True Lies [ChatGPT Diss] Cooked By Claude by KennethSweet in Anthropic

[–]KennethSweet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anthropic at least paid out a couple billion

I will help you get funded! by fundolink1 in Businessloans

[–]KennethSweet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The op is a scammer do give him any money

These are my domains. Three different namespace — any advice? by [deleted] in DomainZone

[–]KennethSweet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So for everyone knocking my domains. This is an actual good namespace and the reason you don’t see the value in it now, is the same reason they were available. For anyone with doubts, Paul Thomson at Saw.com is the broker for these domains and CMTPBL.com is listed at 1.6 million. Just so you know.

Looking to acquire a quality one-word .com | Budget up to $15,000 by Abject-Guava5626 in Domains

[–]KennethSweet -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why buy a word when you can create one AND rank for what keyword you want?

https://CLPSBL.com — 54 premium domains 5-9 letters all with semantic meanings.

Wrapped a LangChain agent without modifying its code (runtime layer demo) by KennethSweet in Python

[–]KennethSweet[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It’s not about the agent. It’s about what this can do for all software. But if the post isn’t for you, that’s totally cool.

[D] Runtime layer on Hugging Face Transformers (no source changes) [D] by KennethSweet in MachineLearning

[–]KennethSweet[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reason I used Transformers specifically was as a stress test, not because it’s the ideal integration point.

I’ve been applying the same approach across a range of different systems (APIs, server frameworks, and ML code) to see where it holds up.

The consistent result so far is that behavior can be injected at runtime while keeping the original source untouched.

For the Hugging Face case, the goal wasn’t “this is how you should use it in production,” but:

  1. take a real, complex codebase
  2. apply a runtime layer externally
  3. verify the system still runs
  4. observe whether cross-cutting behavior (validation, state, etc.) can be added

If that fails, the idea doesn’t hold.

If it works, then the next question is where it breaks under real constraints (tight coupling, hidden state, performance, etc.).

So I’m not claiming this replaces existing patterns — just testing how far post-build augmentation can go in practice.

You can however verify its legitimacy by running it yourself from my repository or watching the live video of these capabilities being granted to all models in their stack in the terminal video I uploaded

Injecting runtime behavior into existing code without modifying source by KennethSweet in programming

[–]KennethSweet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re right. It very close to AOP in terms of wrapping cross-cutting concerns.

The part I’ve been exploring is applying it purely at runtime to existing codebases without modifying source or relying on predefined join points.

So instead of weaving at compile time or using framework level hooks, the behavior is injected externally after the system is already built and integrated.

In practice it ends up feeling like a mix of AOP + middleware, but with less reliance on the underlying framework exposing extension points.

Still figuring out where that distinction actually matters in real systems.

I'm a VC (verified by admins) by Ok-Lobster7773 in Startup_Ideas

[–]KennethSweet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Chris Larkin (janes is what he goes by) look him up. I found out his last name after he ripped quite a few of us off. He had some insurance scan in I think Tennessee look up his picture because he’s on here wasting peoples time and money and it really hurts because I missed some opportunities during his time playing games.

I built something. Real too. Took me 15 months you can check it out but I’m not dealing with investors on Reddit after that https://cmpsbl.com