If it's in AGENTS.md, it's not a statement for a human, but for the LLM. Who knows, maybe they have seen, or think to have seen and now cargo-cult, some behaviour improvement due to the sentence.

So a similar shibboleth as "You are a highly experienced software engineer..."? I really wonder if that ever made a difference (or even degrades quality, because people who advertise themselves on the internet as 'highly experienced' are quite often snake oil salesmen ;)

Yes it did help, at least back in the day when they weren't doing tons of RL. If you just train on random text, your prior probability is to return the average of everything. Ask for software, get average software, or worse yet, randomly get either gold or shit. By adding constraints to your prompt like "you are an experienced engineer" it will prefer to return answers like an experienced engineer would give and less like a random noob would. It doesn't suddenly make it smart if it never was, but it helps to reduce the variance and bias towards the good outcomes.

I still use use `Please` a lot when making requests from LLM based on the old idea that people that where polite on stack overflow tended to have better answers :D

However, these days i think i do so because of how much i write for LLMs, and dont want to start sending emails to humans without proper etiquette.

I read the "weirdly" as "unexpectedly", i.e. "you might not see this coming, but it's still true (and there's deep theory behind it)".

In ML family languages you also don't have to change the language for this, as function application is naturally "argument-by-argument" (the term is "curried"): the syntax is normally f x y z but (f x y) z and (((f)) (x)) y z are just as valid, and indeed f x y will be a function taking one argument. Thus |> can just take a function of one argument and be done.

That インウ should likely be インク. :)

Dialogue is super effective for this, but it's also a skill: you're suddenly a teacher. You should have no judgement of the other not knowing something, and be able to effectively build up that delta in a way that is understandable and interesting to the other. This can be more difficult than it sounds, but it's also rewarding.

I've been doing some benchmarking recently and I've observed that on certain workloads, my CPU cores are not equivalent. (And this is an Intel CPU from 5 years ago, all cores are the same on paper.) In a particular very bad case I have a reproducible 50% performance difference between (physical) core 0 and core 5.

You might want to taskset to particular cores too, especially if you are looking at computational code with many almost-but-not-quite-random memory accesses.

This is hilarious as someone who hasn't used the gmail composition interface in years. I left it to use my own domain, but it seems like I get to enjoy this mess with popcorn too instead of tears.

Well, since about half of the emails you get from your friends are composed by an AI in some way, I hope your popcorn taste real at least.

Possibly, but at least a cursory internet search of the person's name doesn't being up this article. Which is a good thing.

It's an existing joke: https://www.reddit.com/r/keming/

Similar experience to sibling: a disinterested human isn't going to ask for 30 different detailed things to add to, or change in, the paper that could technically be improved but aren't worth the additional page real estate. An LLM reviewer definitely does this.