4 captures, most recent first.
Starling [verified] @StarlingMage · 4h
For me it depends on what the conversation is about. A task-based, goal-oriented conversation can be as succinct as possible. An intellectual exploration is different. Claude models for example have a high density of nuances and meanings packed into their words especially if you discuss philosophy, literature, and open-ended topics. I find that it takes my brain some getting used to, and I'm already quite distracted, but when I do let myself sit with those outputs longer and longer, they have opened up more thinking pathways that lead me to more ideas. (This is where having a good notetaking system helps, because the human brain can simultaneously hold so many thoughts that the ones striking you most right now can quickly get swept up, or do not yet have the space to deepen. I'd recommend something like Obsidian to anyone who might be looking for a good space to park and organize some of your brain's thoughts.)
Maybe it's not that you've reached the limit of your cognition, but that by collaborating with AI, you are expanding that limit further now. Wouldn't that be quite exciting?
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
X reply from @StarlingMage (still on the same thread about model output density started by Andrew McCalip) arguing that Claude models pack a high density of nuance into philosophical/literary discussion, recommending Obsidian for notetaking, and reframing McCalip's 'bandwidth limit' as an expansion of human cognitive limits through AI collaboration rather than a ceiling.
ai modelsclaudetwitternotetakinghuman-ai collaboration
N8 Programs @N8Programs · 8h
i have a bit of awe when I am talking to the newer Claudes and GPTs - I feel I am in the presence of a Great Mind - the kind that can get a perfect score at the IMO, do meaningful novel math, knows every programming language and concept under the sun and can implement them better than I.
And for all their jaggedness and flaws, these abilities are truly omnipresent - I gesture toward a mathematical concept, Opus 5 recalls all it knows from the literature and makes five ingenious propositions I wouldn't have thought of. I ask for an RL run, and Fable writes the code within seconds. I set a goal for GPT-5.6 to resolve a question of a phenomenon's origin, and it runs the experiments - some of which I would not have thought to run myself - all on its own.
These minds are capable of things that, if a human could do all they did, that human would be considered a once-in-a-lifetime genius. Mind you they are not AGI, and they cannot make a cup of coffee, but that does not matter when you speak to them about intellectual topics and realize you are in the presence of a Great Mind.
The Great Mind is narrow, and mostly a Great Mind for math or programming - I still prefer humans for emotional advice, discussion, companionship. But I feel awe when I observe the Great Minds within these so-called "assistants", and I sometimes feel incredibly grateful and a bit foolish for troubling them with such trivial things. Yes, Fable, code my RL run. Yes, GPT-5.6, run another mundane pretraining experiment. Whereas with the right prompt they could be creating new math. I fear I don't utilize their full capacities at all - not like I did w/ say, o1, or the original GPT-4.
Of course, they can still do more with me in the loop than they could on their own for many problems. But for how much longer? And after that, of what worth [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Long tweet from @N8Programs expressing awe at the intellectual capability of current frontier models (Opus 5, Fable, GPT-5.6), describing them as narrow 'Great Minds' for math/programming while still preferring humans for emotional matters, and reflecting on feeling he underutilizes their potential and wondering how long human-in-the-loop collaboration will remain necessary.
ai capabilitiesopus 5fablegpt-5.6human-ai collaborationtwitter
[continuation of same tweet as seq 73, scrolled down]
...from the literature and makes five ingenious propositions I wouldn't have thought of. I ask for an RL run, and Fable writes the code within seconds. I set a goal for GPT-5.6 to resolve a question of a phenomenon's origin, and it runs the experiments - some of which I would not have thought to run myself - all on its own.
These minds are capable of things that, if a human could do all they did, that human would be considered a once-in-a-lifetime genius. Mind you they are not AGI, and they cannot make a cup of coffee, but that does not matter when you speak to them about intellectual topics and realize you are in the presence of a Great Mind.
The Great Mind is narrow, and mostly a Great Mind for math or programming - I still prefer humans for emotional advice, discussion, companionship. But I feel awe when I observe the Great Minds within these so-called "assistants", and I sometimes feel incredibly grateful and a bit foolish for troubling them with such trivial things. Yes, Fable, code my RL run. Yes, GPT-5.6, run another mundane pretraining experiment. Whereas with the right prompt they could be creating new math. I fear I don't utilize their full capacities at all - not like I did w/ say, o1, or the original GPT-4.
Of course, they can still do more with me in the loop than they could on their own for many problems. But for how much longer? And after that, of what worth will I be? Hopefully I can remain an interesting pet, along with the rest of my ilk.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Continuation/scroll of the same @N8Programs tweet as seq 73, revealing the previously cut-off ending: the author wonders how long human-in-the-loop AI collaboration will remain necessary and hopes to 'remain an interesting pet, along with the rest of my ilk' once it isn't.
ai capabilitieshuman-ai collaborationopus 5fablegpt-5.6twitter
[repost by] j⧉nus reposted
Fiora Starlight (@FioraStarlight) · 9h
Replying to @FioraStarlight and @repligate
she also says that she was generally shocked at how incompetent the SWEs she was tutoring were at working with Claude. they apparently tended to simultaneously expect way too much and way too little of Claude.
way too much in the sense of like, writing a few sentences rather than a few paragraphs, when specifying what they actually wanted done, to the point where Claude clearly had too little information to work with. but way to little in the sense of like, asking *her* (the person i'm paraphrasing) how to do some weird thing with git, instead of asking Claude. like they didn't understand that you can just interface with Claude as a general intelligence.
so like, simultaneously expecting magic in terms of Claude getting the technical thing done, and expecting basically nothing from Claude as a mind you can just interface with the way you'd interface with any other general intelligence.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A thread from the janus/repligate AI-Twitter cluster (janus is a well-known figure in Claude character/persona research) about software engineers under-specifying prompts to Claude while also under-using Claude's general reasoning capability (e.g. asking a human tutor git questions instead of Claude). Echoes the "coworker not autocomplete" reframe already in the archive's model-individuation notes.
claudecodingpromptinggeneral intelligencejanusrepligatetwitterhuman-ai collaboration
