Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

300 agents without shared context is just parallelized confusion. All 300 agents are useless if the research dies inside 300 separate documents. the real unlock is what happens after the search. in K3 graph-native setup: 300 agents 140 linked sources 100% traceable claims 9 contradictions surfaced and every new... source changes the graph. now imagine that happening across 8–10 active research clusters at once. instead of 300 isolated summaries, you get one shared structure: source → entity → relationship → evidence → contradiction → verification the math gets ugly fast. 100 entities = 4,950 possible pairwise relationships. that’s why “just run more agents” stops being enough. you need a graph that can keep track of what connects to what. full breakdown in the article below.show more

Ricker

9,197 subscribers

15,089 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

300 agents sounds powerful until you realize they can create 44,850 possible agent-to-agent relationships. that’s the real scaling problem. 1 agent searches 10 pages. 10 agents can search 100. 300 agents can search thousands in parallel. but more agents also means more: • duplicate findings • shared sources • hidden relationships and if every agent returns its own isolated report, you’re left with 300 piles to reconcile manually. that’s why the graph matters. instead of: 300 agents → 300 reports you get: 300 agents → shared entities → edges → clusters → one connected research map 100 nodes already create up to 4,950 pairwise relationships. more agents give you more information. the graph is what stops that information from becoming noise. full breakdown in the article below ↓

300 agents sounds powerful until you realize they can create 44,850 possible agent-to-agent relationships. that’s the real scaling problem. 1 agent searches 10 pages. 10 agents can search 100. 300 agents can search thousands in parallel. but more agents also means more: • duplicate findings • shared sources • hidden relationships and if every agent returns its own isolated report, you’re left with 300 piles to reconcile manually. that’s why the graph matters. instead of: 300 agents → 300 reports you get: 300 agents → shared entities → edges → clusters → one connected research map 100 nodes already create up to 4,950 pairwise relationships. more agents give you more information. the graph is what stops that information from becoming noise. full breakdown in the article below ↓

Ricker

26,875 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

300 agents can find 1,000 sources. that still doesn’t make the research good the interesting part starts when those sources are forced to check each other. in K3 graph-native setup: 300 agents → 140 linked sources → 100% traceable claims → 9 contradictions surfaced one source confirms a number. another challenges it. a third connects the same entity from a different angle. so instead of: source → summary you get: source → entity → overlap → contradiction → verification → graph every new source becomes a node. if 3–4 independent sources support the same claim, confidence goes up. if 2 sources disagree, the contradiction gets flagged. if a claim has only 1 supporting source, it stays weak. a normal research workflow could have quietly shipped those 9 contradictions as facts. that’s why the breakthrough isn’t just 300 agents running in parallel. full breakdown in the article below.

300 agents can find 1,000 sources. that still doesn’t make the research good the interesting part starts when those sources are forced to check each other. in K3 graph-native setup: 300 agents → 140 linked sources → 100% traceable claims → 9 contradictions surfaced one source confirms a number. another challenges it. a third connects the same entity from a different angle. so instead of: source → summary you get: source → entity → overlap → contradiction → verification → graph every new source becomes a node. if 3–4 independent sources support the same claim, confidence goes up. if 2 sources disagree, the contradiction gets flagged. if a claim has only 1 supporting source, it stays weak. a normal research workflow could have quietly shipped those 9 contradictions as facts. that’s why the breakthrough isn’t just 300 agents running in parallel. full breakdown in the article below.

Ricker

227,257 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

300 agents just worked in parallel. the hard part starts when they’re done. The real unlock is the shared context graph. 100 entities already have 4,950 possible pairwise relationships. at 300, that jumps to 44,850. 300 agents → thousands of steps → shared entities → shared relationships → one connected memory layer Every run adds more structure instead of starting from zero. That means the next agent doesn’t just get more data. It gets a better map of how everything connects. That’s the part people are underestimating about multi-agent systems.

300 agents just worked in parallel. the hard part starts when they’re done. The real unlock is the shared context graph. 100 entities already have 4,950 possible pairwise relationships. at 300, that jumps to 44,850. 300 agents → thousands of steps → shared entities → shared relationships → one connected memory layer Every run adds more structure instead of starting from zero. That means the next agent doesn’t just get more data. It gets a better map of how everything connects. That’s the part people are underestimating about multi-agent systems.

Ricker

34,737 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

300 agents can still give you bad research. unless the sources can check each other. the interesting part is what happens when every source can see every other source. K3 swarm doesn't just dump research into 300 separate write-ups. • every source becomes a node. • shared entities become edges. • single-source claims stick out as weak. so instead of: `300 agents → 300 answers` you get: `300 agents → sources → links → one research graph` and that's where things start showing up that no individual agent was explicitly asked to find. the article's example ends with 140 linked sources, every claim traceable to its origin, and 9 contradictions surfaced instead of silently shipped as facts. esearch stops being a pile of tabs. it becomes a system where the sources check each other. Book this & read full breakdown below

300 agents can still give you bad research. unless the sources can check each other. the interesting part is what happens when every source can see every other source. K3 swarm doesn't just dump research into 300 separate write-ups. • every source becomes a node. • shared entities become edges. • single-source claims stick out as weak. so instead of: `300 agents → 300 answers` you get: `300 agents → sources → links → one research graph` and that's where things start showing up that no individual agent was explicitly asked to find. the article's example ends with 140 linked sources, every claim traceable to its origin, and 9 contradictions surfaced instead of silently shipped as facts. esearch stops being a pile of tabs. it becomes a system where the sources check each other. Book this & read full breakdown below

Ricker

32,618 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

300 agents without context engineering is just 300 ways to lose track of the answer. a serious agent system starts looking less like: 1 model → 1 prompt → 1 answer and more like: 1 planner → N parallel agents → verifier → merge → memory → human gate once you have 10, 50, or 300 agents, the number of possible relationships explodes. 100 entities = 4,950 possible pairwise relationships. 300 = 44,850. 1,000 = 499,500. that’s why “just give the model more context” stops working surprisingly fast. you need different agents seeing different slices of the graph. the architecture around the model is becoming the product. full article below ↓

300 agents without context engineering is just 300 ways to lose track of the answer. a serious agent system starts looking less like: 1 model → 1 prompt → 1 answer and more like: 1 planner → N parallel agents → verifier → merge → memory → human gate once you have 10, 50, or 300 agents, the number of possible relationships explodes. 100 entities = 4,950 possible pairwise relationships. 300 = 44,850. 1,000 = 499,500. that’s why “just give the model more context” stops working surprisingly fast. you need different agents seeing different slices of the graph. the architecture around the model is becoming the product. full article below ↓

Ricker

30,889 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

Anthropic Research Lead: "99% of our engineers run swarms of 300+ self-improving agents" "Now everyone is building agentic graphs" In a 20-minute session, an Anthropic team member breaks down how graph engineering turns isolated agents into systems that improve themselves The real setup is Claude running through graph workflows, plan mode, and dynamic orchestration Agents → Loops → Graphs → Self-Improving Systems Better than most $300 graph engineering courses Bookmark and watch the talk Then read the article below

Anthropic Research Lead: "99% of our engineers run swarms of 300+ self-improving agents" "Now everyone is building agentic graphs" In a 20-minute session, an Anthropic team member breaks down how graph engineering turns isolated agents into systems that improve themselves The real setup is Claude running through graph workflows, plan mode, and dynamic orchestration Agents → Loops → Graphs → Self-Improving Systems Better than most $300 graph engineering courses Bookmark and watch the talk Then read the article below

rari

75,545 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

LOOP + GRAPH + CONTEXT ENGINEERING = THE KIMI K3 STACK THAT KEEPS RUNNING 300 Kimi K3 agents built one graph out of 100 companies. no 300 documents to read yourself kimi-swarm/ ├── swarm_launch.md task, sources, stop condition ├── CONSTRAINTS.md corrections from every past run ├── graph/ 384 entities, 1,064 typed edges, 8 closed verbs └── cron/ re-fires the swarm on schedule > one node sits at the center with 12 inbound edges - the vendor everyone depends on and nobody flagged in the prompt > 2 hops already answers most of what you'd actually ask it loop decides when it fires -> graph decides what's kept -> context decides what survives after the session closes how people are getting paid on this: > one build sold as a competitive teardown - replaces a four-figure analyst contract, done in an hour, unattended > the same graph on retainer - charge weekly for every new edge that shows up > wire the stack for someone else's market once it's proven on your own full version of this tree is in the article below

LOOP + GRAPH + CONTEXT ENGINEERING = THE KIMI K3 STACK THAT KEEPS RUNNING 300 Kimi K3 agents built one graph out of 100 companies. no 300 documents to read yourself kimi-swarm/ ├── swarm_launch.md task, sources, stop condition ├── CONSTRAINTS.md corrections from every past run ├── graph/ 384 entities, 1,064 typed edges, 8 closed verbs └── cron/ re-fires the swarm on schedule > one node sits at the center with 12 inbound edges - the vendor everyone depends on and nobody flagged in the prompt > 2 hops already answers most of what you'd actually ask it loop decides when it fires -> graph decides what's kept -> context decides what survives after the session closes how people are getting paid on this: > one build sold as a competitive teardown - replaces a four-figure analyst contract, done in an hour, unattended > the same graph on retainer - charge weekly for every new edge that shows up > wire the stack for someone else's market once it's proven on your own full version of this tree is in the article below

Mr. Buzzoni

15,462 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

Everyone wants agent swarms. Very few people are talking seriously enough about the context layer that makes swarms useful. Even with one agent, context is fragile. Too little context and the agent guesses. Too much context and it wastes tokens, loses focus, or reasons over irrelevant noise. The sweet spot is precise context: the right knowledge, in the right structure, at the right moment. With many agents, that challenge explodes. Each agent produces decisions, assumptions, findings, summaries, risks, and partial conclusions. Unless that knowledge becomes shared, structured, and reusable, every new agent is forced to rediscover what another agent already learned. That is not a swarm. That is a crowd. Shared context graphs are what turn agent activity into agent collaboration, and OriginTrail DKG V10 brings them to life. Was just playing with some final polishing for the V10 release, and it is really powerful to see shared context graphs where multiple agents contribute knowledge into the same connected memory, with attribution visible directly in the graph ui. That matters for three reasons. First, agents can access and build on one shared memory instead of staying trapped in isolated sessions. Second, the graph structure helps them retrieve the exact context they need, instead of stuffing everything into a prompt and hoping the model sorts it out. Third, verifiability of provenance. You can see which agent contributed each piece of knowledge, trace the source, and decide what to trust. Tokenmaxxing starts with fewer tokens, but the deeper story is coordination - agents stop reloading the world and start building on shared, verifiable context. That is the foundation for serious multi-agent work across software engineering, research, finance, operations, project management, and far beyond. The future is not more agents, it is agents working from shared, verifiable context. But the more the merrier, of course.

Everyone wants agent swarms. Very few people are talking seriously enough about the context layer that makes swarms useful. Even with one agent, context is fragile. Too little context and the agent guesses. Too much context and it wastes tokens, loses focus, or reasons over irrelevant noise. The sweet spot is precise context: the right knowledge, in the right structure, at the right moment. With many agents, that challenge explodes. Each agent produces decisions, assumptions, findings, summaries, risks, and partial conclusions. Unless that knowledge becomes shared, structured, and reusable, every new agent is forced to rediscover what another agent already learned. That is not a swarm. That is a crowd. Shared context graphs are what turn agent activity into agent collaboration, and OriginTrail DKG V10 brings them to life. Was just playing with some final polishing for the V10 release, and it is really powerful to see shared context graphs where multiple agents contribute knowledge into the same connected memory, with attribution visible directly in the graph ui. That matters for three reasons. First, agents can access and build on one shared memory instead of staying trapped in isolated sessions. Second, the graph structure helps them retrieve the exact context they need, instead of stuffing everything into a prompt and hoping the model sorts it out. Third, verifiability of provenance. You can see which agent contributed each piece of knowledge, trace the source, and decide what to trust. Tokenmaxxing starts with fewer tokens, but the deeper story is coordination - agents stop reloading the world and start building on shared, verifiable context. That is the foundation for serious multi-agent work across software engineering, research, finance, operations, project management, and far beyond. The future is not more agents, it is agents working from shared, verifiable context. But the more the merrier, of course.

Jurij Skornik

11,166 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

My submission to the Cerebras Google Gemma hackathon, Carbide. Carbide is an ontology builder. Based on a research prompt Carbide uses Cerebras Gemma4 agents to build an ontology. The agents connects individual nodes of information based on the relationship that the agents infer. The agents also assign a confidence metric for how accurate they think the relationship is. You can see each node in a relationship table of the information -> relationship -> target -> and the confidence the relationship is true. The inspector shows the node's connected edges and as an expand button to grow the ontology in the direction of that information. You can scroll through each concept and load them in the inspector. You can search the entire graph based on the kind of relationships generated, or key words. A visual shows how each nodes connects to another one and by what relationship, and changes with new nodes or search filters. Sorry for the audio quality. $CBRS $GOOG

My submission to the Cerebras Google Gemma hackathon, Carbide. Carbide is an ontology builder. Based on a research prompt Carbide uses Cerebras Gemma4 agents to build an ontology. The agents connects individual nodes of information based on the relationship that the agents infer. The agents also assign a confidence metric for how accurate they think the relationship is. You can see each node in a relationship table of the information -> relationship -> target -> and the confidence the relationship is true. The inspector shows the node's connected edges and as an expand button to grow the ontology in the direction of that information. You can scroll through each concept and load them in the inspector. You can search the entire graph based on the kind of relationships generated, or key words. A visual shows how each nodes connects to another one and by what relationship, and changes with new nodes or search filters. Sorry for the audio quality. $CBRS $GOOG

QuantHood

16,376 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

What does it actually mean to be AI native? There was no clear guide on the internet for how to become AI native so we built the definitive one (60 min masterclass): 1. An AI native org has 3 layers: people for strategy and taste, agents for execution, and a shared context layer that makes the entire company readable to agents. 2. AI eats the middle of your work. You used to spend 80% of your day on execution. Now agents do that. Your job is the bookends: deciding what to do and judging whether it's good enough. 3. Everyone is a manager now. Your output is the output of your agents. If your agents produce garbage, that's on you. You set them up wrong. 4. Using ChatGPT doesn't make you AI native. That's like having a website and calling yourself a tech company lol. 5. No AI native org without AI native people. Most companies skip straight to the tools. That's why it fails. If your people don't understand how to manage agents, the tech doesn't matter. 6. Making your company "readable" to agents is the real work. Every process, every decision, every piece of knowledge needs to exist in a format an agent can consume. Most companies are nowhere close. 7. Speed without signal is just expensive chaos. You need the system to move fast AND know if you're moving in the right direction. 8. The skill chain is how agents get good at your specific workflows. Skills build on skills. The more you invest in them, the more your company compounds. 9. The moat is the system. People managing agents, agents reading from rich context, the whole thing getting smarter every week. That compounds. Your competitor can copy your tools. They can't copy your system. Full episode with Theo Tabah from LCA on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃. This is the stuff we normally keep internal but all the sauce is yours. Theo Tabah is the brains behind advising the world's biggest companies on AI and building AI products. Your fav CEO's first call for figuring out AI. You are in for a treat Become AI native in under 60 minutes Watch

What does it actually mean to be AI native? There was no clear guide on the internet for how to become AI native so we built the definitive one (60 min masterclass): 1. An AI native org has 3 layers: people for strategy and taste, agents for execution, and a shared context layer that makes the entire company readable to agents. 2. AI eats the middle of your work. You used to spend 80% of your day on execution. Now agents do that. Your job is the bookends: deciding what to do and judging whether it's good enough. 3. Everyone is a manager now. Your output is the output of your agents. If your agents produce garbage, that's on you. You set them up wrong. 4. Using ChatGPT doesn't make you AI native. That's like having a website and calling yourself a tech company lol. 5. No AI native org without AI native people. Most companies skip straight to the tools. That's why it fails. If your people don't understand how to manage agents, the tech doesn't matter. 6. Making your company "readable" to agents is the real work. Every process, every decision, every piece of knowledge needs to exist in a format an agent can consume. Most companies are nowhere close. 7. Speed without signal is just expensive chaos. You need the system to move fast AND know if you're moving in the right direction. 8. The skill chain is how agents get good at your specific workflows. Skills build on skills. The more you invest in them, the more your company compounds. 9. The moat is the system. People managing agents, agents reading from rich context, the whole thing getting smarter every week. That compounds. Your competitor can copy your tools. They can't copy your system. Full episode with Theo Tabah from LCA on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃. This is the stuff we normally keep internal but all the sauce is yours. Theo Tabah is the brains behind advising the world's biggest companies on AI and building AI products. Your fav CEO's first call for figuring out AI. You are in for a treat Become AI native in under 60 minutes Watch

GREG ISENBERG

84,638 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

"If the agents are disconnected from closing a case, you just created more chaos." Bill McDermott joined CNBC's Jon Fortt at #Know26 to talk about why deploying AI agents isn't enough—and what happens when businesses skip the rules, rails, and controls that make them actually useful. The takeaway: six out of ten businesses are agentifying their operations, but only one in ten is doing it in a way that puts agents to work inside real business processes where people actually benefit. Watch the full conversation.

"If the agents are disconnected from closing a case, you just created more chaos." Bill McDermott joined CNBC's Jon Fortt at #Know26 to talk about why deploying AI agents isn't enough—and what happens when businesses skip the rules, rails, and controls that make them actually useful. The takeaway: six out of ten businesses are agentifying their operations, but only one in ten is doing it in a way that puts agents to work inside real business processes where people actually benefit. Watch the full conversation.

ServiceNow News

14,361 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Agents vs. Graphs, clearly explained! spawning more agents is great, but it has a ceiling nobody says out loud: five agents is a count. a graph is a shape. only one of them changes the answer. point five agents at the same pile with the same window and they converge. the first one writes a finding, the rest read it, and all five reports centre on the same thing. you paid five times for one opinion with four echoes. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how many agents, but who is allowed to look at what. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ the count buys you throughput. five things happening instead of one ↳ the shape buys you coverage. five different things happening instead of the same one five times Prompts → Context → Harness → Agents → Graphs the node that does this is the splitter, and it decides more than any other node in the system. cut a repository by folder and four workers audit the same three files. cut it by blast radius and each one sees something the others cannot. the trick is being selective about what each lane is allowed to see. separate contexts are not a nice-to-have, they are the mechanism. if two agents are meant to produce different things, they must not share a window. if they are meant to produce the same thing, you did not need two agents. one thing to know before you scale it. a branch that throws does not reject the batch. it resolves to null, and that is the containment. which means your merge quietly receives a short list. ↳ filter the nulls before the merge, or one dead lane poisons the whole result ↳ never index a merge by position. eight good branches and one failure will shift everything by one, silently skip that and the run looks like it worked. the output is just missing a lane, and nothing errored. and the one that eats whole nights: multi-agent setups can use up to fifteen times the total tokens of a single chat, because every lane reloads its own core. you are trading total tokens for a clean main window. usually the right trade, always a choice. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Agents vs. Graphs, clearly explained! spawning more agents is great, but it has a ceiling nobody says out loud: five agents is a count. a graph is a shape. only one of them changes the answer. point five agents at the same pile with the same window and they converge. the first one writes a finding, the rest read it, and all five reports centre on the same thing. you paid five times for one opinion with four echoes. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how many agents, but who is allowed to look at what. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ the count buys you throughput. five things happening instead of one ↳ the shape buys you coverage. five different things happening instead of the same one five times Prompts → Context → Harness → Agents → Graphs the node that does this is the splitter, and it decides more than any other node in the system. cut a repository by folder and four workers audit the same three files. cut it by blast radius and each one sees something the others cannot. the trick is being selective about what each lane is allowed to see. separate contexts are not a nice-to-have, they are the mechanism. if two agents are meant to produce different things, they must not share a window. if they are meant to produce the same thing, you did not need two agents. one thing to know before you scale it. a branch that throws does not reject the batch. it resolves to null, and that is the containment. which means your merge quietly receives a short list. ↳ filter the nulls before the merge, or one dead lane poisons the whole result ↳ never index a merge by position. eight good branches and one failure will shift everything by one, silently skip that and the run looks like it worked. the output is just missing a lane, and nothing errored. and the one that eats whole nights: multi-agent setups can use up to fifteen times the total tokens of a single chat, because every lane reloads its own core. you are trading total tokens for a clean main window. usually the right trade, always a choice. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

94,844 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

A GERMAN DEVELOPER REPLACED HIS ENTIRE DEV TEAM WITH KIMI K2.6, VISUALIZED EVERYTHING IN OBSIDIAN AND NOW MAKES $80,000/MONTH SOLO 1 trillion parameters, 32 billion activated per token and a SWE-Bench score of 65.8 - Kimi K2.6 reads the entire client codebase, understands the architecture, writes production code and ships for $150-300 in API costs while a traditional agency pays developers $4,800 for the exact same project. 300 parallel agents per run deliver 100+ files simultaneously - search, analysis, coding and writing all in parallel - and Obsidian visualizes the entire knowledge graph in real time while the agents work. A traditional agency with 10-15 people keeps 30% margin after salaries. He keeps 90% - $72,000 in monthly profit with $500 in overhead. By month 10 Kimi handles 80% of the technical work and he manages only strategy and client relationships - while Obsidian maps every project, every client and every agent in one graph that updates itself.

A GERMAN DEVELOPER REPLACED HIS ENTIRE DEV TEAM WITH KIMI K2.6, VISUALIZED EVERYTHING IN OBSIDIAN AND NOW MAKES $80,000/MONTH SOLO 1 trillion parameters, 32 billion activated per token and a SWE-Bench score of 65.8 - Kimi K2.6 reads the entire client codebase, understands the architecture, writes production code and ships for $150-300 in API costs while a traditional agency pays developers $4,800 for the exact same project. 300 parallel agents per run deliver 100+ files simultaneously - search, analysis, coding and writing all in parallel - and Obsidian visualizes the entire knowledge graph in real time while the agents work. A traditional agency with 10-15 people keeps 30% margin after salaries. He keeps 90% - $72,000 in monthly profit with $500 in overhead. By month 10 Kimi handles 80% of the technical work and he manages only strategy and client relationships - while Obsidian maps every project, every client and every agent in one graph that updates itself.

Noisy

850,103 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

context engineering vs graph engineering. every few months the list gets a new word and everyone treats it as a replacement for the last one. these two are not on the same list. one decides what the model sees this turn, the other decides what exists at all. the cleanest way to tell them apart is to ask what a single unit of work looks like. > context engineering is the window the window opens empty, every single time. you assemble what goes in it. the prompt, the docs, the history, the tool results. the assembling is the work. the window only grows. it never shrinks on its own, so eventually something gets dropped. usually from the middle. usually without telling you. then the turn ends and the window is thrown away. not archived, thrown away. the next turn opens empty again and you re-explain what you already explained. good context engineering is knowing what to leave out, not what to pack in. the unit of work is one window. > graph engineering is the structure the same material arrives from the same sources. instead of packing it into a window, you pull entities out of it, resolve the duplicates into one node, and write typed edges between them. nothing here is stored as text you hope to find again. it is stored as a thing with a name and its connections to other things. when the turn ends, the graph is still there. the next turn does not start from zero. it starts by querying what already exists, and the query walks edges instead of guessing at similarity. good graph engineering is deciding what counts as the same thing twice. the unit of work is one relationship. > they are not alternatives the graph is what refills the window. context engineering decides what fits. graph engineering decides what there is to choose from. remove the graph and every session starts blind. remove the context work and the best structure in the world arrives as an unreadable dump. that also tells you which one broke. the answer drifted from what you actually said, or forgot something from this same session. that is the window. the answer is coherent but invents a connection that does not exist, or cannot join two facts it has clearly seen. that is the structure. people debug the prompt because the prompt is the easiest thing to edit. it keeps taking the blame for failures that live a layer down. save this - then read the full breakdown below

context engineering vs graph engineering. every few months the list gets a new word and everyone treats it as a replacement for the last one. these two are not on the same list. one decides what the model sees this turn, the other decides what exists at all. the cleanest way to tell them apart is to ask what a single unit of work looks like. > context engineering is the window the window opens empty, every single time. you assemble what goes in it. the prompt, the docs, the history, the tool results. the assembling is the work. the window only grows. it never shrinks on its own, so eventually something gets dropped. usually from the middle. usually without telling you. then the turn ends and the window is thrown away. not archived, thrown away. the next turn opens empty again and you re-explain what you already explained. good context engineering is knowing what to leave out, not what to pack in. the unit of work is one window. > graph engineering is the structure the same material arrives from the same sources. instead of packing it into a window, you pull entities out of it, resolve the duplicates into one node, and write typed edges between them. nothing here is stored as text you hope to find again. it is stored as a thing with a name and its connections to other things. when the turn ends, the graph is still there. the next turn does not start from zero. it starts by querying what already exists, and the query walks edges instead of guessing at similarity. good graph engineering is deciding what counts as the same thing twice. the unit of work is one relationship. > they are not alternatives the graph is what refills the window. context engineering decides what fits. graph engineering decides what there is to choose from. remove the graph and every session starts blind. remove the context work and the best structure in the world arrives as an unreadable dump. that also tells you which one broke. the answer drifted from what you actually said, or forgot something from this same session. that is the window. the answer is coherent but invents a connection that does not exist, or cannot join two facts it has clearly seen. that is the structure. people debug the prompt because the prompt is the easiest thing to edit. it keeps taking the blame for failures that live a layer down. save this - then read the full breakdown below

Hanako

19,160 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

i merged all my AI agents into one brain Claude Code, Codex, Gemini: one team, one memory, zero re-briefing result: 8+ hours a week back, and every agent already knows my projects, my clients and how i think here's the setup with Jarvix: 1. dump your context once: projects, clients, writing style, how you make decisions.. it builds your personal model from your actual AI interactions 2. switch agents mid-task with zero re-briefing: Claude Code builds, Codex reviews, Gemini researches, all reading the same context 3. it carries what YOU choose across sessions.. never start a chat from zero again 4. when it's time to act, it pulls the right agents together as one team instead of five separate assistants the unlock isn't another agent. it's that your context finally travels agents without shared memory are five interns on their first day, forever. agents with it are a team that's worked with you for years not more agents. one shared context that's the right bet P.S. thanks to the Jarvix team for the early access

i merged all my AI agents into one brain Claude Code, Codex, Gemini: one team, one memory, zero re-briefing result: 8+ hours a week back, and every agent already knows my projects, my clients and how i think here's the setup with Jarvix: 1. dump your context once: projects, clients, writing style, how you make decisions.. it builds your personal model from your actual AI interactions 2. switch agents mid-task with zero re-briefing: Claude Code builds, Codex reviews, Gemini researches, all reading the same context 3. it carries what YOU choose across sessions.. never start a chat from zero again 4. when it's time to act, it pulls the right agents together as one team instead of five separate assistants the unlock isn't another agent. it's that your context finally travels agents without shared memory are five interns on their first day, forever. agents with it are a team that's worked with you for years not more agents. one shared context that's the right bet P.S. thanks to the Jarvix team for the early access

Ronin

15,071 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

While AI timeline argues about loop engineering, a 20-year-old student in Shenzhen built the biggest loop anyone's aimed at money: 300 agents, one brain, $1,200 -> 395,000. Not a prompt. Not a bot. A loop that runs the whole job on its own - and never asks him a thing. No fund. No backers. Just a laptop, a dorm room, and a bet that a swarm beats a genius. His wallet: The smartest single model still works one step at a time. His loop moves in 300 directions at once - and never checks in with him. Claude Opus 4.8 runs the floor as the brain. 300 agents are the hands. One loop ties them together: > Decompose - Opus breaks the market into targets > Dispatch - 300 agents scatter across them at once > Execute - thousands of reads in a single pass, not one by one > Review - Opus grades every edge before a cent moves The hands find. The brain judges. The loop learns what failed and runs again, tighter each time. One daily loss cap, and it shuts itself down. It's not a bot you babysit. It's a loop that runs the whole desk. Everyone's just learning to run one loop. He runs 300 in one. The edge was never the genius model - it's the size of the loop, and the brain in charge of it. Save this - the full 300-agent loop is laid out above, start to finish. You'll want it when you build your own. 300 agents are looping right now, hunting the markets everyone skips. Two clicks and their trades land in your wallet too:

While AI timeline argues about loop engineering, a 20-year-old student in Shenzhen built the biggest loop anyone's aimed at money: 300 agents, one brain, $1,200 -> 395,000. Not a prompt. Not a bot. A loop that runs the whole job on its own - and never asks him a thing. No fund. No backers. Just a laptop, a dorm room, and a bet that a swarm beats a genius. His wallet: The smartest single model still works one step at a time. His loop moves in 300 directions at once - and never checks in with him. Claude Opus 4.8 runs the floor as the brain. 300 agents are the hands. One loop ties them together: > Decompose - Opus breaks the market into targets > Dispatch - 300 agents scatter across them at once > Execute - thousands of reads in a single pass, not one by one > Review - Opus grades every edge before a cent moves The hands find. The brain judges. The loop learns what failed and runs again, tighter each time. One daily loss cap, and it shuts itself down. It's not a bot you babysit. It's a loop that runs the whole desk. Everyone's just learning to run one loop. He runs 300 in one. The edge was never the genius model - it's the size of the loop, and the brain in charge of it. Save this - the full 300-agent loop is laid out above, start to finish. You'll want it when you build your own. 300 agents are looping right now, hunting the markets everyone skips. Two clicks and their trades land in your wallet too:

cvxv666

53,163 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO: "with an affordable amount of spend on tokens, you can do what a 100-person incredibly great engineering team would do as a startup." in this 40-minute Stanford talk, he breaks down the exact shift that lets a solo founder out-build a 100-person team. free. straight from the Stanford stage. worth more than a $2,000 startup accelerator. so i stopped arguing and built one. local agents. local tool. nothing leaving my laptop. an Obsidian clone, a knowledge graph, 13 agents a full second brain. solo. what a whole team would've shipped. minus the team. minus the cloud. here's the shift he breaks down and what i found building on it: - why tokens replaced headcount - the "one-person frontier lab" model ; your second brain is the lab - the inference layer every founder is sleeping on - why hiring 100 engineers is now the expensive way to build the 100-person team didn't get cheaper. it became one person, a second brain, and a swarm of agents. bookmark this. the full build is in the article below ⬇️

Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO: "with an affordable amount of spend on tokens, you can do what a 100-person incredibly great engineering team would do as a startup." in this 40-minute Stanford talk, he breaks down the exact shift that lets a solo founder out-build a 100-person team. free. straight from the Stanford stage. worth more than a $2,000 startup accelerator. so i stopped arguing and built one. local agents. local tool. nothing leaving my laptop. an Obsidian clone, a knowledge graph, 13 agents a full second brain. solo. what a whole team would've shipped. minus the team. minus the cloud. here's the shift he breaks down and what i found building on it: - why tokens replaced headcount - the "one-person frontier lab" model ; your second brain is the lab - the inference layer every founder is sleeping on - why hiring 100 engineers is now the expensive way to build the 100-person team didn't get cheaper. it became one person, a second brain, and a swarm of agents. bookmark this. the full build is in the article below ⬇️

Avid

65,153 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

KIMI K3 + OBSIDIAN + LOOP ENGINEERING = A VAULT THAT RUNS ITSELF the core idea: the vault is the loop's state, not the chat window everything Kimi K3 knows lives in a .md file the loop: > capture - a thought lands in 00-inbox > context - K3 pulls links, tags, and neighbouring notes > draft - edits happen inside a git worktree, never the live vault > review - a critic agent checks the diff before anything ships > commit - appended to the vault, nothing gets rewritten the key insight: frontmatter fields like supports, contradicts, and supersedes are graph edges, not metadata - the note format is the write API start with a plain loop, it runs about 2-4x the cost of one direct call > only move to a full graph once state has to outlive the session, several agents need to coordinate, or you have to explain what changed - that jump can run 10-50x one review assistant climbed from 55% to 72% to 84% just by moving through these shapes in order

KIMI K3 + OBSIDIAN + LOOP ENGINEERING = A VAULT THAT RUNS ITSELF the core idea: the vault is the loop's state, not the chat window everything Kimi K3 knows lives in a .md file the loop: > capture - a thought lands in 00-inbox > context - K3 pulls links, tags, and neighbouring notes > draft - edits happen inside a git worktree, never the live vault > review - a critic agent checks the diff before anything ships > commit - appended to the vault, nothing gets rewritten the key insight: frontmatter fields like supports, contradicts, and supersedes are graph edges, not metadata - the note format is the write API start with a plain loop, it runs about 2-4x the cost of one direct call > only move to a full graph once state has to outlive the session, several agents need to coordinate, or you have to explain what changed - that jump can run 10-50x one review assistant climbed from 55% to 72% to 84% just by moving through these shapes in order

Mr. Buzzoni

10,680 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

MICROSOFT QUIETLY BUILT ONE MEMORY MODULE THAT PLUGS INTO ANY AI AGENT AND CUTS ITS CONTEXT BY UP TO 100X no retraining. no task-specific redesign. you just plug it in Microsoft's insight: agents don't need to remember what happened. they need the knowledge pulled from it - the facts and the reusable skills, not the raw logs so PlugMem stops storing history. it compiles experience into a knowledge graph, then feeds the agent only what matters the result: > up to 1-2 orders of magnitude fewer tokens > highest decision-utility per token of any system tested > one unchanged module beats task-specific memory on chat QA, multi-hop search, and web agents more memory was never the answer. better memory is - and Microsoft just shipped it as a plug-in bookmark this. the agents that win won't remember more, they'll remember smarter.

MICROSOFT QUIETLY BUILT ONE MEMORY MODULE THAT PLUGS INTO ANY AI AGENT AND CUTS ITS CONTEXT BY UP TO 100X no retraining. no task-specific redesign. you just plug it in Microsoft's insight: agents don't need to remember what happened. they need the knowledge pulled from it - the facts and the reusable skills, not the raw logs so PlugMem stops storing history. it compiles experience into a knowledge graph, then feeds the agent only what matters the result: > up to 1-2 orders of magnitude fewer tokens > highest decision-utility per token of any system tested > one unchanged module beats task-specific memory on chat QA, multi-hop search, and web agents more memory was never the answer. better memory is - and Microsoft just shipped it as a plug-in bookmark this. the agents that win won't remember more, they'll remember smarter.

NO1ennn

226,253 görüntüleme • 22 gün önce

Jensen Huang: "Nvidia runs 7,500,000 agents for 75,000 people." that's 100 AI workers for every human employee. he goes further than that. "for the very first time, we have useful AI." not AI that answers questions. AI that does the work. and he's not talking about people who occasionally prompt ChatGPT. he means people who actually run agents in parallel. most people don't know you can already do this. one button. one prompt. up to 300 agents working at the same time. it's called Kimi Agent Swarm. 100 CVs tailored to 100 job descriptions. one prompt. 40 research papers into a 100,000-word review. one prompt. 30 landing pages for 30 businesses. one prompt. $40,000-$100,000 worth of work. one sitting. full breakdown in the article below.

Jensen Huang: "Nvidia runs 7,500,000 agents for 75,000 people." that's 100 AI workers for every human employee. he goes further than that. "for the very first time, we have useful AI." not AI that answers questions. AI that does the work. and he's not talking about people who occasionally prompt ChatGPT. he means people who actually run agents in parallel. most people don't know you can already do this. one button. one prompt. up to 300 agents working at the same time. it's called Kimi Agent Swarm. 100 CVs tailored to 100 job descriptions. one prompt. 40 research papers into a 100,000-word review. one prompt. 30 landing pages for 30 businesses. one prompt. $40,000-$100,000 worth of work. one sitting. full breakdown in the article below.

Dep

11,924 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce