I would assume it's the harness sending the model a notification toward the end. At least Claude Code is designed to attach reminders with tool call output as a way for the harness itself to steer the model slightly.
Relatively sure it's not. I'm using pi and I can't find any place it's doing any such thing. My current theory is that it's behavior trained into the model either accidentally or intentionally, probably during post-training in some harness that _does_ give hints of that sort?
Any idea what the ~rule is or how it's meant to work? I assume it'd work better if I can wire up my harness to handle it, but no idea. It didn't seem to know itself, from it's training. I didn't search too much yet though.
You could also increase compaction.reserveTokens in ~/.pi/agent/settings.json to make pi compact more often.
Also you can use /compact to specify what facts should be included in the summary.
One hard part is that from a handoff file you only have information for 1 session, so you have to manually determine next week which facts are still true.
At Substrate we solve this problem using our memory: we have 1 memory outside of an agent and track the source of every fact.
https://trysubstrate.co/l/a2hn
The issue is that I just turn to ChatGPT, Muse, or some other AI app and it just does it for me.
Most of my issues, such as keeping a running task list, managing my groceries list or pantry inventory, and even fun/leisure things are handled by these apps.
When I was a young man reading gauss, and thinking before I turned the page, I see a result here, something meaningful! and then I turn the page, and of course it is there. There is no shame in this.
A long time ago, another student of mathematics described it to me as climbing a mountain. No single step is hard, but you must make many steps to get to the point that no one else has made a step.
Democrats expanded SNAP, Republicans shrank it. Dems expanded Medicaid, Republican shrank it. Dems protected reproductive rights, Republicans repealed them. Dems expanded title IX protection to LGBTQ+, Replicans eliminated them. Republicans jailed 1,200 January 6th insurrectionists, Republicans pardoned them. Democrats provide non-partisan federal emergency aid, Republicans withhold federal aid from blue states. Dems establish tax credits for electric cars, increase automotive standards. Dems didn't kill of foreign aid to need countries.
If you aren't female (reproductive rights), LGBTQ+, an immigrant now hunted by ice, someone in need of SNAP, Medicaid, or emergency aid in a blue state, it might feel like both are the same I guess. If you are one of the above, and now suffer because so many voted based on 'both are the same', you very much feel a difference today than from the US under Biden. If you were one of America's allies but are now constantly attacked, you feel a difference today. If you are Ukraine, you feel a difference today.
I'm surprised they got away with the first two paragraphs! The Onion wasn't really founded in 1756, doesn't control the world's shipping lanes, etc.
Later on in the brief they get all self-referential and point out how this brief itself exemplifies parody. But this isn't a parody of a legal brief. It's a real legal brief with arguments and citations that might really sway the court, with some parodic elements.
> I'm surprised they got away with the first two paragraphs!
I'm not. Even if one is entirely unfamiliar with The Onion, the final paragraph of the first section makes it pretty clear what they're about and why the document they're submitting is written the way that it is:
> The Onion files this brief to protect its continued ability to create fiction that may ultimately merge into reality. As the globe’s premier parodists, The Onion’s writers also have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists. This brief is submitted in the interest of at least mitigating their future punishment.
And, as the titles(?) of Arguments I and III note
> Parody Functions By Tricking People Into Thinking That It Is Real.
> A Reasonable Reader Does Not Need A Disclaimer To Know That Parody Is Parody.
> Yes, but I'm saying the brief isn't parody, it's real.
You're correct, yes.
> Unless I'm the gullible, unreasonable person who was tricked and still doesn't fully get it.
You're -I presume- neither more gullible nor more unreasonable than typical for humans, but no, you still don't get it.
A huge part of the practice of law is persuasion. What better way to persuade someone that the laws and regulations that have protected parody for ages are good, prosocial, and should remain intact than to gently use parody as part of one's document of persuasion?
If your position is that parody is strictly prohibited in a legal document, then what's next on the chopping block? Metaphor? Simile? Colloquialisms?
How does that work on the authoring side? Are there staff writers that follow a court document style guide, or are there lawyers on retainer that are a personality match for the org?
I’ve had the privilege to work at a company with a highly aligned legal team. It turns out there are quite a few people who get law degrees and are just sensible, chill, fun people. And if you can hire them onto staff, there’s no limit to the awesome things you can do.
I've never frowned while paying a legal bill. They do good work, provide useful perspective, avoid problems before they start... reminds me of the better engineers I know, but for contracts and compliance.
Gillis (head writer for the onion) drafted the tone, arguments and jokes. He connected to Novak's lawyer through a friend at the firm. Novak's lawyer then connected Gillis to a former colleague who helped format it and provide relevant legal statute.
I was surprised that they didn't contribute to the jokes, it really does read like it was written by a particularly funny lawyer.
Well, if they were bought on credit, and must be returned when you go insolvent to the company that makes the chips, whose market - and therefore stock - would collapse in value should the market be flooded with used equipment, and said company already dealt with a similar situation in the past few years... I think the answer is obvious.
Can you explain why? To my thinking, the liquidator is a business in possession of a valuable asset that they could sell for a profit; but perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.
If you have generational wealth you can spend all your time traveling, hanging out with people no matter where they are in the world, having new experiences and just generally encounter way more there is to the world than you ever could working 60 hours a week for minimum wage in your hometown. You never have to worry about expenses for anything, you can hire maids and other professionals to take care of other things that would otherwise take up your time. Almost every single woman you ever meet likely will try to get in on it so if you want to casually have a lot of sex with beautiful women you can do that too. You are given a strong preference socially in any setting you meet others. If you have a health problem you can see your genius concierge physician who will personally try to help you the best you can be helped. You don't have to wait 6 weeks for an x-ray or CT scan on a cancerous tumor that can switch from stage 3 to 4 right in that time period.
It's really not even comparable to the life that normal people have. It's really sad.
If you're poor or otherwise lack good health insurance it's very likely you will endure negative health consequences as a result.
If you don't have money it's very likely that you'll have a poor diet and have negative health consequences, be dumber, be able to do less, and just generally have a life filled with more suffering.
reply