Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Everyone's debating whether Opus or Codex or Gemini writes better code this month. Jyothi thinks that's the wrong question entirely. Models get replaced. Rankings flip every few months. Whatever wins the coding benchmark this quarter loses it next quarter, and the debate resets to zero. The harness doesn't reset.... show more

Aakash Gupta

295,027 subscribers

17,219 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The entire AI industry is racing to build the smartest model. Satya Nadella just admitted that is not where the money is. The model is not the product. The harness is. That is the exact line. And it changes what Microsoft is actually competing on. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Meta every frontier lab is pouring hundreds of billions into training compute, chasing the next capability jump. Each betting that raw model intelligence is the moat. Microsoft is doing the opposite. It is building the harness the orchestration layer that sits above the model, connecting it to tools, data, permissions, sub-agents, and enterprise workflows. And it is letting OpenAI, Anthropic, and MAI compete to plug into it. "You need the model. But the model is not the product. The harness is." So do the math on what a harness actually does. A raw model dropped into an enterprise answers questions. That is a chatbot. A harness turns that same model into an agent that reads the SharePoint, edits the ERP entry, pulls the GitHub PR, updates Salesforce, and files the Excel report with the right permissions, the right audit trail, and the right sub-agent for each sub-task. The model provides the intelligence. The harness converts intelligence into work. Now here's where it gets interesting. "Even the best model in the world will feel broken without a great harness. And an okay model with a great harness can feel like magic." If that is true, the enterprise buyer is not buying model quality. The enterprise buyer is buying the harness. Which means model quality becomes a commodity input over time, and harness quality becomes the sustainable moat. Compare that to the strategy the entire frontier lab industry is executing. Everyone else is chasing the numerator raw intelligence. Almost nobody at scale is racing to build the denominator the orchestration layer that determines whether that intelligence can actually be deployed profitably inside a real company. The frontier model race has a 10 to 20 percent chance of producing a single dominant winner. Nadella just told the industry he does not need to be that winner. If OpenAI wins, Microsoft wins. If Anthropic wins, Microsoft wins. If MAI wins, Microsoft wins. If someone Microsoft has never heard of trains a better model in 2027, Microsoft still wins. Because the compute they train on, the harness they get plugged into, the enterprise contracts they get delivered through, and the products they sit inside are all Microsoft. He is not building the best AI model. He is building the layer that the best AI model has to run on to make anyone money. I wonder which position looks more valuable in ten years.

The entire AI industry is racing to build the smartest model. Satya Nadella just admitted that is not where the money is. The model is not the product. The harness is. That is the exact line. And it changes what Microsoft is actually competing on. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Meta every frontier lab is pouring hundreds of billions into training compute, chasing the next capability jump. Each betting that raw model intelligence is the moat. Microsoft is doing the opposite. It is building the harness the orchestration layer that sits above the model, connecting it to tools, data, permissions, sub-agents, and enterprise workflows. And it is letting OpenAI, Anthropic, and MAI compete to plug into it. "You need the model. But the model is not the product. The harness is." So do the math on what a harness actually does. A raw model dropped into an enterprise answers questions. That is a chatbot. A harness turns that same model into an agent that reads the SharePoint, edits the ERP entry, pulls the GitHub PR, updates Salesforce, and files the Excel report with the right permissions, the right audit trail, and the right sub-agent for each sub-task. The model provides the intelligence. The harness converts intelligence into work. Now here's where it gets interesting. "Even the best model in the world will feel broken without a great harness. And an okay model with a great harness can feel like magic." If that is true, the enterprise buyer is not buying model quality. The enterprise buyer is buying the harness. Which means model quality becomes a commodity input over time, and harness quality becomes the sustainable moat. Compare that to the strategy the entire frontier lab industry is executing. Everyone else is chasing the numerator raw intelligence. Almost nobody at scale is racing to build the denominator the orchestration layer that determines whether that intelligence can actually be deployed profitably inside a real company. The frontier model race has a 10 to 20 percent chance of producing a single dominant winner. Nadella just told the industry he does not need to be that winner. If OpenAI wins, Microsoft wins. If Anthropic wins, Microsoft wins. If MAI wins, Microsoft wins. If someone Microsoft has never heard of trains a better model in 2027, Microsoft still wins. Because the compute they train on, the harness they get plugged into, the enterprise contracts they get delivered through, and the products they sit inside are all Microsoft. He is not building the best AI model. He is building the layer that the best AI model has to run on to make anyone money. I wonder which position looks more valuable in ten years.

Vikram M

21,463 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Google's team published a 9-page PDF on Harness Engineering. one formula replaced prompt engineering: Agent = Model + Harness the twist: same Claude Sonnet, same benchmark. change only the harness the playbook, six steps: step 1 -> add guides AGENTS.md, rule files, constraint docs. every line is a past agent failure turned into a permanent fix step 2 -> add sensors linters, tests, validation scripts the agent runs on its own output before a human sees it step 3 -> build the agentic loop plan, execute, verify, fix. bounded retries, budget caps, escalation when stuck step 4 -> externalize memory the model forgets every session. the harness holds state, decisions and artifacts across all of them step 5 -> enforce permissions which tools, how many writes, what needs approval. safety lives in the harness, never in the model step 6 -> wire observability track every tool call, cost and retry. trip wires fire when behavior drifts the result: your agent turns from a demo into infrastructure every failure makes the system permanently better, not just the next conversation that's also the line between an agent you show people and one a client pays you to leave running one harness gets you a reliable loop. connect several and it becomes graph engineering, where one agent's failure turns into another agent's sensor the PDF stops at the harness. the graph is the next layer that breakdown, running on Kimi, is below ↓

Google's team published a 9-page PDF on Harness Engineering. one formula replaced prompt engineering: Agent = Model + Harness the twist: same Claude Sonnet, same benchmark. change only the harness the playbook, six steps: step 1 -> add guides AGENTS.md, rule files, constraint docs. every line is a past agent failure turned into a permanent fix step 2 -> add sensors linters, tests, validation scripts the agent runs on its own output before a human sees it step 3 -> build the agentic loop plan, execute, verify, fix. bounded retries, budget caps, escalation when stuck step 4 -> externalize memory the model forgets every session. the harness holds state, decisions and artifacts across all of them step 5 -> enforce permissions which tools, how many writes, what needs approval. safety lives in the harness, never in the model step 6 -> wire observability track every tool call, cost and retry. trip wires fire when behavior drifts the result: your agent turns from a demo into infrastructure every failure makes the system permanently better, not just the next conversation that's also the line between an agent you show people and one a client pays you to leave running one harness gets you a reliable loop. connect several and it becomes graph engineering, where one agent's failure turns into another agent's sensor the PDF stops at the harness. the graph is the next layer that breakdown, running on Kimi, is below ↓

Annatar.md

72,865 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

$HARNESS vs LOOP vs GRAPH ➜ STOP MIXING THEM UP Most people treat these three as the same thing. They’re not 1\ Harness = the machinery around the model (tools, state, permissions, memory, sandboxes, observability) 2\ Loop = the repeated work + evidence + feedback cycle with clear stop rules 3\ Graph = the explicit topology (nodes, branches, joins, controlled cycles) Clean mental model environment → feedback → flow > A raw model can’t maintain state, run tests, or restart failed jobs. Those capabilities come from the harness > Loops turn one-shot calls into managed processes that only stop when evidence proves success > Graphs decide which component is allowed to run next Most production failures that get blamed on the model are actually failures of harness, loop, or graph design Design the three layers together. Diagnose by layer when something breaks Guide in the article below$

HARNESS vs LOOP vs GRAPH ➜ STOP MIXING THEM UP Most people treat these three as the same thing. They’re not 1\ Harness = the machinery around the model (tools, state, permissions, memory, sandboxes, observability) 2\ Loop = the repeated work + evidence + feedback cycle with clear stop rules 3\ Graph = the explicit topology (nodes, branches, joins, controlled cycles) Clean mental model environment → feedback → flow > A raw model can’t maintain state, run tests, or restart failed jobs. Those capabilities come from the harness > Loops turn one-shot calls into managed processes that only stop when evidence proves success > Graphs decide which component is allowed to run next Most production failures that get blamed on the model are actually failures of harness, loop, or graph design Design the three layers together. Diagnose by layer when something breaks Guide in the article below

beamnxw ./

19,471 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The next billion-dollar AI companies won’t be built around an LLM. They’ll be built around the HARNESS. Everyone is asking: “Which AI model should I use?” I think that’s the wrong question. An LLM is like a wild black stallion—immensely powerful, constantly improving, but running free. The opportunity is building the harness that lets you control that power and actually win the horse race. Your AI application shouldn’t be the model. It should orchestrate models. Claude today. GPT tomorrow. Gemini, Grok, Qwen, or whatever comes next. Swap the engine without rebuilding the car. Crypto already taught us this lesson. People interact with things like USDC and Tether without caring nearly as much which underlying blockchain happens to settle the transaction. The application layer abstracts the infrastructure. AI is heading the same direction. LLMs are infrastructure. The harness is the product. The winners will build AI harnesses around real human problems—businesses, workflows, coding, research, finance, education, everyday life—and make the underlying intelligence interchangeable. Everyone is trying to capture this incredibly powerful new thing called AI. Stop trying to build a better horse. Build the harness that lets you ride any horse. 🐎🤖 I just made a video explaining why I think this is where some of the biggest opportunities in AI are hiding.

The next billion-dollar AI companies won’t be built around an LLM. They’ll be built around the HARNESS. Everyone is asking: “Which AI model should I use?” I think that’s the wrong question. An LLM is like a wild black stallion—immensely powerful, constantly improving, but running free. The opportunity is building the harness that lets you control that power and actually win the horse race. Your AI application shouldn’t be the model. It should orchestrate models. Claude today. GPT tomorrow. Gemini, Grok, Qwen, or whatever comes next. Swap the engine without rebuilding the car. Crypto already taught us this lesson. People interact with things like USDC and Tether without caring nearly as much which underlying blockchain happens to settle the transaction. The application layer abstracts the infrastructure. AI is heading the same direction. LLMs are infrastructure. The harness is the product. The winners will build AI harnesses around real human problems—businesses, workflows, coding, research, finance, education, everyday life—and make the underlying intelligence interchangeable. Everyone is trying to capture this incredibly powerful new thing called AI. Stop trying to build a better horse. Build the harness that lets you ride any horse. 🐎🤖 I just made a video explaining why I think this is where some of the biggest opportunities in AI are hiding.

Jared Tate ©️

10,118 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Buzz is Slack where the agents are teammates instead of integrations. Here's what that unlocks: Agents: - The ones you start with are just defaults - Edit them, add your own, write their instructions like a system prompt Swappable Harness: - This is the killer feature - Swap Claude Code, Codex, Goose under the same agent Context: - Every chat you've had with that agent carries over to the new harness - Global skills and skill files come too Think: Slack = the shape Agents = the teammates Harness = the engine you can change without losing anything "I get model fatigue" is a real thing. Buzz sits one layer above it.

Buzz is Slack where the agents are teammates instead of integrations. Here's what that unlocks: Agents: - The ones you start with are just defaults - Edit them, add your own, write their instructions like a system prompt Swappable Harness: - This is the killer feature - Swap Claude Code, Codex, Goose under the same agent Context: - Every chat you've had with that agent carries over to the new harness - Global skills and skill files come too Think: Slack = the shape Agents = the teammates Harness = the engine you can change without losing anything "I get model fatigue" is a real thing. Buzz sits one layer above it.

The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃

43,523 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Jensen Huang was asked whether AI's future is open source or proprietary the question the whole industry keeps fighting over. He didn't pick a side. He said something that quietly ends the fight. "models is a technology, not a product. Model is a technology, not a service" "For the vast majority of consumers, the horizontal layer, the general intelligence, I would really, really love not to go fine-tune my own" "all these industries, their domain expertise, their specialization has to be channeled, has to be captured in a way that they can control, and that it can only come from open models" "the open model industry we're contributing tremendously to it is near the frontier" Everyone else is arguing about which lab wins OpenAI or Anthropic, who has the smartest frontier model this quarter. Jensen is standing on stage saying that's the sideshow. The proprietary model is the convenience layer you rent when you don't care. The open model is the thing you own when the work is yours. Two different products for two different needs not two horses in one race. open models are the second-biggest in the room. Ahead of Anthropic. Behind only OpenAI.

Jensen Huang was asked whether AI's future is open source or proprietary the question the whole industry keeps fighting over. He didn't pick a side. He said something that quietly ends the fight. "models is a technology, not a product. Model is a technology, not a service" "For the vast majority of consumers, the horizontal layer, the general intelligence, I would really, really love not to go fine-tune my own" "all these industries, their domain expertise, their specialization has to be channeled, has to be captured in a way that they can control, and that it can only come from open models" "the open model industry we're contributing tremendously to it is near the frontier" Everyone else is arguing about which lab wins OpenAI or Anthropic, who has the smartest frontier model this quarter. Jensen is standing on stage saying that's the sideshow. The proprietary model is the convenience layer you rent when you don't care. The open model is the thing you own when the work is yours. Two different products for two different needs not two horses in one race. open models are the second-biggest in the room. Ahead of Anthropic. Behind only OpenAI.

Vikram M

12,078 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

this is huge news from Cursor, they've pulled of the impossible and turned their ai-wrapper into a in-destructible moat sam altman literally called it cursor's ai agent harness is available for anyone to build on, which means ai models are now a commodity > 1-time install and now anyone can run cursor's agent locally or via cloud. use any model (e.g. gpt 5.5) but with the added cursor harness that makes it 10X better. > its so good that 3 of cursors biggest competitors are embedding it into their products. > now cursor DOESN'T DEPEND on anthropic or openai. their own model (composer 2) competes directly! yesterday sam altman said the ai model and harness are one and the same and today cursor turned their harness into a self-owned moat fucking masterclass (coming from a former cursor / ai wrapper hater)

this is huge news from Cursor, they've pulled of the impossible and turned their ai-wrapper into a in-destructible moat sam altman literally called it cursor's ai agent harness is available for anyone to build on, which means ai models are now a commodity > 1-time install and now anyone can run cursor's agent locally or via cloud. use any model (e.g. gpt 5.5) but with the added cursor harness that makes it 10X better. > its so good that 3 of cursors biggest competitors are embedding it into their products. > now cursor DOESN'T DEPEND on anthropic or openai. their own model (composer 2) competes directly! yesterday sam altman said the ai model and harness are one and the same and today cursor turned their harness into a self-owned moat fucking masterclass (coming from a former cursor / ai wrapper hater)

Ejaaz

950,452 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

small local model that falls apart in bloated agents like openclaw just runs like a wild horse in hermes agent. and that's not even my line, someone else called it that, i've just been quietly pointing people at this harness for months because it held up on everything i threw at it, 3b models all the way to one trillion params. watch this happen on my own machine. i pointed hermes agent at a local http endpoint, gemma 4 12b on my 3090 llama.cpp server, and it auto-detected the model and started working immediately. no config wrestling, no broken tool calls, no babysitting the output format, i typed in a url and it just went. the whole clip is exactly that, start to finish, no errors, no retries, butter smooth. and the tool calling, the one thing that quietly breaks most local setups, works here like it's nothing. it's not the model that's flaky, it's the harness around it. hermes agent is the first agent i've run that actually gets that right. one url, one local model on one card, and it runs like a wild horse.

small local model that falls apart in bloated agents like openclaw just runs like a wild horse in hermes agent. and that's not even my line, someone else called it that, i've just been quietly pointing people at this harness for months because it held up on everything i threw at it, 3b models all the way to one trillion params. watch this happen on my own machine. i pointed hermes agent at a local http endpoint, gemma 4 12b on my 3090 llama.cpp server, and it auto-detected the model and started working immediately. no config wrestling, no broken tool calls, no babysitting the output format, i typed in a url and it just went. the whole clip is exactly that, start to finish, no errors, no retries, butter smooth. and the tool calling, the one thing that quietly breaks most local setups, works here like it's nothing. it's not the model that's flaky, it's the harness around it. hermes agent is the first agent i've run that actually gets that right. one url, one local model on one card, and it runs like a wild horse.

Sudo su

27,339 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Anthropic Engineer Andrej Karpathy: "Stop training from scratch. Take what the model already learned - adapt it - ship it At OpenAI we replaced months of work with a few lines of code. Better results every time " the Karpathy formula for working with AI: step 1 → stop building from zero. the model already learned the hard part - just point it at your task step 2 → stop adding complexity, the simplest architecture beat everything in 2014 - simpler always wins step 3 → train only the last layer and freeze everything else - minutes instead of months. better results he taught this at Stanford 10 years ago - then applied it at OpenAI, Tesla, and Anthropic the advice never changed - because it never stopped working watch - bookmark, then read article below ↓

Anthropic Engineer Andrej Karpathy: "Stop training from scratch. Take what the model already learned - adapt it - ship it At OpenAI we replaced months of work with a few lines of code. Better results every time " the Karpathy formula for working with AI: step 1 → stop building from zero. the model already learned the hard part - just point it at your task step 2 → stop adding complexity, the simplest architecture beat everything in 2014 - simpler always wins step 3 → train only the last layer and freeze everything else - minutes instead of months. better results he taught this at Stanford 10 years ago - then applied it at OpenAI, Tesla, and Anthropic the advice never changed - because it never stopped working watch - bookmark, then read article below ↓

codila

25,376 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Anthropic engineer: "Harness engineering is a really rare skill right now - and it's hard to know if you're even good at it." how he actually thinks about building the full system: • step 1 → the model. already smarter than we use it. "freeze development - you'd find new capabilities for another 6-12 months" • step 2 → the harness. delete the steering. "we stopped using plan mode - the model thinks correctly" • step 3 → the agents. workflows let Claude build its own harness per task and spin sub-agents. what didn't fit in one context window now runs across many • step 4 → the context. "RAG is an anti-pattern. use grep." memory via files, clean context window, prompt caching. that's the stack most people optimize step 1. he optimizes all four. Watch the full video, then read the guide below on how to build an agentic system.

Anthropic engineer: "Harness engineering is a really rare skill right now - and it's hard to know if you're even good at it." how he actually thinks about building the full system: • step 1 → the model. already smarter than we use it. "freeze development - you'd find new capabilities for another 6-12 months" • step 2 → the harness. delete the steering. "we stopped using plan mode - the model thinks correctly" • step 3 → the agents. workflows let Claude build its own harness per task and spin sub-agents. what didn't fit in one context window now runs across many • step 4 → the context. "RAG is an anti-pattern. use grep." memory via files, clean context window, prompt caching. that's the stack most people optimize step 1. he optimizes all four. Watch the full video, then read the guide below on how to build an agentic system.

Codez

43,789 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas on the brutal truth about who actually makes money in AI (and why it's not who you think): Aravind argues that the real value in AI comes from orchestration. He points to products like Codex, Claude Code, and Perplexity Computer: "What is that? It's an orchestration system. It takes a model, pairs it with an agent harness." And what is an agent harness? "The simplest way of describing it is like rules for how the agent loop should run. What are all the skills and sub-agents and connectors and tools it accesses? Without the harness, you don't necessarily capture and convert the intrinsic intelligence in the model into valuable output tokens." This leads to a blunt conclusion about who has a real business in AI, and who doesn't: "If you're literally just a reseller of model tokens, you have no business, because the model will get commoditized. So even if you're a model builder, you don't have a business. As an infra layer, you have some business on serving those output tokens. But as an application layer or model builder, you don't really have a business if you're just a reseller of tokens that come directly out of the model." So where does the value accrue? "You have a business if you know how to take the model, ground it in valuable context, orchestrate it with a really good agent harness, connected to the right set of tools and connectors (whether it's personal connectors or business connectors) and provide the experience to people in one single unified system." Aravind Srinivas then explains Perplexity's specific edge: Beyond orchestrating across tools, files, and connectors, they also orchestrate across models. "That is the differentiation that Anthropic and OpenAI cannot claim, because you wouldn't find GPT-5 inside the Claude Code harness. You wouldn't find Claude Opus inside the Codex harness. These are competing with each other. Whereas you would find both these models inside Perplexity Computer." Why does this matter? Because it all comes down to power. In Aravind's framing, the fundamental cost driver in AI is watts (the one input nobody can subsidize except the government). "Whoever provides the most valuable output tokens with the least amount of power expended to produce them generates the greatest value to the end user, has the most pricing power, has the most value. That is the orchestration problem to solve." His conclusion: "The one single most important metric in AI is token value per watt per user."

Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas on the brutal truth about who actually makes money in AI (and why it's not who you think): Aravind argues that the real value in AI comes from orchestration. He points to products like Codex, Claude Code, and Perplexity Computer: "What is that? It's an orchestration system. It takes a model, pairs it with an agent harness." And what is an agent harness? "The simplest way of describing it is like rules for how the agent loop should run. What are all the skills and sub-agents and connectors and tools it accesses? Without the harness, you don't necessarily capture and convert the intrinsic intelligence in the model into valuable output tokens." This leads to a blunt conclusion about who has a real business in AI, and who doesn't: "If you're literally just a reseller of model tokens, you have no business, because the model will get commoditized. So even if you're a model builder, you don't have a business. As an infra layer, you have some business on serving those output tokens. But as an application layer or model builder, you don't really have a business if you're just a reseller of tokens that come directly out of the model." So where does the value accrue? "You have a business if you know how to take the model, ground it in valuable context, orchestrate it with a really good agent harness, connected to the right set of tools and connectors (whether it's personal connectors or business connectors) and provide the experience to people in one single unified system." Aravind Srinivas then explains Perplexity's specific edge: Beyond orchestrating across tools, files, and connectors, they also orchestrate across models. "That is the differentiation that Anthropic and OpenAI cannot claim, because you wouldn't find GPT-5 inside the Claude Code harness. You wouldn't find Claude Opus inside the Codex harness. These are competing with each other. Whereas you would find both these models inside Perplexity Computer." Why does this matter? Because it all comes down to power. In Aravind's framing, the fundamental cost driver in AI is watts (the one input nobody can subsidize except the government). "Whoever provides the most valuable output tokens with the least amount of power expended to produce them generates the greatest value to the end user, has the most pricing power, has the most value. That is the orchestration problem to solve." His conclusion: "The one single most important metric in AI is token value per watt per user."

Big Brain AI

42,319 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Don’t put your head in the sand … you may be scared of it but that isn’t going to stop 🛑 it from happening- pls get educated on all the opportunities and realities of the modern ai 🤖 movement. If you aren’t using ai apps to enhance your life you’re falling behind at least professionally so pls, pls start educating yourself. Too many here want to talk about it in the abstract or debate the virtues or dangers and that beyond ok but it’s not ok to not understand the counter point which is this is profound technology and you should learn to harness it ❣️

Don’t put your head in the sand … you may be scared of it but that isn’t going to stop 🛑 it from happening- pls get educated on all the opportunities and realities of the modern ai 🤖 movement. If you aren’t using ai apps to enhance your life you’re falling behind at least professionally so pls, pls start educating yourself. Too many here want to talk about it in the abstract or debate the virtues or dangers and that beyond ok but it’s not ok to not understand the counter point which is this is profound technology and you should learn to harness it ❣️

Gary Vaynerchuk

19,980 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

run agent harnesses 100% private & offline. (no token costs, no API keys, 100% open-source) your agent runs locally. the model doesn't. every prompt, every file, and every secret still leaves your machine before the agent does anything with it. Magnitude fixes that. it's an open source inference server that runs models on your own hardware and plugs into the coding agent you already use. setup is one command. it profiles your machine, measures the memory bandwidth that sets your token rate, and hands back complete configurations instead of a list of models. each one names a model, a compression level, a context size, and a speed range you can expect. pick one and start working. it doesn't replace your harness. setup asks which one you want and writes that config for you. Pi, OpenCode, Claude Code, Codex, and Cline all work, and there's a built-in one tuned for local models if you don't have a harness yet. that one uses your shell, edits files, and runs scripts out of the box. add skills and it handles Excel, PowerPoint, PDFs, or Chrome. everyday work it covers: → analyze sensitive data → manage private notes → review code and logs → search and organize files → build docs or slides Apache 2.0. no rate limits, and nothing leaves the machine. 𝗻𝗽𝗺 𝗶 -𝗴 @𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘃/𝗰𝗹𝗶 the repo is here: (don't forget to star 🌟) i wrote the full breakdown of why picking the configuration is the hard part. the article is quoted below.

run agent harnesses 100% private & offline. (no token costs, no API keys, 100% open-source) your agent runs locally. the model doesn't. every prompt, every file, and every secret still leaves your machine before the agent does anything with it. Magnitude fixes that. it's an open source inference server that runs models on your own hardware and plugs into the coding agent you already use. setup is one command. it profiles your machine, measures the memory bandwidth that sets your token rate, and hands back complete configurations instead of a list of models. each one names a model, a compression level, a context size, and a speed range you can expect. pick one and start working. it doesn't replace your harness. setup asks which one you want and writes that config for you. Pi, OpenCode, Claude Code, Codex, and Cline all work, and there's a built-in one tuned for local models if you don't have a harness yet. that one uses your shell, edits files, and runs scripts out of the box. add skills and it handles Excel, PowerPoint, PDFs, or Chrome. everyday work it covers: → analyze sensitive data → manage private notes → review code and logs → search and organize files → build docs or slides Apache 2.0. no rate limits, and nothing leaves the machine. 𝗻𝗽𝗺 𝗶 -𝗴 @𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘃/𝗰𝗹𝗶 the repo is here: (don't forget to star 🌟) i wrote the full breakdown of why picking the configuration is the hard part. the article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

55,693 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

Sam Altman made the case for open-source harnesses in July. a month later, someone shipped it, and it's more efficient than most managed harnesses. here is the problem it was aimed at: a large share of your agent's token bill is the model rereading things it already read. that isn't the model's doing. the runtime around it decides what goes into every prompt and how often the model gets called. for example, an agent queries a CRM at step four and gets back 400 rows. those rows get piled up in the conversation history. by step nineteen, the model has to read those rows fifteen times unnecessarily, and every token read is billed at input rates. it happened because your harness assembled that prompt on every turn and kept the rows in it. that gives you two levers: how much context the harness carries forward, and how often it calls the model. there are four practical ways to keep the prompt from growing unnecessarily: → load tool schemas on demand. a server with 100 tools doesn't need to put all 100 into every prompt when the agent only calls two. → offload large results to disk. turn a large response into a short preview and a file path instead of replaying the entire result on every turn. → delegate to subagents. let a subagent spend thirty tool calls in its own context and return one summary to the root agent. → run toolchains in code. one script calls three tools, joins the results, and returns a table instead of three turns each dragging a full response. but reducing context is only half the job. you also need to control how often the model gets called. a good harness should avoid unnecessary planning, verification, and reflection when the work can be completed in fewer steps. TrueFoundry's open-source agent harness, TrueForge, is built around both of those controls. it sits between the model and the tools, deciding what goes into every prompt and when another model call is actually needed. it also breaks token usage down across the harness, skills, instructions, tools, and messages. DevRev's Enterprise-Bench is where this gets tested, on multi-step tasks of the kind where an agent pulls records from one system and reconciles them against another. TrueFoundry ran TrueForge there against Claude Managed Agents, both on the same model, and both finished the same number of tasks. the tie is the part that matters, because it means the gap underneath is not a quality tradeoff. TrueForge reached that score on close to a third of the tokens, with roughly 40% fewer trips back to the model. for the same result, that comes out around 2.7x cheaper than Claude Managed Agents. swapping in an open model made it sharper still. TrueForge with GLM-5.2 scored a little higher than either setup above, and the entire benchmark run cost about $3 at list prices. being open source matters beyond the license here. the model underneath can be swapped without rewriting the agent, and the whole thing can run inside your own environment when the data cannot leave it. all of this comes down to the runtime around the model, the context it carries, the tools it exposes, and how many times it goes back to the model. that is what a production harness actually owns. the full task list, the per-run numbers, and the MIT-licensed code are on GitHub: (don't forget to star 🌟) you can read more about the same in the article quoted below. thanks to the TrueForge team for working with me on this one.

Sam Altman made the case for open-source harnesses in July. a month later, someone shipped it, and it's more efficient than most managed harnesses. here is the problem it was aimed at: a large share of your agent's token bill is the model rereading things it already read. that isn't the model's doing. the runtime around it decides what goes into every prompt and how often the model gets called. for example, an agent queries a CRM at step four and gets back 400 rows. those rows get piled up in the conversation history. by step nineteen, the model has to read those rows fifteen times unnecessarily, and every token read is billed at input rates. it happened because your harness assembled that prompt on every turn and kept the rows in it. that gives you two levers: how much context the harness carries forward, and how often it calls the model. there are four practical ways to keep the prompt from growing unnecessarily: → load tool schemas on demand. a server with 100 tools doesn't need to put all 100 into every prompt when the agent only calls two. → offload large results to disk. turn a large response into a short preview and a file path instead of replaying the entire result on every turn. → delegate to subagents. let a subagent spend thirty tool calls in its own context and return one summary to the root agent. → run toolchains in code. one script calls three tools, joins the results, and returns a table instead of three turns each dragging a full response. but reducing context is only half the job. you also need to control how often the model gets called. a good harness should avoid unnecessary planning, verification, and reflection when the work can be completed in fewer steps. TrueFoundry's open-source agent harness, TrueForge, is built around both of those controls. it sits between the model and the tools, deciding what goes into every prompt and when another model call is actually needed. it also breaks token usage down across the harness, skills, instructions, tools, and messages. DevRev's Enterprise-Bench is where this gets tested, on multi-step tasks of the kind where an agent pulls records from one system and reconciles them against another. TrueFoundry ran TrueForge there against Claude Managed Agents, both on the same model, and both finished the same number of tasks. the tie is the part that matters, because it means the gap underneath is not a quality tradeoff. TrueForge reached that score on close to a third of the tokens, with roughly 40% fewer trips back to the model. for the same result, that comes out around 2.7x cheaper than Claude Managed Agents. swapping in an open model made it sharper still. TrueForge with GLM-5.2 scored a little higher than either setup above, and the entire benchmark run cost about $3 at list prices. being open source matters beyond the license here. the model underneath can be swapped without rewriting the agent, and the whole thing can run inside your own environment when the data cannot leave it. all of this comes down to the runtime around the model, the context it carries, the tools it exposes, and how many times it goes back to the model. that is what a production harness actually owns. the full task list, the per-run numbers, and the MIT-licensed code are on GitHub: (don't forget to star 🌟) you can read more about the same in the article quoted below. thanks to the TrueForge team for working with me on this one.

Akshay 🚀

76,552 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

AMD JUST KILLED THE $200 - A - MONTH AI SUBSCRIPTION - A 65-WATT BOX WITH 128GB OF UNIFIED MEMORY THAT RUNS 70B MODELS LOCALLY. that clip is amd's ryzen ai max+ 395 mini box, held up on stage. the whole pitch is one spec: 128gb of high-speed unified memory. why it matters: cpu, gpu and npu share the same 128gb pool, so a model that used to need a rack of vram just fits. what it actually runs: llama 70b in full precision on the built-in gpu open models up to ~100b parameters, locally, no cloud all of it in a mini pc pulling around 65 watts that's the part that ends the subscription: your prompts, your data, your model, on a box on your desk, not metered by the token. honest line: this runs open models, not gpt-5 or claude opus. for chat, coding help and agents on your own data it's more than enough. for the absolute frontier, the cloud still wins. and it isn't free: the box runs ~$1,500 and up. but that's a few months of a $200 sub, then it's yours forever. no monthly ai bill, no tokens metered, no prompt leaving the room. the uncomfortable part isn't that amd made a fast box. it's that "you need the cloud for ai" was a pricing choice, and unified memory just made it optional. follow RetroChainer for the hardware that turns rent into ownership, and bookmark this before your next ai renewal.

AMD JUST KILLED THE $200 - A - MONTH AI SUBSCRIPTION - A 65-WATT BOX WITH 128GB OF UNIFIED MEMORY THAT RUNS 70B MODELS LOCALLY. that clip is amd's ryzen ai max+ 395 mini box, held up on stage. the whole pitch is one spec: 128gb of high-speed unified memory. why it matters: cpu, gpu and npu share the same 128gb pool, so a model that used to need a rack of vram just fits. what it actually runs: llama 70b in full precision on the built-in gpu open models up to ~100b parameters, locally, no cloud all of it in a mini pc pulling around 65 watts that's the part that ends the subscription: your prompts, your data, your model, on a box on your desk, not metered by the token. honest line: this runs open models, not gpt-5 or claude opus. for chat, coding help and agents on your own data it's more than enough. for the absolute frontier, the cloud still wins. and it isn't free: the box runs ~$1,500 and up. but that's a few months of a $200 sub, then it's yours forever. no monthly ai bill, no tokens metered, no prompt leaving the room. the uncomfortable part isn't that amd made a fast box. it's that "you need the cloud for ai" was a pricing choice, and unified memory just made it optional. follow RetroChainer for the hardware that turns rent into ownership, and bookmark this before your next ai renewal.

RetroChainer

16,995 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Claude Code is the OpenClaw alternative you already had. I've been telling people this in person for three months. Now it's a piece on Every 📧. When OpenClaw was at peak hype a few months ago, everyone was going crazy over it — for good reasons. But almost nobody made the obvious comparison: Claude Code already does the thing you love about OpenClaw. In a lot of cases, better. Here's why people missed it. You have to understand the difference between a model and a harness. OpenClaw, at the end of the day, is just a harness on top of AI models. And Claude Code is too — it just got marketed as a coding tool, an alternative to Cursor. Until Cowork launched, almost nobody looked at it as a tool for non-programmers. Dan Shipper 📧 was one of the earliest to make that claim, and he was damn right. Let Claude Code run from the home folder of your computer with free access, and you get exactly what made OpenClaw exciting. Instead of just arguing it, here's a video walkthrough of a couple of my AI employees i built on the Claude Code harness. And here's the full article:

Claude Code is the OpenClaw alternative you already had. I've been telling people this in person for three months. Now it's a piece on Every 📧. When OpenClaw was at peak hype a few months ago, everyone was going crazy over it — for good reasons. But almost nobody made the obvious comparison: Claude Code already does the thing you love about OpenClaw. In a lot of cases, better. Here's why people missed it. You have to understand the difference between a model and a harness. OpenClaw, at the end of the day, is just a harness on top of AI models. And Claude Code is too — it just got marketed as a coding tool, an alternative to Cursor. Until Cowork launched, almost nobody looked at it as a tool for non-programmers. Dan Shipper 📧 was one of the earliest to make that claim, and he was damn right. Let Claude Code run from the home folder of your computer with free access, and you get exactly what made OpenClaw exciting. Instead of just arguing it, here's a video walkthrough of a couple of my AI employees i built on the Claude Code harness. And here's the full article:

Nityesh

22,895 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Watch what Nadella did on the Microsoft earnings call tonight. An analyst asked how Microsoft benefits from enterprises adopting open models when it carries all that frontier lab exposure. Instead of defending the lab relationship, Nadella laid out an architecture: "You've got to keep your harness separate from the model. The harness will ensure that your memory, your context, all of that is external. That means any given model at any given time is swappable." And then the part that should worry anyone underwriting model moats: use frontier models where they earn it, low-cost models where they don't, "and in fact, train your own model when you don't want to use any external model itself because after all, you have all the outputs, you have all the traces, you have all the context." The firm keeps the harness. The models compete for slots inside it. Jensen Huang said most companies will be built on harnesses at the LangChain fireside on July 8. I published the full framework on July 12, five launches in three days, all converging on the same architecture. Tonight the largest enterprise software company on earth made it the official pitch on an earnings call. The moat question in enterprise AI just moved from who has the best weights to who owns the loop around them. And if the completed task is the unit everyone now competes on, someone has to price it for the buyer. That is the next thing we are building at BEP Research: a cost per task tool for enterprises. More on that soon. I also took the paywall off the full framework piece tonight, so the whole thing is free to read:

Watch what Nadella did on the Microsoft earnings call tonight. An analyst asked how Microsoft benefits from enterprises adopting open models when it carries all that frontier lab exposure. Instead of defending the lab relationship, Nadella laid out an architecture: "You've got to keep your harness separate from the model. The harness will ensure that your memory, your context, all of that is external. That means any given model at any given time is swappable." And then the part that should worry anyone underwriting model moats: use frontier models where they earn it, low-cost models where they don't, "and in fact, train your own model when you don't want to use any external model itself because after all, you have all the outputs, you have all the traces, you have all the context." The firm keeps the harness. The models compete for slots inside it. Jensen Huang said most companies will be built on harnesses at the LangChain fireside on July 8. I published the full framework on July 12, five launches in three days, all converging on the same architecture. Tonight the largest enterprise software company on earth made it the official pitch on an earnings call. The moat question in enterprise AI just moved from who has the best weights to who owns the loop around them. And if the completed task is the unit everyone now competes on, someone has to price it for the buyer. That is the next thing we are building at BEP Research: a cost per task tool for enterprises. More on that soon. I also took the paywall off the full framework piece tonight, so the whole thing is free to read:

Ben Pouladian

53,359 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Most people think prompting is just writing better sentences Anthropic shows why that's wrong This 32-minute workshop breaks down how prompts are built for production Not prompt hacks Not "act as" Not another $300 course Actual systems Evals Edge cases Model migration Agent loops Good prompt is not one message It's a workflow the model can follow, test and improve This matters because every new claude opus or sonnet will still reward the same rules Watch the prompting playbook Bookmark it before your next bad ai answer is just a bad setup

Most people think prompting is just writing better sentences Anthropic shows why that's wrong This 32-minute workshop breaks down how prompts are built for production Not prompt hacks Not "act as" Not another $300 course Actual systems Evals Edge cases Model migration Agent loops Good prompt is not one message It's a workflow the model can follow, test and improve This matters because every new claude opus or sonnet will still reward the same rules Watch the prompting playbook Bookmark it before your next bad ai answer is just a bad setup

rari

391,234 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

How to use 50+ API keys (models) for FREE on OpenClaw API??? - go to - login or register your account - click on "more models" - click on "use case" and select what you need it for - choose the model and open it - click on "view code" → "Generate API key" many models don't allow direct deploy, so use the "view code" button to generate API access basically Nvidia NIM gives you the ability to test almost any model from their list for FREE some of them are not worse than GPT 5.2 or Claude Opus 4.6, some might even perform better depending on the task how to understand if a model is efficient and compare it with others??? - go to - type the model name in search - click on "benchmarks" - you’ll see performance tests and rankings this way you can easily compare free models with paid ones of course there are RPM limits, on many models it’s around ~40 requests per minute each model is different, after generating the API key, RPM limits are shown in the top-right corner nothing stops you from using them, many work perfectly fine, super solid option for first tests and for learning OpenClaw or any other system where you need an AI API model

How to use 50+ API keys (models) for FREE on OpenClaw API??? - go to - login or register your account - click on "more models" - click on "use case" and select what you need it for - choose the model and open it - click on "view code" → "Generate API key" many models don't allow direct deploy, so use the "view code" button to generate API access basically Nvidia NIM gives you the ability to test almost any model from their list for FREE some of them are not worse than GPT 5.2 or Claude Opus 4.6, some might even perform better depending on the task how to understand if a model is efficient and compare it with others??? - go to - type the model name in search - click on "benchmarks" - you’ll see performance tests and rankings this way you can easily compare free models with paid ones of course there are RPM limits, on many models it’s around ~40 requests per minute each model is different, after generating the API key, RPM limits are shown in the top-right corner nothing stops you from using them, many work perfectly fine, super solid option for first tests and for learning OpenClaw or any other system where you need an AI API model

Ronin

58,974 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Jensen Huang just told Silicon Valley it’s fighting on the wrong floor. Every boardroom in tech is locked on the same question. Which model wins. OpenAI or xAI. GPT or Claude. Grok or Gemini. Trillions moving on that bet alone. Huang zoomed out and showed them the whole building. Huang: “AI is actually essentially a five-layer cake.” Energy at the bottom. Chips above it. Cloud above that. Models next. Applications on top. Five layers. One war. Everyone crowded onto the fourth floor. Huang: “This is where most people think AI is.” He was pointing at the model layer. Every pitch deck. Every valuation. Every founder story. All packed onto one floor. One floor below the finish line. Three above the foundation. The middle of the building. Huang: “At the bottom is energy.” Not data. Not parameters. Not talent. Power. You cannot out-code the grid. You cannot train a frontier model with a press release. The smartest model on Earth still needs a dumb turbine spinning somewhere. The smartest engineers alive are building on top of someone else’s silicon, inside someone else’s cloud, powered by someone else’s electricity. They own nothing beneath them. Huang: “This layer on top ultimately is where economic benefit will happen.” Healthcare. Finance. Manufacturing. The only floors where AI actually meets money. Every dollar of real value lives at the top. Every physical constraint that decides who gets to play lives at the bottom. The model sits in between. Squeezed from above and below and owning neither end. Silicon Valley is burning hundreds of billions to build plumbing for somebody else’s economy. The basement decides if it runs. The penthouse decides if it pays. The companies building models think they are building the future. Huang just told them they are the middle layer in someone else’s cake.

Jensen Huang just told Silicon Valley it’s fighting on the wrong floor. Every boardroom in tech is locked on the same question. Which model wins. OpenAI or xAI. GPT or Claude. Grok or Gemini. Trillions moving on that bet alone. Huang zoomed out and showed them the whole building. Huang: “AI is actually essentially a five-layer cake.” Energy at the bottom. Chips above it. Cloud above that. Models next. Applications on top. Five layers. One war. Everyone crowded onto the fourth floor. Huang: “This is where most people think AI is.” He was pointing at the model layer. Every pitch deck. Every valuation. Every founder story. All packed onto one floor. One floor below the finish line. Three above the foundation. The middle of the building. Huang: “At the bottom is energy.” Not data. Not parameters. Not talent. Power. You cannot out-code the grid. You cannot train a frontier model with a press release. The smartest model on Earth still needs a dumb turbine spinning somewhere. The smartest engineers alive are building on top of someone else’s silicon, inside someone else’s cloud, powered by someone else’s electricity. They own nothing beneath them. Huang: “This layer on top ultimately is where economic benefit will happen.” Healthcare. Finance. Manufacturing. The only floors where AI actually meets money. Every dollar of real value lives at the top. Every physical constraint that decides who gets to play lives at the bottom. The model sits in between. Squeezed from above and below and owning neither end. Silicon Valley is burning hundreds of billions to build plumbing for somebody else’s economy. The basement decides if it runs. The penthouse decides if it pays. The companies building models think they are building the future. Huang just told them they are the middle layer in someone else’s cake.

Dustin

536,408 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten