Sometimes you might sit and stare at the same text, grappling with it in silence.
For technical problems, I find the act of writing out a request for help, even just into a text editor, is often sufficient for me to solve the problem at hand. Writing things out is a way of organizing and structuring your thinking, and is itself a powerful troubleshooting tool. Things will become obvious that, unwritten, you might not even notice. I think this is very similar to thinking out loud; when you listen to what you say, or read what you have written, your mind is somehow keyed to react in a useful way.
That response might not be what you want or need for problems that need to be wrestled with, chewed, and pondered on deeply, though.
I will be happy to spend £10 on this. One feature question though -- does it continue transcribing the meeting even if I've turned my volume down / muted it?
It does indeed. Trace will record your system audio regardless of your speaker volume. You do have the option to mute your own mic temporarily though, via a button on the “pill” or a global keyboard shortcut.
Thanks. I've bought it and started using it; it looks great. I was previously using Hyprnote which did work well, but yours appears to fit my "I just want markdown" case better and to generally be more polished.
I'll be wanting to find a good workflow to get the markdown transcripts into a git repo with file names that define a suitable sort order and also indicate what the meeting was. So would welcome your suggestions there. Not blocked of course, yo umake it easy to copy from clipboard or from the disk location and rename, but might be nice to have more control about where and how the .md lands.
I might email the support address on the off-chance that you're happy to have support/feature conversations like this. Thanks!
> AI-generated papers could overwhelm peer-review systems with low-quality work
That's not a problem unique to math, or even to academia. It's a problem in every context in human life where people communicate via written documents.
> I typed :rs pods to switch back to the pods view. Nothing rendered. The table was empty...
> now something was fundamentally broken and I couldn't just prompt my way out of it.
Hey I don't want to over simplify, I'm sure it was complicated, but did the author have functional tests for these broken views? As long as there are functional tests passing on the previous commit I'd have thought that claude could look at the end situation and work out how to get the desired feature without breaking the other stuff.
TUIs aren't an exception, it's still essential to have a way to end-to-end test each view.
The problem wasn't the view didn't work. The problem was the view didn't work after something else had been done.
You can't test every permutation of app usage. You actually need good architechture so you can trust your test and changes to be local with minimal side-effects.
On the one hand I'm not sure Dawkins has read/thought enough about how LLMs actually work. I'm getting the impression he doesn't fully appreciate or is somehow forgetting that it's a text completion algorithm with a vast number of parameters and that even if the patterns of learned parameter tunings are not really comprehendible, the architecture was very deliberately designed.
But on the other hand his thoughts at the end are interesting. Summary:
Maybe our "consciousness" is like an LLM's intelligence. But if not, then it raises the question of why do we even have this "extra" consciousness, since it appears that something like a humanoid LLM would be decent at surviving. His suggestions: maybe our extra thing is an evolutionary accident (and maybe there _are_ successful organisms out there with the LLM-style non-conscious intelligence), or maybe as evolved organisms it's necessary that we really feel things like pain, so that evolutionary mechanisms like pain (and desire for food, sex etc) had strong adaptive benefits.
The brain uses a lot less energy than an LLM, so most probably it is something completely different. Maybe consciousness is a byproduct of the architecture of the brain, so there is no version of a humanoid with no consciousness.
I don't think you read carefully what he said. At the end he gave three quite interesting thoughts about what might be true assuming LLMs are less conscious than we are (i.e. assuming our consciousness is not a purely algorithmic phenomenon as we obviously know LLMs are).
Your notes look really interesting, thanks. I'm curious --from the prose style it's clear they were written by an LLM. For design notes like this do you sort of have a mental TODO to go back and write them up in your own words to make sure they really capture your own opinions?
Overall the knowledgebase is a mixture of these. I have this disclaimer on the first page:
This KB is itself agent-operated: a human directs the inquiry, AI agents draft, connect, and maintain the notes. The framework for building knowledge bases is documented using that framework.
I hope it is enough - I've seen many people get angry with publishing LLM generated work.
The article is still missing the most important point about a "trust system" -- you have to explain what it is and convince me that I even care about the problem you're trying to solve. It's my machine, what is a "trusted" or "untrusted" file? If people just force security "solutions" on me without asking me whether I understand or agree with their problem diagnosis then I will immediately disable the protection if I can or blanket accept all prompts without thinking.
This is good, but it doesn't go far enough:
> ... the problem with security measures that cause too much friction is that users tend to disable them in order to get on with their work. To fulfill its security purposes, a good trust system needs to stay out of your way.
I reached the same conclusion after comparing diagram-as-code tools — D2 feels cleaner and more expressive than Mermaid.
I’ve been working on an AI diagramming tool built around D2: https://aidiagrammaker.com/
You describe a system in plain English, and it generates architecture diagrams, flowcharts, and sequence diagrams in D2.
Edits can be made either directly in the D2 code or via a context-aware editor.
d2 produces real svgs but I've found them to have a hard time displaying in other svg editors. The d2 folks talk about that somewhere and they have some fixes for it.
Oh, finally, something that supports actual hierarchical state diagrams (that isn't Graphviz, no offense)... Mermaid's "You cannot define transitions between internal states belonging to different composite states" [1] has driven me up a wall for years.
The language is richer and all diagram types are implemented consistently in the same language in a way that can be composed, as opposed to being a collection of unrelated DSLs.
The improved visual appearance is clear from inspecting example diagrams, I believe.
reply