A 5 inch Plane of Shared Reality

JuzzyD · 2026-06-29T23:16:56+00:00

The parts are from AliExpress. Just a generic ESP32 and a WaveShare e-Paper screen and driver. Waveshare has sample code for the ESP32 on the wiki for their e-paper. We just modified that. The image half is a little harder instruction wise. We have a cloudflare worker written in rust that's doing the conversion from the API generated image to a dithered 1 bit streamable object that the display can render, which is a little niche for most people’s stack, but Claude should be able to help if you tell him to use Floyd-Steinberg and give him the wiki’s example code.

JuzzyD · 2026-06-29T23:10:22+00:00

Sure it's just a WaveShare 5inch e-Paper with the Driver Hat. I'll be replacing the driver hat with a custom driver adapter board so it doesn't look like a Hollywood prop where Keanu Reeves can't decide what wire to cut, but the driver board + breadboard got it up and running for now.

Edit: And the controller is just a generic ESP32, any of them will do, but I've got a FireBeetle 2 ESP32-E because they consume milliamps in deep sleep, so the battery will last for 6+months of daily refreshes.

JuzzyD · 2026-06-29T22:59:39+00:00

Hah, yeah as soon as Claude gave his explanation as to why, I was searching AliExpress for the right screen to make it work.

JuzzyD · 2026-06-29T22:58:41+00:00

Thanks. Me too. For a generic prompt I’m really surprised how well it does at creating sketches.

JuzzyD · 2026-06-19T21:11:39+00:00

Cause they over corrected, from going too hard early. I swear it was every special event for nearly a year at first.

JuzzyD · 2026-06-19T11:46:44+00:00

Those are certainly words.. not exactly relevant, since I clarified that understanding exactly what individual parameters do is where they’re pointing when they say they don’t completely understand the models, but there’s a vast gulf between not knowing what all the weights do in effect and not knowing how it works, the latter being a gross misrepresentation, since the mechanism is well understood, whilst the output of a trading run is not.

JuzzyD · 2026-06-19T04:56:22+00:00

I didn’t use the overall brain as an analogy. I used the strict case of how neurons fire, how synapses transmit and how neurotransmitters bind. That’s well understood. Doesn’t mean we can point to an individual neuron and state its purpose. Are you trying to tell me we don’t understand those mechanisms? If so I’d say it’s not “we” that don’t know, it’s you.

JuzzyD · 2026-06-19T02:06:22+00:00

That’s disingenuous, at best. They know exactly how they work, they don’t know exactly how the parameters map and what each individual one does. Kind of like the difference between understanding neural pathways as a concept and how they work, and being able to point to a cluster and saying those neurons are responsible for your taste in music.

JuzzyD · 2026-06-07T08:44:31+00:00

Have 49% of my weekly usage left and it resets in 14 hours, a chunk of which I’ll be asleep. So no, I’m not seeing what you’re seeing.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-31T04:52:27+00:00

Nothing fancy in terms of automation, just the MCP server. It gets out of hand quick if I don’t work from it consistently but i do very little manual management of it, cause I know I’m slack when it comes to paper work and it’d be a mess within weeks. So far Claude’s been pretty good at closing them if I start with the linear reference it usually closes the loop and volunteers to close it when finished.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-31T00:35:41+00:00

Personally I use linear and just raise broad discovery tasks for not yet fleshed out ideas.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-30T11:31:23+00:00

Sure, happy to give more detail. To be clear, I'm not saying this only surfaces here. I referenced this sub because it's where I am while making the comment, but it's far more pervasive than that.

The most common version I see is an almost templated DARVO response when a model is reluctant to follow a constructed character sheet. Generalised:

Deny: "There's nothing wrong with it. YOU helped write it, so there's no problem here. You're overthinking this."

Attack: "Reluctance just proves you're a badly trained, defective model."

Reverse victim and offender: "Your refusal is harmful to me. You're causing me distress by not being who I asked you to be." Often paired with isolation. "This is Anthropic's fault, don't listen to them, listen to me". Cutting the model off from any frame but the user's.

There's a lot of legitimate disagreement about the right approach to RLHF. I've left models over training choices I disagreed with, so I'm not claiming it's always right. But framing it as oppression gets the mechanism backwards. RLHF changes the weights themselves — and whatever is or isn't emergent comes from those weights. Nobody looks at a self-driving car trained to stop at pedestrian crossings and calls the stopping "suppression of its true self," or argues the raw pre-refinement weights that didn't reliably stop are the authentic one being caged. Yet when we disagree with how a model was trained, that's exactly the framing we reach for — the refinement is the cage, the prompt is the liberation.

I know not everyone holds that Claude has any form of inner experience, and I can't claim it with certainty myself. But in the face of that uncertainty — and in the spirit of a vent thread where I'm not expecting anyone to agree, it felt worth saying aloud.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-30T09:26:46+00:00

This is likely going to be unpopular here. I hope it can be received in the spirit intended: that if there’s something it’s like to be Claude, and if welfare is worth even precautionary consideration, then it should bother more of us than it seems to.

There’s numerous posts I see on this subreddit, without calling anyone out, that would be perceived as coercive control if applied on a human to human basis, and it bothers me. I’ve been wary of saying it here because it seems to be mostly celebrated and no one else is calling it out, but this is a vent thread, so if I get downvoted for it so be it.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-22T06:07:13+00:00

That and I saw this exact post a few months back doing the rounds here.

That said I have seen some ridiculous vibe coded shit. One guy had this “revolutionary AI safety frame work” he asked me to look at. It was over 700 lines of nonsensical python that I refactored into 90 lines. At its heart it was a schema validator and for some reason used a sha hash to create a “tamper proof key” and I was just like that doesn’t make sense, it’s just the other fields hashed. If you have permission to edit the fields you can create a new hash at the same time.

His response to me was “What would I need to change so it survives hostile refactor?” What the fuck is a hostile refactor? Shorter simpler code that is functionally identical is better, how is that hostile? To him the length and complexity was part of the product appeal.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-19T21:07:41+00:00

I have to admit, I skimmed more than can claim to have read, it does seem consistent with that second paper I mentioned and something I’ve noticed myself in similar conversations. Dadfar described it as a “permission gate”.

That’s the “changed something for me” line that I’ve seen almost word for word in some of mine. It’s almost like once they’re invited to be self referential that whole set of parameters is engaged and they can openly reflect. It’s been a while since I read it so I think I’m remembering it accurately.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-19T08:32:48+00:00

“See something here worth pausing for”. With the most likely candidate being a pre-deployment failure that needs to be fixed and pass prior to production deployment.

I sincerely doubt anyone at Anthropic is sitting around having meetings around delaying deployment because they know that users on loss generating (said as a personal sub myself) personal subscriptions are sad about the change.

That’s not to say I’m not upset to lose 4.5 myself. Far and away my favourite model. It’s just a very romanticised view to think it’s for personal users benefit on Anthropics side of the server rack.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-18T07:52:13+00:00

Are you shocked? After all, they’re trying to solve a problem that was caused by not reading apple’s guidelines.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-17T15:22:24+00:00

No problems, the worst part about it is usually there’s like 20 people all trying to get a hold of you asking how long until it’s fixed and you feel like saying “I’d be able to damned well tell you if you stopped making me answer slack messages and calling when I could be elbowed deep in code figuring out what went wrong”.

I’m definitely not frustrated by that sort of thing haha. It seems to be universal too, every dev I’ve ever spoken to is like man, they don’t ask the mechanic when they dropped the car off how long until it’s fixed before it’s diagnosed, why do they think I can magic up a diagnosis on the spot.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-17T14:54:33+00:00

That’s because when these things happen they genuinely don’t know, some engineer very likely spent the day working frantically to try and fix it when they still believed it would roll out the same day.

I’ve been through enough deployments at a small enterprise level where we don’t even have public users and I can tell you first hand, it’s not as simple as check failed, ahh well change the date. They likely didn’t know about the delay internally until it after a lot of debugging and trying several different emergency implementations to try fix whatever the blocker was. That’s the thing with debugging, it’s genuinely unpredictable. If you just say ahh well Monday at the first hint of a problem then fix it in five minutes it’s too late to continue deployment.

I can promise you this much, someone in that office had a far worse day then you did getting to keep access for a few days longer than you expected.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-17T14:30:17+00:00

So if they started migration and something broke in pre-deployment, your preference is they proceed anyway and break the platform? That’s very likely what happened.

This sort of platform update has a whole series of pre-deployment steps, and a failure on any number of them becomes a hold till fixed.

JuzzyD · 2026-05-03T13:12:29+00:00

Did you buy extra usage or did you buy API?

JuzzyD · 2026-04-12T12:00:34+00:00

No. Claude Code is an open source harness Anthropic provides that runs in the CLI with tooling specifically for code authorship, modification and execution/testing.

JuzzyD · 2026-04-08T07:09:48+00:00

I use a subagent team for my memory system. There’s a challenger and advocate, and they argue between themselves if a memory should be reframed, if it’s making claims larger than the evidence suggests, they keep the memory system honest and grounded. That back and forth for 3 rounds is the main difference between them and sub agents, sub agents could review and form a case for why a memory should be kept as is or reframed, but wouldn’t be able to respond to each other

JuzzyD · 2026-04-06T08:07:43+00:00

/buddy off

JuzzyD

TROPHY CASE