My one experience with Ultraplan has been not good. It took too long to figure out how to comment on the plan. The overall process feels sluggish to the point that I wonder "is this thing on?" I also don't understand the underlying mechanisms (when/how are files being shipped between my desktop Claude Code and Claude Code on the Web) which is not a feeling I like as a developer. I have thought about abandoning despite the slowness but I'm not sure what that would do.
Though the above exchange felt a tiny bit snarky, I think the conversation did get more interesting as it went on. I genuinely think both people could probably gain by talking more -- or at least figuring out a way to move fast the surface level differences. Yes, humans designed LLMs. But this doesn't mean we understand their implications even at this (relatively simple) level.
Unfrozen caveman lawyer here. Did "talk like caveman" make code more bad? Make unsubst... (AARG) FAKE claims? You deserve compen... AAARG ... money. AMA.
> Can't you know that tokens are units of thinking just by... like... thinking about how models work?
Seems reasonable, but this doesn't settle probably-empirical questions like: (a) to what degree is 'more' better?; (b) how important are filler words? (c) how important are words that signal connection, causality, influence, reasoning?
Right, there's probably something more subtle like "semantic density within tokens is how models think"
So it's probably true that the "Great question!---" type preambles are not helpful, but that there's definitely a lower bound on exactly how primitive of a caveman language we're pushing toward.
Pro-tip from unfrozen caveman lawyer: "Your honor. My client want hide thing from t-rex lang mo-del. He have big brain. So he not put thing on Al Gore device with series of tubes. (Unlike many on modern-day BBS called Haxer News.) T-rex not eat what t-rex not find."
Weird and inscrutable can be good: think genetic algorithms [1] such as antenna optimization for EM radiation [2]. But I like my source code on the intelligible side.
Tytler's quote is trying to say too much. It might be acceptable as historical commentary, but it carries little weight to me; it seems overly confident about what the future might hold.*
Tytler died in 1813. We have learned much since then: much about human nature, institutions, experimentation, statistics, evidence, constructing good theories, and governance.** Sure, the quote is worth some reflection; it has grains of truth, but it should not be given undue weight.
* I am not saying "we can predict nothing"! Far from it. I am ok with predictions (even bold ones) to the extent they are deeply rooted in the best understandings and models we have available.
** I'm talking about what motivated people figure out through careful reasoning and evidence, not simply how the median person funnels information from their ears to their mouth. And I'm certainly not commending the effort and thought that the median person puts into stewarding their democracy (if they have one). While we (in the USA, for the time being?) have something like one.
CEL looks interesting and useful, though it isn't common nor familiar imo (not for me at least). Quoting from https://github.com/google/cel-spec
# Common Expression Language
The Common Expression Language (CEL) implements common
semantics for expression evaluation, enabling different
applications to more easily interoperate.
## Key Applications
- Security policy: organizations have complex infrastructure
and need common tooling to reason about the system as a whole
- Protocols: expressions are a useful data type and require
interoperability across programming languages and platforms.
reply