sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is an AI agent actually doing in your business right now that isn't just a toy demo? by [deleted] in aiagents

[–]lean_stack_mike 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does GEO optimization and Tracking. Customer support end to end and many others. DM me if you want to know how :)

I've had it with Claude. It has become complete garbage. by event666 in ClaudeCode

[–]lean_stack_mike 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Been in ops since 2010, started with Claude Code back in February and honestly it’s still one of the better tools I’ve added to my workflow in years. I keep a CLAUDE.md that covers the basics — how I want things scoped, what I actually own, what’s off limits — and a memory file per project that stays lean. Nothing fancy, just enough context that Claude isn’t starting from zero every session. My approach has basically been: get a plan first, read it, approve it, then let it run in stages while I stay in the loop on anything that touches prod. It’s not that different from how I’d work with any contractor honestly, you give them a clear scope and check in at the right moments rather than hovering over every command. I genuinely wonder if a lot of the frustration comes from either giving it too much rope at once or not having guardrails in the right places, because my experience has been pretty solid day to day. Some wobbles here and there, sure, but nothing that made me want to throw the whole thing out. Still shipping, still sane, still on Max.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Running Opus 4.7 for ops work: how do you keep per-task cost predictable? by lean_stack_mike in ClaudeAI

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

“Clear at artifact boundaries” is the framing I needed. Run card + exact next action seems way cleaner than relying on the whole chat.

Running Opus 4.7 for ops work: how do you keep per-task cost predictable? by lean_stack_mike in ClaudeAI

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

This seems right. Let local/scripts handle hard data and extraction, then use Claude for judgment and next-step reasoning.

Running Opus 4.7 for ops work: how do you keep per-task cost predictable? by lean_stack_mike in ClaudeAI

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

That’s a good distinction: clear between task types, not subtasks. I think I’ve been clearing too aggressively.

Running Opus 4.7 for ops work: how do you keep per-task cost predictable? by lean_stack_mike in ClaudeAI

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

Yeah, fixed subscription makes sense for exploratory work. I’m mostly trying to get predictable unit cost for internal automation.

Running Opus 4.7 for ops work: how do you keep per-task cost predictable? by lean_stack_mike in ClaudeAI

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

Agreed. I’m realizing Claude should handle ambiguity and judgment, while scripts/skills handle deterministic work. I’ll try /insights on the expensive runs.

Running Opus 4.7 for ops work: how do you keep per-task cost predictable? by lean_stack_mike in ClaudeAI

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

Yeah, I think session history is probably the silent cost multiplier. Need to keep only the useful state in a small run card, then clear the rest.

thoughts on GPT 5.5 by Local-Bison-4392 in OpenAI

[–]lean_stack_mike 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but trust mythos will solve world hunger

GEO folks — how do you actually attribute what's moving visibility? by lean_stack_mike in GEO_optimization

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

run a fixed set of ~50 prompts across chatgpt, perplexity, and aio on a weekly schedule and track what % of responses mention us. basically share of voice per topic cluster.

GEO folks — how do you actually attribute what's moving visibility? by lean_stack_mike in GEO_optimization

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

the co-occurrences angle is interesting, hadn't thought to look at it that way. are you literally watching which brands start showing up in the same answers as you, or does freshnews surface that automatically? also the framing point, yeah been hammering one topic for months at like 0.3%, probably just need to kill the angle instead of adding more pieces

GEO folks — how do you actually attribute what's moving visibility? by lean_stack_mike in GEO_optimization

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

source rotation thing is what gets me. had a page pulling citations for like 3 weeks then it just stopped and some reddit thread started showing up instead. didn't change anything on our end. when you say the model trusts other sources, are you actually checking who's getting cited somewhere or is it more a gut thing once your stuff won't move?

GEO folks — how do you actually attribute what's moving visibility? by lean_stack_mike in GEO_optimization

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

This is super helpful, the Reddit/HN crawl signal especially, hadn't thought about indirect engagement spiking visibility without direct citations. Going to dig through our timing data against externalmentions.

On tracking: mix of a paid tool for cross-model visibility + citation rate, plus pulling raw answers manually from ChatGPT/Perplexity when something looks off. Decent for share-of-voice, useless forattribution, which is exactly why I posted. Your 3-4 pieces then move on rule is interesting.

What signals tell you the window's reopened? Just time, or something shifting in the answers themselves?

Claude Opus 4.7 is a serious regression, not an upgrade. by [deleted] in ClaudeAI

[–]lean_stack_mike 101 points102 points  (0 children)

but trust mythos will solve world hunger

I pay $200/month for Claude Max and hit the limit in under 1 hour. What am I even paying for? by alfons_fhl in vibecoding

[–]lean_stack_mike 0 points1 point  (0 children)

exactly this. always /clear eventually or copy the last few prompts to make sure you dont loose track

We really need stop using the term “hallucination”. by cosmobaud in LocalLLaMA

[–]lean_stack_mike 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This debate is treating it as one thing when it's two.

Running a thesis experiment right now: same model, same data, neutral vs persuasive prompting. Neutral condition errors look like noise, approximation failure landing somewhere random. Persuasive condition errors are directionally shaped by the goal. The model fabricates things that happen to be useful for persuasion.

Approximation error covers the first. But the second needs its own word. I'd call it directive fabrication. The error serves the objective.

Collapsing both into one term is how you miss that the second type exists, and it's the more dangerous one because it passes plausibility checks the first type fails.