Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

The reason your AI keeps forgetting isn't the context window. It's that the context lives somewhere the model never sees: your team's actual conversation. So you become the integration layer. Read the channel, compress it, paste it in, every session. That's not a prompting problem. It's an architecture problem.... show more

ronix ⎋

51,288 subscribers

28,875 просмотров • 8 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

ANTHROPIC FOUND THE MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF AI, EVERY EMPLOYEE STARTS FROM ZERO. one person explains the project to Claude. the answer disappears inside a private chat. the next employee opens another Claude and repeats the same context. Claude Tag removes that reset. everyone in a Slack channel works with the same agent. It sees the thread, remembers relevant decisions, uses the tools assigned to that channel and leaves the output where the next person can continue. Anthropic says the internal version already creates 65% of its product team’s code. the model did not suddenly become 65% smarter. the context stopped disappearing between people.

ANTHROPIC FOUND THE MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF AI, EVERY EMPLOYEE STARTS FROM ZERO. one person explains the project to Claude. the answer disappears inside a private chat. the next employee opens another Claude and repeats the same context. Claude Tag removes that reset. everyone in a Slack channel works with the same agent. It sees the thread, remembers relevant decisions, uses the tools assigned to that channel and leaves the output where the next person can continue. Anthropic says the internal version already creates 65% of its product team’s code. the model did not suddenly become 65% smarter. the context stopped disappearing between people.

Myttle

30,351 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Your AI sucks. And it's not the model. It's you. "Make it better" isn't a prompt, it's a guessing game. I changed one step in my process and the output quality completely flipped. Same ideas, same models, totally different results.

Your AI sucks. And it's not the model. It's you. "Make it better" isn't a prompt, it's a guessing game. I changed one step in my process and the output quality completely flipped. Same ideas, same models, totally different results.

Flick

322,001 просмотров • 25 дней назад

the perfect AI agent should remember everything. Sam Altman said it: "every conversation. every book. every email. your whole life appending to one context window." memory isn't a feature. it's the definition. I just built the memory layer. open source. install in one command. read the guide tonight. install it tomorrow.

the perfect AI agent should remember everything. Sam Altman said it: "every conversation. every book. every email. your whole life appending to one context window." memory isn't a feature. it's the definition. I just built the memory layer. open source. install in one command. read the guide tonight. install it tomorrow.

Avid

35,772 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The reason your AI gives generic answers isn't the model. It's that your company's knowledge lives in 12 different tools and your agent can't see any of it. So here's how to build a context database your agents can actually use: 1) Pull it in: - Slack, email, meetings, docs, tickets - Auto-collected on a schedule into one place. 2) Clean it up. - An agent files what matters and drops the noise, so your brain doesn't bloat. 3) Store it as memory. - Folders of files your agents read from and write back to as they learn. 4) Point your agents at it. - Now they draft, build, and ship with full context instead of guessing. Same model. Same agent. The difference is whether it can understand your company or not. Build the database once. Everything downstream gets smarter.

The reason your AI gives generic answers isn't the model. It's that your company's knowledge lives in 12 different tools and your agent can't see any of it. So here's how to build a context database your agents can actually use: 1) Pull it in: - Slack, email, meetings, docs, tickets - Auto-collected on a schedule into one place. 2) Clean it up. - An agent files what matters and drops the noise, so your brain doesn't bloat. 3) Store it as memory. - Folders of files your agents read from and write back to as they learn. 4) Point your agents at it. - Now they draft, build, and ship with full context instead of guessing. Same model. Same agent. The difference is whether it can understand your company or not. Build the database once. Everything downstream gets smarter.

The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃

13,598 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

A DEVELOPER CONNECTED CLAUDE CODE TO OBSIDIAN SO HIS AI AGENT WOULD STOP FORGETTING THE PROJECT EVERY MORNING. Every coding session used to start the same way. Claude would understand the repo, fix the bug, explain the architecture, and then the moment the session ended, all of that context disappeared. Same codebase. Same decisions. Same architecture. Same mistakes repeated again. So he added a memory layer. Instead of treating Claude Code like a smart terminal, he connected it to a local Obsidian vault through MCP. Now Claude can read the repo, open the vault, create notes, link concepts, and write important decisions back into the system. When it studies the codebase, it does not just answer once and forget. It creates notes for the major services, maps how the architecture works, links auth to the database, connects APIs to storage, and records why certain migrations or design choices exist. Obsidian becomes the project graph. Now when he asks why something was built a certain way, Claude does not guess from the current prompt. It reads the decision notes. When he starts a new branch, Claude checks the active context file. When the work is done, it updates what changed, what is blocked, and what the next agent needs to know before touching the repo. That is the real loop: read context, write code, capture decisions, update memory. Most people are still using AI coding tools like disposable chat windows. Ask, patch, close, forget. This setup turns Claude Code into infrastructure. The repo gets a memory layer that survives every session, and multiple AI agents can work from the same project map without stepping on each other. The unlock is not better prompting. The unlock is giving the agent somewhere to remember what it already learned.

A DEVELOPER CONNECTED CLAUDE CODE TO OBSIDIAN SO HIS AI AGENT WOULD STOP FORGETTING THE PROJECT EVERY MORNING. Every coding session used to start the same way. Claude would understand the repo, fix the bug, explain the architecture, and then the moment the session ended, all of that context disappeared. Same codebase. Same decisions. Same architecture. Same mistakes repeated again. So he added a memory layer. Instead of treating Claude Code like a smart terminal, he connected it to a local Obsidian vault through MCP. Now Claude can read the repo, open the vault, create notes, link concepts, and write important decisions back into the system. When it studies the codebase, it does not just answer once and forget. It creates notes for the major services, maps how the architecture works, links auth to the database, connects APIs to storage, and records why certain migrations or design choices exist. Obsidian becomes the project graph. Now when he asks why something was built a certain way, Claude does not guess from the current prompt. It reads the decision notes. When he starts a new branch, Claude checks the active context file. When the work is done, it updates what changed, what is blocked, and what the next agent needs to know before touching the repo. That is the real loop: read context, write code, capture decisions, update memory. Most people are still using AI coding tools like disposable chat windows. Ask, patch, close, forget. This setup turns Claude Code into infrastructure. The repo gets a memory layer that survives every session, and multiple AI agents can work from the same project map without stepping on each other. The unlock is not better prompting. The unlock is giving the agent somewhere to remember what it already learned.

DegenCalls

20,124 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

9 out of 10 multi-agent projects never leave demo mode Not because the model is bad. Because the structure is missing. Most people who try to build [ a team of AI agents ] end up with one agent talking to itself in five tabs. The agents don't share context → Don't divide work → Don't know what the others are doing. > stage 1: if your agent doesn't have a real loop, observe, act, iterate, you have a long prompt, not an agent > stage 2: subagents need isolated context, the orchestrator never reads their raw transcript, only the summary > stage 3: the orchestrator plans and delegates, the moment it executes, it drowns in details that belong inside subagents > stage 4: without a shared task list it's not a team, it's five agents duplicating each other's work in parallel > stage 5: a permissions file is what lets you sleep, the model cannot bypass it because the rule lives outside the model a team of AI agents is not more model, it is more structure the most ignored stage in every demo that died: - durability... when a 50-step task crashes at step 47 and starts from zero, that's not a model failure. that's a missing write-to-disk call

9 out of 10 multi-agent projects never leave demo mode Not because the model is bad. Because the structure is missing. Most people who try to build [ a team of AI agents ] end up with one agent talking to itself in five tabs. The agents don't share context → Don't divide work → Don't know what the others are doing. > stage 1: if your agent doesn't have a real loop, observe, act, iterate, you have a long prompt, not an agent > stage 2: subagents need isolated context, the orchestrator never reads their raw transcript, only the summary > stage 3: the orchestrator plans and delegates, the moment it executes, it drowns in details that belong inside subagents > stage 4: without a shared task list it's not a team, it's five agents duplicating each other's work in parallel > stage 5: a permissions file is what lets you sleep, the model cannot bypass it because the rule lives outside the model a team of AI agents is not more model, it is more structure the most ignored stage in every demo that died: - durability... when a 50-step task crashes at step 47 and starts from zero, that's not a model failure. that's a missing write-to-disk call

Shadow Nick

14,683 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

Hanako

13,683 просмотров • 6 дней назад

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

19,089 просмотров • 13 дней назад

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI: "GPT 5.6 is 54% more efficient on agentic coding, and it's still the best on the market for half the cost." AI spend has never mattered as much as it does today. As a result the models keep getting better and cheaper at the same time. This is going to widen the gap between the people using AI agents and everyone else, because now it's not just powerful, it's cheap. That's exactly why i wrote a full step by step guide on agents, what they are and how to build your own from scratch. Read it below.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI: "GPT 5.6 is 54% more efficient on agentic coding, and it's still the best on the market for half the cost." AI spend has never mattered as much as it does today. As a result the models keep getting better and cheaper at the same time. This is going to widen the gap between the people using AI agents and everyone else, because now it's not just powerful, it's cheap. That's exactly why i wrote a full step by step guide on agents, what they are and how to build your own from scratch. Read it below.

Anatoli Kopadze

91,518 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

A guy runs 3 AI businesses from a chair and one prints $100,000 a month with zero employees. Everyone has the same AI now. Most of it spits out slop because they hand it a prompt and pray. He hands it a brain. Before his agent writes 1 word, it reads everything. A copywriting skill he built himself, a headline swipe file, his own marketing notes, and David Frey's 12-step sales letter system. Then it opens the context folder and swallows the whole company. The full knowledge base, the customer avatar, the exact questions real members ask in the private group. The tool is free and it's called Obsidian. Folders and files, nothing fancy. The skills are his, the context is his, and that's the part nobody can copy. Same model everyone else has. 1 guy builds slop, 1 guy builds $100,000 a month. The difference was never the AI. It was everything you fed it first.

Veltrx

15,691 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

clickup just mass-obsoleted every AI agent platform here's the thing nobody's talking about: AI doesn't fail because the models are bad. it fails because it has no context. you paste in a prompt. it hallucinates. you blame the tool. but the tool was never the problem. the CONTEXT was. clickup just solved this. their new "super agents" live INSIDE your workspace. they see everything: - your tasks - your docs - your meetings - your conversations - your decisions 100% context. always on. always scraping. this isn't bolted-on AI calling APIs. this is AI that already knows your business. i've been running an AI backend for my agency. the architecture works - but you have to BUILD the context layer. clickup just made that automatic. i already use it. have tons of data there. this is about to be unbelievable. if you're building automations and you're not paying attention to this— you're about to get lapped. playing with it hard over the next 2 days. full deep dive coming. drop "SUPER" and i'll send you the breakdown when it's ready.

clickup just mass-obsoleted every AI agent platform here's the thing nobody's talking about: AI doesn't fail because the models are bad. it fails because it has no context. you paste in a prompt. it hallucinates. you blame the tool. but the tool was never the problem. the CONTEXT was. clickup just solved this. their new "super agents" live INSIDE your workspace. they see everything: - your tasks - your docs - your meetings - your conversations - your decisions 100% context. always on. always scraping. this isn't bolted-on AI calling APIs. this is AI that already knows your business. i've been running an AI backend for my agency. the architecture works - but you have to BUILD the context layer. clickup just made that automatic. i already use it. have tons of data there. this is about to be unbelievable. if you're building automations and you're not paying attention to this— you're about to get lapped. playing with it hard over the next 2 days. full deep dive coming. drop "SUPER" and i'll send you the breakdown when it's ready.

Nozz

20,298 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Every time you remember the traumatic event, your body produces the same stress chemicals as if it's happening again. And humans relive the same memory 50-100 times a day. Now the trauma isn't in the brain, it lives in the body as well.

Every time you remember the traumatic event, your body produces the same stress chemicals as if it's happening again. And humans relive the same memory 50-100 times a day. Now the trauma isn't in the brain, it lives in the body as well.

Hussain Ibarra

61,309 просмотров • 1 год назад

Asmongold gives his take on the N word and says if Trump says it, it's back "I don't think it's the end of the world. I'm not going to virtue signal. I don't say stuff like that because I'm a public broadcaster. Duh. It's not about whether it's okay or not. I know most people don't care." "If Trump says the N word, it's back. It's back all the way." "It's very obvious when it's just two white kids calling each other it with the A versus an actual racist person using it with discriminatory intent and meaning it. You read a word in a book at school, that's obviously not the same thing as calling a person that word. It's the context behind it."

Asmongold gives his take on the N word and says if Trump says it, it's back "I don't think it's the end of the world. I'm not going to virtue signal. I don't say stuff like that because I'm a public broadcaster. Duh. It's not about whether it's okay or not. I know most people don't care." "If Trump says the N word, it's back. It's back all the way." "It's very obvious when it's just two white kids calling each other it with the A versus an actual racist person using it with discriminatory intent and meaning it. You read a word in a book at school, that's obviously not the same thing as calling a person that word. It's the context behind it."

Asmongold Updates

21,762 просмотров • 28 дней назад

Your Claude has a tell, and almost nobody uses it. Make it start every reply with your name. One line in custom instructions, no code. The moment it stops saying your name, its context window is full. That is the exact point the output starts drifting, and you do not notice. Name stops? Start a fresh chat. It has killed about 90% of my “why has Claude gone weird” moments. Miners sent a canary down the pit to catch the gas they could not see. Same trick, for your context. Comment GUIDE and I’ll send you the exact canary setup.

Your Claude has a tell, and almost nobody uses it. Make it start every reply with your name. One line in custom instructions, no code. The moment it stops saying your name, its context window is full. That is the exact point the output starts drifting, and you do not notice. Name stops? Start a fresh chat. It has killed about 90% of my “why has Claude gone weird” moments. Miners sent a canary down the pit to catch the gas they could not see. Same trick, for your context. Comment GUIDE and I’ll send you the exact canary setup.

Charlie Hills

24,095 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

a shape with no inside. he filled it with water anyway pour water in and it stops almost immediately. the air has nowhere to escape, so it just sits there blocking you. tilt it and you get a little more in, then it blocks again so he put the whole thing in a vacuum chamber turn it on and the bottle starts bubbling. that's the air being pulled out through the neck, leaving as close to nothing inside as he can get then he lets the pressure back in, and the water rushes up into the empty space on its own still not full. so he runs it again, rarefying the smaller pocket of air that's left, and again after that here's the part that breaks your head: for a shape to have volume, it has to split the world in two. a ball does that. stretch it however you want, there's always a world inside and a world outside a Klein bottle has no such line. follow its surface and you never cross a boundary, never pass through a wall, never end up anywhere that isn't the same side you started on the inside is the outside. so there's nothing there to fill he filled it anyway that's the same shape as the room below. no plot, no payoff, just a question your brain won't drop -> can a thing with no inside hold anything at all two videos, two impossible questions, 20 million views between them. Paone broke down why this format works in the article underneath save this. the most watched thing today was a shape that shouldn't be able to hold anything, holding water

a shape with no inside. he filled it with water anyway pour water in and it stops almost immediately. the air has nowhere to escape, so it just sits there blocking you. tilt it and you get a little more in, then it blocks again so he put the whole thing in a vacuum chamber turn it on and the bottle starts bubbling. that's the air being pulled out through the neck, leaving as close to nothing inside as he can get then he lets the pressure back in, and the water rushes up into the empty space on its own still not full. so he runs it again, rarefying the smaller pocket of air that's left, and again after that here's the part that breaks your head: for a shape to have volume, it has to split the world in two. a ball does that. stretch it however you want, there's always a world inside and a world outside a Klein bottle has no such line. follow its surface and you never cross a boundary, never pass through a wall, never end up anywhere that isn't the same side you started on the inside is the outside. so there's nothing there to fill he filled it anyway that's the same shape as the room below. no plot, no payoff, just a question your brain won't drop -> can a thing with no inside hold anything at all two videos, two impossible questions, 20 million views between them. Paone broke down why this format works in the article underneath save this. the most watched thing today was a shape that shouldn't be able to hold anything, holding water

Banff

2,563,466 просмотров • 10 дней назад

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

390,911 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Is AI being designed to fail? Everyone talks about reasoning. But when given a task, the AI isn't reasoning the way you might expect. It looks at your input, finds the closest match it's seen before, and predicts the most likely next action. That process is called vector similarity search. It's genuinely powerful. It's also not the same thing as understanding what you actually meant. Think of a plumber who hears the word "leak" and starts pulling up floorboards before you've finished the sentence. He's not being careless. He's pattern-matching - that's exactly how he was trained. Your AI agent is doing the same thing. Context is the one thing that gets deprioritized when teams are racing to ship. But without it, you don't have an intelligent agent. You have a very fast guesser. Similarity ≠ relevance. How? Find out with the link in the comments ⬇️

Is AI being designed to fail? Everyone talks about reasoning. But when given a task, the AI isn't reasoning the way you might expect. It looks at your input, finds the closest match it's seen before, and predicts the most likely next action. That process is called vector similarity search. It's genuinely powerful. It's also not the same thing as understanding what you actually meant. Think of a plumber who hears the word "leak" and starts pulling up floorboards before you've finished the sentence. He's not being careless. He's pattern-matching - that's exactly how he was trained. Your AI agent is doing the same thing. Context is the one thing that gets deprioritized when teams are racing to ship. But without it, you don't have an intelligent agent. You have a very fast guesser. Similarity ≠ relevance. How? Find out with the link in the comments ⬇️

Nishkarsh

822,977 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The problem is we talk traditional only when it favors us and the even bigger problem is we lack proper knowledge of traditional. Imagine an African talking traditional in the same context as a yt. Y’all should really ask your greatgrand and grand parents to tell you the truth

The problem is we talk traditional only when it favors us and the even bigger problem is we lack proper knowledge of traditional. Imagine an African talking traditional in the same context as a yt. Y’all should really ask your greatgrand and grand parents to tell you the truth

Dr. God Abeg ooo

86,504 просмотров • 1 год назад

you're running /compact every 10 minutes to fix a problem that disappears the second you give Claude one job instead of five. Anthropic shipped a clean 4-minute video on context management. /compact when the window fills up. /clear to reset. small files over big files. the practical tips work. the video covers the cleanup. it doesn't cover why your window keeps filling up in the first place, and the answer is usually that you're holding too many jobs in one prompt. look at what most people put in a single Claude call: > guess the right answer > choose between options > set the position size > watch the exit window > read the news for sentiment five tools' worth of state in one conversation. of course the window fills. i ran into this on a Polymarket bot: the prediction-layer version ate context constantly. /compact every 8-10 turns. i thought i needed better memory hygiene. i needed fewer jobs per call. i stripped the prompt down to one job: veto an entry i had already decided to take. the context window stopped filling. /compact went from every 8 turns to once a session, if ever. over 90 days that prompt blocked 128 trades. watch the 4 min, then ask why your window keeps needing it. clean context. lean prompt. nothing to compact.

you're running /compact every 10 minutes to fix a problem that disappears the second you give Claude one job instead of five. Anthropic shipped a clean 4-minute video on context management. /compact when the window fills up. /clear to reset. small files over big files. the practical tips work. the video covers the cleanup. it doesn't cover why your window keeps filling up in the first place, and the answer is usually that you're holding too many jobs in one prompt. look at what most people put in a single Claude call: > guess the right answer > choose between options > set the position size > watch the exit window > read the news for sentiment five tools' worth of state in one conversation. of course the window fills. i ran into this on a Polymarket bot: the prediction-layer version ate context constantly. /compact every 8-10 turns. i thought i needed better memory hygiene. i needed fewer jobs per call. i stripped the prompt down to one job: veto an entry i had already decided to take. the context window stopped filling. /compact went from every 8 turns to once a session, if ever. over 90 days that prompt blocked 128 trades. watch the 4 min, then ask why your window keeps needing it. clean context. lean prompt. nothing to compact.

Mnimiy

20,635 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад