Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Boris Cherny, the engineer who built Claude Code: "I don't talk to an agent anymore. I talk to a loop" a prompt is one instruction you babysit. a loop is a goal the AI works toward on its own: > it plans > does the work > checks itself...

0xDepressionn's profile picture

Dep

46,427 subscribers

20,529 просмотров • 11 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Boris Cherny runs Claude Code at Anthropic. His line should stop you mid-scroll: "I don't prompt Claude anymore. I have loops running that prompt Claude and figure out what to do. My job is to write loops." The skill moved. From writing prompts to building the loop around them. A loop that works has three things. Drop one and it burns money in circles. 1. A finish line it can prove. Tests pass or they fail. "Looks done" is not a finish line. 2. A checker that did not write the code. A model grading itself always says yes. 3. Brakes set before you start. A step limit. A money ceiling. A stop condition. That is the whole game. The loop does the work. You design the cage it runs in. Full breakdown below.
0:37

Boris Cherny runs Claude Code at Anthropic. His line should stop you mid-scroll: "I don't prompt Claude anymore. I have loops running that prompt Claude and figure out what to do. My job is to write loops." The skill moved. From writing prompts to building the loop around them. A loop that works has three things. Drop one and it burns money in circles. 1. A finish line it can prove. Tests pass or they fail. "Looks done" is not a finish line. 2. A checker that did not write the code. A model grading itself always says yes. 3. Brakes set before you start. A step limit. A money ceiling. A stop condition. That is the whole game. The loop does the work. You design the cage it runs in. Full breakdown below.

shmidt

16,085 просмотров • 9 дней назад

The creator of Claude Code, Boris Cherny: "I have a Claude that prompts other Claudes. So I don't even talk to Claude." In a 57-minute conversation, he describes how the best AI work stopped being hands-on. The job moved. Now it's running the system that does the task for you. That shift is creating a role that pays like management and didn't exist two years ago. Watch the talk, then see the role mapped out in the article below. Bookmark this one.
57:23

The creator of Claude Code, Boris Cherny: "I have a Claude that prompts other Claudes. So I don't even talk to Claude." In a 57-minute conversation, he describes how the best AI work stopped being hands-on. The job moved. Now it's running the system that does the task for you. That shift is creating a role that pays like management and didn't exist two years ago. Watch the talk, then see the role mapped out in the article below. Bookmark this one.

Zephyr

12,767 просмотров • 7 дней назад

There are two types of engineers in 2026 The first opens his laptop in the morning, writes a prompt, waits, reads the diff, fixes it, repeats The second opens his phone, checks what shipped while he was asleep Different answer to one question: who is the loop? The first engineer is the loop, he starts the agent, reviews the output, decides what's next, the moment he steps away it stops The second engineer built the system that is the loop instead of him, PR review, flaky tests, CI triage, all running without him, he just reads the report What stops most people isn't complexity It's that they never noticed they are the bottleneck Full guide to building the system that runs without you below
1:04

There are two types of engineers in 2026 The first opens his laptop in the morning, writes a prompt, waits, reads the diff, fixes it, repeats The second opens his phone, checks what shipped while he was asleep Different answer to one question: who is the loop? The first engineer is the loop, he starts the agent, reviews the output, decides what's next, the moment he steps away it stops The second engineer built the system that is the loop instead of him, PR review, flaky tests, CI triage, all running without him, he just reads the report What stops most people isn't complexity It's that they never noticed they are the bottleneck Full guide to building the system that runs without you below

plutos

12,385 просмотров • 17 дней назад

Peter Steinberger, creator of OpenClaw, on why AI agents still produce "slop" without human taste in the loop: "You can create code and run all night and then you have like the ultimate slop because what those agents don't really do yet is have taste." Peter is direct: raw capability without direction still produces mediocre output. "They are spiky smart and they're really good at things, but if you don't navigate them well, if you don't have a vision of what you're going to build, it's still going to be slop. If you don't ask the right questions, it's still going to be slop." Great AI-assisted work is defined by the human guiding it. Peter Steinberger 🦞 describes his own creative process when starting a new project: "When I start a project, I have like this very rough idea what it could be. And as I play with it and feel it, my vision gets more clear. I try out things, some things don't work, and I evolve my idea into what it will become." Most people skip this part entirely, front-loading everything into a single prompt and wondering why the result feels hollow. "My next prompt depends on what I see and feel and think about the current state of the project." Each step informs the next. The work itself is the feedback loop. "But if you try to put everything into a spec up front, you miss this kind of human-machine loop. And then I don't know how something good can come out without having feelings in the loop — almost like taste." The agentic trap is what happens when you remove yourself from the process too early.
1:09

Peter Steinberger, creator of OpenClaw, on why AI agents still produce "slop" without human taste in the loop: "You can create code and run all night and then you have like the ultimate slop because what those agents don't really do yet is have taste." Peter is direct: raw capability without direction still produces mediocre output. "They are spiky smart and they're really good at things, but if you don't navigate them well, if you don't have a vision of what you're going to build, it's still going to be slop. If you don't ask the right questions, it's still going to be slop." Great AI-assisted work is defined by the human guiding it. Peter Steinberger 🦞 describes his own creative process when starting a new project: "When I start a project, I have like this very rough idea what it could be. And as I play with it and feel it, my vision gets more clear. I try out things, some things don't work, and I evolve my idea into what it will become." Most people skip this part entirely, front-loading everything into a single prompt and wondering why the result feels hollow. "My next prompt depends on what I see and feel and think about the current state of the project." Each step informs the next. The work itself is the feedback loop. "But if you try to put everything into a spec up front, you miss this kind of human-machine loop. And then I don't know how something good can come out without having feelings in the loop — almost like taste." The agentic trap is what happens when you remove yourself from the process too early.

Big Brain AI

487,946 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Anthropic Claude Code engineer: "The moment you're reviewing every line Claude writes, you became its tester. You weren't hired for that." this 36 min talk is the clearest breakdown of how to get yourself out of the loop entirely the shift is simple: you stop prompting and start building agents that work instead of you agents that run, check themselves, and keep going while your laptop is closed watch it, then build your own with the step-by-step guide below
36:48

Anthropic Claude Code engineer: "The moment you're reviewing every line Claude writes, you became its tester. You weren't hired for that." this 36 min talk is the clearest breakdown of how to get yourself out of the loop entirely the shift is simple: you stop prompting and start building agents that work instead of you agents that run, check themselves, and keep going while your laptop is closed watch it, then build your own with the step-by-step guide below

Anatoli Kopadze

27,471 просмотров • 13 дней назад

Terrence McKenna in an interview in 1998: "I think it's just going to get weirder and weirder and weirder, and finally, it's going to be so weird that people will have to talk about how weird it is. [...] This is what it's like when a species prepares to depart for the stars. You don't depart for the stars under calm and orderly conditions. It's a fire in a madhouse, and that's what we have - the fire in the madhouse at the end of time. This is what it's like when a species prepares to move on to the next dimension."
4:39

Terrence McKenna in an interview in 1998: "I think it's just going to get weirder and weirder and weirder, and finally, it's going to be so weird that people will have to talk about how weird it is. [...] This is what it's like when a species prepares to depart for the stars. You don't depart for the stars under calm and orderly conditions. It's a fire in a madhouse, and that's what we have - the fire in the madhouse at the end of time. This is what it's like when a species prepares to move on to the next dimension."

𓆝𓆜𓆞𓆢

26,389 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

The guy who kicked off the entire "loop engineering" wave Peter Steinberger: "You shouldn't be prompting coding agents anymore. You should be designing loops that prompt your agents." One post. 6.5M views in a week. In this talk he walks the real stack: the agent loop, a verifier that fails its own work and retries, and a loop that rewrites the agent while he sleeps. Worth more than any $500 vibe-coding course. Watch it, then read the full breakdown of the 4 loops below.
17:30

The guy who kicked off the entire "loop engineering" wave Peter Steinberger: "You shouldn't be prompting coding agents anymore. You should be designing loops that prompt your agents." One post. 6.5M views in a week. In this talk he walks the real stack: the agent loop, a verifier that fails its own work and retries, and a loop that rewrites the agent while he sleeps. Worth more than any $500 vibe-coding course. Watch it, then read the full breakdown of the 4 loops below.

dunik

216,495 просмотров • 9 дней назад

Boris Cherny (creator of Claude Code, Anthropic): "My entire CLAUDE.md is two lines. With every new model you need less instruction, not more, most people are over-engineering the one thing that should stay tiny." in a 7-minute interview, Boris Cherny breaks down why the smallest AI-coding setup wins, and the one moment you should delete your config and start from scratch most engineers do the opposite: they pile on rules, build scaffolding around the model… then the next model ships and makes all of it useless. what he actually keeps in those two lines, and why he tells his team to throw the rest away. Watch the talk, then read the article below. That’s worth more than a $800 course on agent engineering.
7:13

Boris Cherny (creator of Claude Code, Anthropic): "My entire CLAUDE.md is two lines. With every new model you need less instruction, not more, most people are over-engineering the one thing that should stay tiny." in a 7-minute interview, Boris Cherny breaks down why the smallest AI-coding setup wins, and the one moment you should delete your config and start from scratch most engineers do the opposite: they pile on rules, build scaffolding around the model… then the next model ships and makes all of it useless. what he actually keeps in those two lines, and why he tells his team to throw the rest away. Watch the talk, then read the article below. That’s worth more than a $800 course on agent engineering.

Riley West

236,811 просмотров • 15 дней назад

Anthropic engineers just showed how they build a full app from scratch, using a loop of agents 40 minutes from the team behind Claude Code they used three agents: one to plan, one to build, one to judge, cycling until the app actually works the winners won't have the smartest model, they'll have the best loop watch it, then read the full guide on how to actually use loops below
39:36

Anthropic engineers just showed how they build a full app from scratch, using a loop of agents 40 minutes from the team behind Claude Code they used three agents: one to plan, one to build, one to judge, cycling until the app actually works the winners won't have the smartest model, they'll have the best loop watch it, then read the full guide on how to actually use loops below

Anatoli Kopadze

1,880,697 просмотров • 10 дней назад

Boris Cherny (Claude Code creator): "I don't prompt Claude anymore... my job is to write loops." In his latest interview, he breaks down the setup step by step. He runs /loops + a dynamic workflow + a couple hundred agents that read his GitHub, Slack, and Twitter and decide what to build next. His only job now is writing the loops that orchestrate them. That's a multi-agent workflow. I broke down how to build your own below ↓
4:07

Boris Cherny (Claude Code creator): "I don't prompt Claude anymore... my job is to write loops." In his latest interview, he breaks down the setup step by step. He runs /loops + a dynamic workflow + a couple hundred agents that read his GitHub, Slack, and Twitter and decide what to build next. His only job now is writing the loops that orchestrate them. That's a multi-agent workflow. I broke down how to build your own below ↓

Avid

26,751 просмотров • 24 дней назад

Automation engineer sent two AI to war. One fights to place the trade. The other fights to prove it's a mistake. Only what survives the battle gets his money - $392,000 profit of it so far. He doesn't pick the trades anymore. He built loop and stepped back. His wallet: The article below explains why that second AI, the one whose only job is to say no - is the entire game. Without a real check, you don't have a loop. You have a model agreeing with itself until the account's empty. He builds these loops for a living - agents that ship code and run themselves. One weekend he built one that trades. Here's how the war actually plays out. The maker reads the 5-minute candle and builds a case: buy Up, here's why. The checker has one purpose - break that case. Wrong regime, thin edge, bad timing. Poke one hole and the trade dies on the spot. Only the trades the checker can't kill ever reach the market. Every night the loop writes down which calls went wrong and tightens its own rules. It stops itself cold at the daily loss cap - nothing runs forever. $5,000 → $392,000. The checker vetoes far more trades than it lets through. That's the point. He didn't build a smarter bot. He built one that has to win an argument before it spends a dollar. Save this and read the breakdown below - it's the clearest explanation of loop engineering on your timeline, and it's the exact idea this whole system runs on. Or skip the build: the loop's live right now, two AI arguing over the next candle. Two clicks and its winners land in your wallet too:
0:45

Automation engineer sent two AI to war. One fights to place the trade. The other fights to prove it's a mistake. Only what survives the battle gets his money - $392,000 profit of it so far. He doesn't pick the trades anymore. He built loop and stepped back. His wallet: The article below explains why that second AI, the one whose only job is to say no - is the entire game. Without a real check, you don't have a loop. You have a model agreeing with itself until the account's empty. He builds these loops for a living - agents that ship code and run themselves. One weekend he built one that trades. Here's how the war actually plays out. The maker reads the 5-minute candle and builds a case: buy Up, here's why. The checker has one purpose - break that case. Wrong regime, thin edge, bad timing. Poke one hole and the trade dies on the spot. Only the trades the checker can't kill ever reach the market. Every night the loop writes down which calls went wrong and tightens its own rules. It stops itself cold at the daily loss cap - nothing runs forever. $5,000 → $392,000. The checker vetoes far more trades than it lets through. That's the point. He didn't build a smarter bot. He built one that has to win an argument before it spends a dollar. Save this and read the breakdown below - it's the clearest explanation of loop engineering on your timeline, and it's the exact idea this whole system runs on. Or skip the build: the loop's live right now, two AI arguing over the next candle. Two clicks and its winners land in your wallet too:

cvxv666

42,548 просмотров • 11 дней назад

Boris Cherny (Creator of Claude Code): "The one technical book I would recommend to everyone that has had the greatest impact on me as an engineer is functional programming in Scala. You're probably never going to use Scala day today, but the way it teaches you to think about coding problems is just such a change from the way that most people were in coding, either practically or in school. It's just. It's incredible. It's going to completely change the way that you code now. I think in types, when I code, the thing that matters in your code the most is the type signatures. This is more important than the code itself." Boris Cherny
0:26

Boris Cherny (Creator of Claude Code): "The one technical book I would recommend to everyone that has had the greatest impact on me as an engineer is functional programming in Scala. You're probably never going to use Scala day today, but the way it teaches you to think about coding problems is just such a change from the way that most people were in coding, either practically or in school. It's just. It's incredible. It's going to completely change the way that you code now. I think in types, when I code, the thing that matters in your code the most is the type signatures. This is more important than the code itself." Boris Cherny

Ryan Peterman

364,314 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

i watched gemma 4 12b build something genuinely impressive today, and then loop itself to death right in front of me. the full run is in the video, sped up but completely uncut, watch it to the end and you will catch the exact moment it stops building and starts looping right in the middle of the work. the task was clean, build a single file gravity simulator, n-body physics, orbits, collisions, running locally on one 3090 through an agent. and for ten minutes it was a joy to watch. it reached for a symplectic integrator on its own, the correct one, the kind that keeps orbits stable instead of spiralling out. real gravity with softening, proper orbital velocities, momentum conserved on collision. the physics was right. the thing actually worked. then on the very last step, writing a few tests to prove its own code, it fell into a loop. not a crash, a loop. it started repeating itself and would not stop. ten more minutes, thirty four thousand tokens into a single answer, the same fragments over and over, until i killed it myself. so it's not that gemma can't code. it did the hard part beautifully. it cannot finish. it cannot hold a long task together without unravelling, and finishing is the entire job in agentic work. here's the part that stings. i run this exact task, same harness, same card, on the chinese open models, qwen especially, and i never see this. they build it, they test it, they stop. every single time. google has the raw capability, you can see it sitting right there in the code, and then the model loops itself to death on a task a 27b from alibaba finishes clean. open weights, apache 2.0, so much to love on paper. i just need it to know when to stop talking.
4:15

i watched gemma 4 12b build something genuinely impressive today, and then loop itself to death right in front of me. the full run is in the video, sped up but completely uncut, watch it to the end and you will catch the exact moment it stops building and starts looping right in the middle of the work. the task was clean, build a single file gravity simulator, n-body physics, orbits, collisions, running locally on one 3090 through an agent. and for ten minutes it was a joy to watch. it reached for a symplectic integrator on its own, the correct one, the kind that keeps orbits stable instead of spiralling out. real gravity with softening, proper orbital velocities, momentum conserved on collision. the physics was right. the thing actually worked. then on the very last step, writing a few tests to prove its own code, it fell into a loop. not a crash, a loop. it started repeating itself and would not stop. ten more minutes, thirty four thousand tokens into a single answer, the same fragments over and over, until i killed it myself. so it's not that gemma can't code. it did the hard part beautifully. it cannot finish. it cannot hold a long task together without unravelling, and finishing is the entire job in agentic work. here's the part that stings. i run this exact task, same harness, same card, on the chinese open models, qwen especially, and i never see this. they build it, they test it, they stop. every single time. google has the raw capability, you can see it sitting right there in the code, and then the model loops itself to death on a task a 27b from alibaba finishes clean. open weights, apache 2.0, so much to love on paper. i just need it to know when to stop talking.

Sudo su

39,574 просмотров • 24 дней назад

Anthropic Research Lead: "99% of our engineers run swarms of 300+ self-improving agents" "Close the loop, give the model a way to verify its own output" In a 20-minute session, an Anthropic Team member breaks down how to build agents that improve themselves The real setup is Claude running through loops, plan mode, and dynamic workflows Better than most $300 agent courses Bookmark and watch the talk Then read the article below
19:32

Anthropic Research Lead: "99% of our engineers run swarms of 300+ self-improving agents" "Close the loop, give the model a way to verify its own output" In a 20-minute session, an Anthropic Team member breaks down how to build agents that improve themselves The real setup is Claude running through loops, plan mode, and dynamic workflows Better than most $300 agent courses Bookmark and watch the talk Then read the article below

rari

376,115 просмотров • 9 дней назад

The person who built Claude Code just explained how he is using it "Now I just have an army of agents that are doing stuff" Only 18 minutes, the best Claude guide on the internet right now. Boris Cherny covered: > how Claude Code is moving beyond just engineers > routines for CI, code review, and daily workflows > why the loop is the next big leap > working with hundreds of agents at once everything is already running through agents, ignoring this is not an option that's exactly why I wrote a full guide on how to build one yourself with Claude Code article below
17:28

The person who built Claude Code just explained how he is using it "Now I just have an army of agents that are doing stuff" Only 18 minutes, the best Claude guide on the internet right now. Boris Cherny covered: > how Claude Code is moving beyond just engineers > routines for CI, code review, and daily workflows > why the loop is the next big leap > working with hundreds of agents at once everything is already running through agents, ignoring this is not an option that's exactly why I wrote a full guide on how to build one yourself with Claude Code article below

Anatoli Kopadze

16,858 просмотров • 21 дней назад

In one week this June, Peter Steinberger Peter Steinberger 🦞 , Boris Cherny Boris Cherny , and Addy Osmani Addy Osmani all pointed at the same shift and gave it a name: loop engineering. It's the floor above the harness. You stop prompting the agent and build the system that pokes it for you. I wrote a free book about it. 👇
0:26

In one week this June, Peter Steinberger Peter Steinberger 🦞 , Boris Cherny Boris Cherny , and Addy Osmani Addy Osmani all pointed at the same shift and gave it a name: loop engineering. It's the floor above the harness. You stop prompting the agent and build the system that pokes it for you. I wrote a free book about it. 👇

花叔

10,478 просмотров • 14 дней назад

Boris Cherny, head of Claude Code at Anthropic: "I don't prompt Claude anymore. I have loops that are running; they are the ones prompting Claude and figuring out what to do. My job is to write loops." He's right. Karpathy and Steinberger arrived at the same conclusion from different angles. The skill has a new name. Loop engineering. Cherny's token bill is zero. He works at Anthropic. Steinberger burned $1.3 million in OpenAI credits in 30 days. He works at OpenAI. Loops are the right architecture. But the people evangelizing them aren't the ones paying. I wrote a breakdown of five plays that land most of what a loop gives you at a fraction of the cost, plus the one case where a loop is worth paying for.
1:33

Boris Cherny, head of Claude Code at Anthropic: "I don't prompt Claude anymore. I have loops that are running; they are the ones prompting Claude and figuring out what to do. My job is to write loops." He's right. Karpathy and Steinberger arrived at the same conclusion from different angles. The skill has a new name. Loop engineering. Cherny's token bill is zero. He works at Anthropic. Steinberger burned $1.3 million in OpenAI credits in 30 days. He works at OpenAI. Loops are the right architecture. But the people evangelizing them aren't the ones paying. I wrote a breakdown of five plays that land most of what a loop gives you at a fraction of the cost, plus the one case where a loop is worth paying for.

Alex Prompter

15,166 просмотров • 8 дней назад

THIS GUY CONNECTED HIS AI AGENTS TO HIS OBSIDIAN AND BUILT A BRAIN THAT LEARNS ON ITS OWN. HERE'S HOW TO BUILD IT Obsidian is just markdown files sitting in a folder. That turns out to be the perfect memory for an AI agent, because an agent can read and write those files directly. He wired his agents into the vault so they pull context from it, do the work, and write what they learned back. The notes aren't the point. The loop is, and it gets sharper every cycle How to build it: 1. Point an agent at your vault. The fastest way, no plugins, no API keys: open a terminal and run npx obsidian-mcp /path/to/your/vault. That exposes your Obsidian folder to Claude as a tool it can read, search, and write to. Add it to your Claude Code or Cowork config and restart 2. Confirm it can see the brain. Ask it: "list the notes in my vault and summarize what's in them." If it reads them back, the connection is live. Now it starts every task with everything the vault already holds instead of from zero 3. Give each agent one job and a write-back rule. Tell it: "research this, then save what you found as a new note in /brain with links to related notes." One agent researches, one summarizes, one plans. Each writes its output back into the vault 4. Close the loop. Add one line to every agent's instructions: "read /brain before starting, write your result back when done." Now each task leaves the vault richer, and the next run reads that before it works. It compounds instead of resetting 5. You only steer. Review what the brain produces, point it at the next thing. The agents handle the reading, writing, and connecting The edge isn't better notes. It's a brain that feeds itself, so the work gets sharper every cycle instead of starting over Bookmark this
0:24

THIS GUY CONNECTED HIS AI AGENTS TO HIS OBSIDIAN AND BUILT A BRAIN THAT LEARNS ON ITS OWN. HERE'S HOW TO BUILD IT Obsidian is just markdown files sitting in a folder. That turns out to be the perfect memory for an AI agent, because an agent can read and write those files directly. He wired his agents into the vault so they pull context from it, do the work, and write what they learned back. The notes aren't the point. The loop is, and it gets sharper every cycle How to build it: 1. Point an agent at your vault. The fastest way, no plugins, no API keys: open a terminal and run npx obsidian-mcp /path/to/your/vault. That exposes your Obsidian folder to Claude as a tool it can read, search, and write to. Add it to your Claude Code or Cowork config and restart 2. Confirm it can see the brain. Ask it: "list the notes in my vault and summarize what's in them." If it reads them back, the connection is live. Now it starts every task with everything the vault already holds instead of from zero 3. Give each agent one job and a write-back rule. Tell it: "research this, then save what you found as a new note in /brain with links to related notes." One agent researches, one summarizes, one plans. Each writes its output back into the vault 4. Close the loop. Add one line to every agent's instructions: "read /brain before starting, write your result back when done." Now each task leaves the vault richer, and the next run reads that before it works. It compounds instead of resetting 5. You only steer. Review what the brain produces, point it at the next thing. The agents handle the reading, writing, and connecting The edge isn't better notes. It's a brain that feeds itself, so the work gets sharper every cycle instead of starting over Bookmark this

Yarchi

57,768 просмотров • 24 дней назад

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.
0:27

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.

Dustin

315,019 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

ChatGPT can write you a thousand trading strategies from one sentence. 999 will quietly bleed your account dry. Every single one of them looks like a winner. One method pulls the real one out. Quant desks have run it for years. It's called loop engineering. It's not a smarter prompt. It's a loop: generate a strategy, test it, score why it failed, feed that back, and run it again until one survives data it has never seen. Man Group runs $150 billion. They built an AI that writes and tests hundreds of strategies a week. And second agent whose only job is to hunt the ones that secretly overfit and kill them before a cent goes live. > describe an idea -> backtest 5 years in 12 seconds > read why it died -> feed that back in > run it again until one survives data it never saw AI can write a thousand strategies. Loop engineering is the only thing that tells you which one was ever real. 89% of retail lost money in 2025. Almost none of it from bad ideas. All of it from trading the first guess and never running it through backtest loop. Horizon just put the whole thing in a chat box, free while the beta's open: You're not losing to smarter traders. You're losing to the ones who opened the tab. Anyone can generate a strategy now. Almost no one runs the loop that proves it. That gap is the whole edge. You'll mean to check it later. Later is a "waitlist closed" page.
0:43

ChatGPT can write you a thousand trading strategies from one sentence. 999 will quietly bleed your account dry. Every single one of them looks like a winner. One method pulls the real one out. Quant desks have run it for years. It's called loop engineering. It's not a smarter prompt. It's a loop: generate a strategy, test it, score why it failed, feed that back, and run it again until one survives data it has never seen. Man Group runs $150 billion. They built an AI that writes and tests hundreds of strategies a week. And second agent whose only job is to hunt the ones that secretly overfit and kill them before a cent goes live. > describe an idea -> backtest 5 years in 12 seconds > read why it died -> feed that back in > run it again until one survives data it never saw AI can write a thousand strategies. Loop engineering is the only thing that tells you which one was ever real. 89% of retail lost money in 2025. Almost none of it from bad ideas. All of it from trading the first guess and never running it through backtest loop. Horizon just put the whole thing in a chat box, free while the beta's open: You're not losing to smarter traders. You're losing to the ones who opened the tab. Anyone can generate a strategy now. Almost no one runs the loop that proves it. That gap is the whole edge. You'll mean to check it later. Later is a "waitlist closed" page.

cvxv666

165,663 просмотров • 13 дней назад