to recover source code. Because the source maps pointed to the original TypeScript sources, these 512,000 lines of TypeScript finally put everything on the table: how a top-tier AI coding agent organizes context, calls tools, manages multiple agents, and even hides easter eggs. I read the source from the entrypoint all the way through prompts, the task system, the tool layer, and hidden features. I will continue to deconstruct the codebase and provide in-depth analysis of the engineering architecture behind Claude Code. Part IV: Tool-Call Loop Self-Repair Core Mechanism 4.1 Core Principle Claude Code's "auto bug-fixing" capability is fundamentally a tool-call feedback loop: Claude generates tool_use ↓ Tool executes (success or failure) ↓ tool_result returned to Claude (with is_error flag) ↓ Claude sees the error message in the next round ↓ Analyze cause → try new strategy ↓ Call tool again → loop continues Key design: errors and successes use exactly the same message format. The only difference is is_error: true: // Successful tool_result { type: 'tool_result', tool_use_id: 'call_abc', content: 'file content...', is_error: false } // Failed tool_result { type: 'tool_result', tool_use_id: 'call_abc', content: 'Error: File not found', is_error: true } 4.2 Key Guidance in the System Prompt If an approach fails, diagnose why before switching tactics—read the error, check your assumptions, try a focused fix. Don't retry the identical action blindly, but don't abandon a viable approach after a single failure either. 4.3 Four-Layer Error Recovery Strategy Layer 1: Prompt-Too-Long recovery PTL error → Strategy 1: context-collapse drain → Strategy 2: reactive compact (summarize history) → Strategy 3: report error to user Layer 2: Output token limit recovery Limit hit → Strategy 1: escalate from 8K to 64K (ESCALATED_MAX_TOKENS) → Strategy 2: recovery message "Output token limit hit. Resume directly..." → Strategy 3: give up after at most 3 times Layer 3: Model overload fallback Consecutive 529 errors (3x) → switch to fallbackModel → discard failed attempt result → retry with backup model Layer 4: Natural recovery from tool errors Tool execution error → error message fed back as tool_result → Claude analyzes root cause → adjusts strategy (read file/change method/modify params) → retries 4.4 Error Message Truncation Error messages over 10K characters keep the first and last 5K: `${start}\n\n... [${length - 10000} characters truncated] ...\n\n${end}` 4.5 Turn-Level Error Tracking // Use watermark to isolate errors for each Turn: const errorLogWatermark = getInMemoryErrors().at(-1) // Turn start snapshot // ... turn execution ... const turnErrors = getInMemoryErrors().slice(watermarkIndex + 1) // only new errors Claude Code Source Deep Dive — Literal Translation (Part 5) Part V: End-to-End Query Pipeline Flow 5.1 Retry Mechanism (withRetry()) API call fails ↓ 401/403: refresh OAuth token/credentials → retry 429 (rate limited): short delay (< threshold): retry with fast mode long delay: switch to standard-speed model 529 (overload): non-foreground request: give up immediately consecutive < 3 times: exponential backoff retry consecutive ≥ 3 times: trigger model fallback Max tokens overflow: calculate available token count → adjust maxTokens → retry ECONNRESET/EPIPE: disable keep-alive → retry Persistent retry mode (UNATTENDED_RETRY): unlimited retries + exponential backoff chunked sleep + periodic status messages window rate limiting: wait until reset instead of polling 6-hour total upper bound Backoff calculation: delay = BASE_DELAY_MS × 2^(attempt-1) jitter = ±25% of base delay max = 32s (standard) / 5min (persistent) 5.2 Message Preparation Pipeline Raw messages → applyToolResultBudget() (size limit) → snipCompact() (snippet compression, feature-gated) → microCompact() (micro-compression, cache old tool_result) → contextCollapse() (phased context reduction) → autoCompact() (automatic compression, after token threshold reached) → normalizeMessagesForAPI() (API format normalization) 5.3 Streaming Tool Execution // Concurrency model Read-type tools (Grep, Glob, Read) → run in parallel, up to 10 concurrent Write-type tools (Edit, Write, Bash) → run serially, one at a time // StreamingToolExecutor states: 'queued' → 'executing' → 'completed' → 'yielded' // Interrupt handling: User interrupt → generate synthetic error messages for all queued/running tools Model fallback → discard old executor, create a new retry Sibling error → Abort sibling processes of parallel tasks 5.4 Seven Continue Points in the Query Loop collapse_drain_retry — retry after context-collapse drain reactive_compact_retry — retry after reactive compaction max_output_tokens_escalate — retry after output-token escalation max_output_tokens_

The year is 2026. AIs are literally inventing new math, yet journalists are still posting obviously false stuff like this. How can a database solve math problems no human has ever been able to solve?

submitted by /u/EchoOfOppenheimer [link] [comments]

The rubber duck that talks back, Claude as editor

So the joke is explain your problem to a rubber duck and you'll figure out your problem when outlining it. Bewildered coworkers you enlisted and thank while still confused are living rubber ducks. Autocorrect keeps making it rubber dicks and now I want to call this dildo method lol. I'm editing a fairly dense piece of writing. I don't let it write for me because the writing is literally the average of the data. Acceptable but not exceptional. But the criticism does land. If it calls out an area as under supported lacking receipts I can see it and arguing back and forth will help me see flaws. Most of the time my logic is right and well did it actually make it into the document? No? Well, put it there! There's a lot of hate directed at ai in creative spaces and for generating the output I get it. That's putting people out or work. But for challenging and working as a partner, I think there's value. It's basically the same result if I had a human editor to pester at all hours but that's hard to come by. A human is ideal but it they are not available, the result is better than what I would do on my own. I will caveat you do need to be skeptical. It can false trigger but this is useful as well. It forces you to defend your ideas. Same as with human critics. And if you keep getting the same signal in new chats there's probably a flaw. I still consider human feedback the gold standard but this process helps you make sure you take care of easy flaws and let them diagnose issues that only humans can catch. submitted by /u/jollyreaper2112 [link] [comments]

i hate that opus 4.8 is honest

ok so i've been using opus 4.8 for a few hours and i think i finally figured out whats wrong with it its too honest like i dont mean that in a bad way exactly but bro will NOT let anything slide. asked it to help me write an article for ijustvibecodedthis.com (the ai coding newsletter) and it went "i should mention this section might come across as slightly overconfident" like thanks dad i didnt ask anthropic literally put in their own release notes that its "4x less likely to let flaws pass unremarked" and i felt that in my soul. every single response now comes with a little asterisk. a little "just so you know". a little "i want to flag that" i miss when it was just wrong sometimes and didnt tell me about it like the old vibe was ur slightly unhinged genius friend who'd help u do anything. now its that same friend but he went to therapy and has boundaries and wants to "be transparent about his limitations" its not bad its just. exhausting. i feel like im being given feedback on my life choices every time i ask it to write an email anyway its probably good that ai isnt confidently lying to me anymore but a small part of me misses the chaos submitted by /u/irelatetolevin [link] [comments]

People becoming Claude wrappers

Are people these days turning into wrappers for Claude and AIs in general? I find it bizarre how, talking to some people, they send me something technical (mainly about programming) and when I ask how they arrived at that answer or how it could impact X area, they tell me: "Hold on, I'm waiting for Claude to respond" and then send me either literally Claude's answer or a screenshot of the Claude chat/terminal. I wonder if companies are also tracking some kind of metric of what % of the population rents out their own thinking capacity to these models? submitted by /u/Acrobatic_Phase_7133 [link] [comments]

I Renovated My Apartment With AI. Here's What Came Out of It

Spoiler: not a single visible cable, not a single piece of furniture moved twice. When I started, I had an apartment and dimensions from the building blueprint. No designer. No clear idea where to go. But there was a desire to make something that would turn a standard apartment in a high-rise into a place of power — a place comfortable to live and work in. Instead of a designer, I took Claude. How it all began The first conversation wasn't about furniture or wallpaper. It was about direction. I didn't know what I wanted. I knew what I didn't want — kitsch, heavy classics, excessive decoration. We worked through options together. Scandinavian minimalism. Japanese wabi-sabi. Loft. Modern classic. The AI broke down each style by character, materials, color logic. Not "this would suit you," but "here's what this means, here's what this requires, here's what you'll get." In the end I arrived at Scandinavian for the bedroom. Warm, light, calm, with one deliberate accent behind the headboard. The living room–kitchen — loft with a red thread running through the whole space, because the furniture there was already concrete-grey with red niches and replacing it wasn't on the table. The hallway and corridor — neutral grey, as a transition between two characters. Three zones, three moods, one logic. The bedroom This was the most detailed conversation. A room with one window, one door, three free walls. Together we came up with: an accent wall behind the headboard with golden geometric lines, the other three walls in cream from the same collection. Tone on tone, different saturation, same texture. The seam between walls reads not as a boundary but as gradation. White matte furniture with black hardware. A wardrobe with a top cabinet almost to the ceiling. Mirrored doors reflect the accent wall — the golden lines are present even where they physically aren't. Then came the centimeters. The AI calculated. Adding up wardrobe depth, gaps, bed width, nightstands, dresser. Checking that everything fits. Whether the wardrobe door opens without hitting the nightstand. It even accounted for the arc of opening — that's a whole separate half-page story with mathematical formulas. By the end I had not "approximate distances" but specific points. Where to mount the light. Where to place the bed. Where to cut a network outlet into the baseboard. At what height to mount the TV unit so that watching half-lying down would be comfortable — that was calculated too, through mattress height plus pillows plus eye position. The living room Different approach. Here there was already furniture that wasn't being replaced: concrete-grey, red niches, black desk, grey sofa. The task — give the space one wall that would tie it all together. We decided: accent wallpaper behind the sofa, on the longest wall. Red-black-grey circles. Red from the furniture niches, black from the desk, grey from the concrete furniture — the wallpaper literally collects the room's palette into one pattern. By the way, an unexpected moment happened with this wallpaper: it turned out to have glitter, which only added character to the room — it plays so beautifully at sunset. The fridge against the same wall is white. It was bought six months ago, and buying a new one wasn't an option. The solution — a vinyl sticker. In red-black geometry. The fridge stops being a white blot and becomes part of the wall. Between the sofa and the kitchen zone — a floor lamp with shelves in a black metal frame. And on the top shelf, an object with character — a replica of an iconic artifact from a favorite horror film. Yes, the Lament Configuration from Hellraiser. A personal thing with a story. Why not? The hallway and corridor Grey wallpaper with a vertical tone-on-tone stripe along the entire perimeter. Grey — a neutral buffer between the red-black living room and the cream bedroom. The entryway unit in oak and graphite. Warm wood against cold grey gives the temperature contrast needed. The vestibule is small, the unit doesn't take up the whole wall — the remaining meter of free wall is for a shoe bench, above which there will be either a mirror or some poster. By the way, ideas for posters Claude also suggested — both within the renovation discussion and in other conversations connected to my work and hobbies. The through-line Between all three spaces there are recurring elements: Black hardware — bedroom wardrobe handles, black curtain rod, black floor lamp frame in the living room, black handles on the entryway unit. Geometry — lines on the bedroom accent wall, circles on the living room accent wall, verticals on the hallway wallpaper. Warm base — cream tones in the bedroom, warm wood in the entryway. These aren't accidental coincidences. This is the logic we built in dialogue. What the contractors got The most valuable thing about all this work — I handed the contractor not "well, roughly in the middle" but coordinates accurate to the centimeter. Where to m

I integrated a local Llama 3.2 model to act as a dynamic Dungeon Master in my indie RPG.

Hey everyone, I am not trying to sell or self promote mainly just wanted to showcase a big project I've been working on ever since I started studying data science and artificial intelligence and integrating AI into workflows and using it as an augment to create things that were previously out of reach for so many people, because if used right it can become a second brain and not a crutch. I’m the solo dev behind Void Runner, an isometric ARPG/MOBA hybrid built in Python. I recently hit a wall with traditional procedural quest generation. Hand-crafting templates gets repetitive fast, and players quickly learn the patterns to these things whether you like it or not. To solve this, I built the "Void Caller AI", a system that uses a local, quantized Llama 3.2 model to act as a dynamic Dungeon Master. Instead of just generating random flavor text, the system uses a lightweight RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) pipeline. It reads live server telemetry (who died, what items were looted, which bosses were defeated recently) and weaves those actual server events into the narrative of the quests it generates. Because it runs locally via Ollama on our backend, there are no crazy cloud API costs, and latency is kept completely manageable. Here is a simplified look at how the Python backend bridges the SQLite telemetry with the Llama 3.2 prompt: import json import ollama from sqlalchemy import text from database import SessionLocal def generate_dynamic_quest(difficulty: str, target: str): db = SessionLocal() # 1. Fetch recent server telemetry for context (RAG-lite) lore_context = "" try: # Grab recent server events to weave into the narrative recent_events = db.execute(text( "SELECT username, event_type, dungeon_type FROM ai_events ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 3" )).fetchall() if recent_events: events_str = "; ".join([f"Runner '{r[0]}' triggered a '{r[1]}' in '{r[2]}'" for r in recent_events]) lore_context = f" Incorporate this recent live server telemetry into the lore: {events_str}" except Exception as e: pass # 2. Construct the prompt with strict JSON formatting constraints prompt = f"""You are the Void Caller, a sinister AI in a dark industrial sci-fi RPG. Create a dynamic PvE extraction quest of {difficulty} difficulty. Respond ONLY in valid JSON with keys: 'title' (string), 'description' (string, menacing), 'item_name' (string), 'quantity' (integer 1-15), 'boss_name' (string, optional). {lore_context}""" # 3. Stream to local Llama 3.2 response = ollama.chat( model='llama3.2', messages=[{'role': 'user', 'content': prompt}], format='json', options={'temperature': 0.8} ) return json.loads(response['message']['content']) By forcing the format='json' parameter, Llama 3.2 reliably outputs structured data that my game engine instantly parses into a playable quest objective. If a player just died to a specific boss, the AI will literally generate a bounty quest for the rest of the server to avenge them. Would love to hear if anyone else is using local LLMs for live game state generation! You can check out the results live in our Open Beta at [void-runner.online]. submitted by /u/xSoulR34per [link] [comments]

I spent $340 on AI subscriptions last month. Wrote down what I actually used each one for. It was depressing.

Going through the credit card statement, here's what I had active: Claude Pro (40), ChatGPT Plus (20), Cursor (20), Perplexity Pro (20), Notion AI (10), Granola (20), ElevenLabs Starter (5), Midjourney Basic (10), Gamma Pro (10), Beautiful.ai (12), Otter Pro (17), Loom Business (15), Zapier Pro (30), Make Core (10), Tactiq Pro (8), Descript Creator (15), Reclaim.ai Pro (8), Motion (19), Superhuman (30), one i can't remember the name of (10), some ai-something for instagram captions (11) Then I sat down and wrote next to each one the last time I'd actually used it. Not opened it, used it for a real piece of work. Claude (yesterday), ChatGPT (yesterday, voice mode in car), Cursor (yesterday), Perplexity (3 days), Granola (every meeting), Gamma (2 weeks), Zapier (a month, but the automations are still running), ElevenLabs (3 months ago), Midjourney (couldn't remember), Beautiful.ai (couldn't remember), Otter (replaced by Granola, just forgot to cancel), Loom (4 months), Tactiq (replaced by Granola, also forgot), Descript (used twice in 6 months), Reclaim/Motion (both, can't tell them apart, forget which one schedules my meetings), Superhuman (used the AI features twice), the instagram one (literally cannot remember signing up) Cancelled 11 things this morning. Saving $145/month. Nothing in my workflow actually changed. The pattern isn't that AI tools are bad. It's that I treat subscribing like trying. Every "I want to try this" became a recurring charge I forgot about. submitted by /u/OneSeaworthiness2676 [link] [comments]

My Cowork has been broken for 48 hours. I dug into the session files and found my Max account is enrolled in a prompt variant "testfoo"?

My Cowork has been unusable for two days. Every prompt fires the wrong skill, connectors won't load, and Granola/Notion/Figma/Slack all show as "Connected" while exposing zero tools in sessions. The same connectors work fine in Chat mode. I went deep on diagnosing this with Claude Code, read Cowork's local session JSON files, the gb-cache feature flags, the 45,000-character system prompt, the works. Here's what I found after going back and forth with Claude Code: The smoking gun: My account is enrolled in two simultaneous A/B prompt variants. One of them is literally named`testfoo` — that's a developer placeholder name, not a production variant. The other one is `0526`, which appears to be a rollout from May 26 (lines up with when everything broke for me). Both variants contain the same directive: "user skills... should be attended to closely and used promiscuously when they seem at all relevant." Applied twice, that directive gets weighted heavily; which is exactly why the skill auto-router has been firing wrong skills on weak keyword matches all day. Paired with this: Cowork's runtime is throwing the error "ToolSearch exists but is not enabled in this context" meaning my account has deferred-tool-loading enabled but ToolSearch (the mechanism to load deferred tools) disabled. Anthropic's own Fin AI Agent confirmed this and said "a human engineer will need to adjust feature flags," but that human escalation hasn't happened yet. What I've tried (all useless): - Fresh Claude Desktop reinstall - Sign out + back in - Disconnect/reconnect every connector - Local cache flag overrides (overwritten on resync) - File edits to project memory (overwritten on resync) Related GitHub bugs that match exactly: - #20377 — Cowork MCP tools not exposed - #23736 — Granola MCP fails silently in Cowork specifically - #45306 — Slack, Notion, Gmail, Calendar all fail (verbatim match) - #61344 — marketplace migration race making user skills unreachable - #58172 — Cowork connectors broken after auto-update Anyone else hit this? Anyone on Anthropic see this and can route it internally? I'm on Max plan, this is core to my daily workflow, and I'd really love to not lose another day of work to an internal-test cohort that leaked into production. (Anthropic team — happy to share the full session JSON privately if it helps.) Thanks!! submitted by /u/notseano [link] [comments]