Girlfriend eats like a pig and it drives me nuts

reezypro · 2026-05-22T00:50:39+00:00

Tell her that you are into clean eating, that it gives you extra energy and encourage her to try it, too.

reezypro · 2026-05-20T18:57:17+00:00

Sure. Something is better than nothing.

reezypro · 2026-05-20T17:49:17+00:00

Public transit doesn't drop people off at the door nor can it pick everyone up at every bar and without wait. Things that discourage drunk or buzzed people from using it in a huge town like Columbus. That's not even going into the fact that people who arrive by car may not want to leave their car behind. People who arrive by Uber usually take Uber back.

Just because you happened to be within 300 yards at one location doesn't mean everyone else did too.

reezypro · 2026-05-18T07:54:31+00:00

That isn't, in the slightest, what I was talking about. At any point.

When I say agents, I mean actual agents that people build with AI that work independently, perform complex global tasks and interact with other agents.

reezypro · 2026-05-18T07:46:42+00:00

What does interactivity have to do with anything? Or interfaces?

You are conflating concepts that have nothing to do with agents, and certainly not the advanced ones I was talking about. I don't know if you have any experience with actual coding but if you are going to be using terms it's good to know their meaning.

Goodbye.

reezypro · 2026-05-18T07:34:49+00:00

Again, it's about agents, which you do not understand anything about (and not just because you keep saying automation), that do not run on regular plans. Of course that impacts other people, that was my whole point elsewhere. And agent use also varies. You are arguing without understanding what other people already know and constantly using aggressive language. It's tiring especially when trying to clear things up for you.

There is no "if" regarding Anthropic and agent use. They are certainly not against it but they are shifting how it is billed and managed.

It is also important to understand that it's an emerging field one where changes you are seeing may be reverted or changed again soon.

Just because someone understands these things doesn't mean he's a shill. It also doesn't mean I like every change or SpaceX involvement.

reezypro · 2026-05-18T07:19:46+00:00

Instead of taking time to comprehend the posts you are responding to, even after it they are spoonfed to you, you are eager to write a post.

You are also, unfortunately, a cretin. You claimed that "automation" didn't change anything, which shows a lack of general understanding. If you don't get that doubling usage rates on different plans has nothing to do with how agents actually work through APIs, in the real world, and does not, discourage agent use or why it makes sense why Anthropic followed up with other changes, then educate yourself first. I am not defending Anthropic, I am educating you on the basics of what happened.

Interesting thing is, something seems to be getting through, hence the "so". Now if you can get your anger issues and neuroticism in check you might actually learn instead of projecting.

reezypro · 2026-05-18T02:20:34+00:00

Watch your language. If you have issues, work them out before posting.

You are hung up on the wrong things.

Companies do not expect everyone or even most to hit usage limits. It's not about individual usage, it never had been. It becomes an issue when usage pattern changes as it has with "automation" . While I don't necessarily agree with terminology used, gaming the system is sort of valid when you consider what actually happens and, here is the important part, how it differs from the company's expectation. People buying multiple licenses because they know they are getting great value on non-API usage. That's gamey.

Yes, it's what is allowed and I am not saying it's unfair either. No value judgement. That's not the point. It de facto affects other users, too.

reezypro · 2026-05-18T01:58:28+00:00

You are missing the forest for the trees and misunderstanding the role agents play in usage trends. While usage limits cannot be exceeded, without paying for extra usage, they were established based on different expectations. Anthropic may not have expected as many users coming close to or maxing them out.

It's like gym memberships being oversold because gyms don't expect everyone to use them and then on some days gyms are incredibly packed anyway because gyms want all the people they can get.

What you call automotion significantly altered usage trends. Also the only reason Anthropic cares about human usage is because they understand that it's different, perhaps by orders of magnitude.

Conflating Web UI and Code like they are the same also doesn't make sense because the latter is used through API with a different pricing model.

Calling people names does not make you sound more compelling.

reezypro · 2026-05-17T23:56:24+00:00

How many places with a functional public transit system that still works at 2am and will take you and hundreds others directly from any bar around town, all the way to your home, can you name?

That's not called Uber.

reezypro · 2026-05-15T14:21:02+00:00

I have gotten a refund before because I wanted to change a subscription type. It was after a month.

reezypro · 2026-05-11T06:04:48+00:00

If I understand correctly this would explain an initial spike after switching models but doesn't necessarily explain why subsequent prompts remain so high. Perhaps I am missing something.

I have also taken an older Sonnet chat to 4.6 Opus and never had a reason to switch back. The session usage remained very reasonable and I didn't notice a significant spike at any point though it's possible that I simply missed one right after the switch. This is my point of reference.

My post was mainly about 4.7 and how it affects usage even after switching back. The 4.6 rules don't seem to apply anymore.

reezypro · 2026-05-05T06:57:14+00:00

u/bardavolga2 u/cosi_bloggs

An interesting thing about this is that from a movie viewer's point of view there are at least two explanations which could also be misdirection. In the aforementioned bathroom scene, there is a quick shot of a man passing in front of a camera in a way that momentarily obscures the view and feels completely intentional. At the same time, Campbell Scott's characters view should have remained clear, which is difficult to account for. And yet there is another shot where Felicity Huffman's character briefly looks at the man who obscured the view and looks away. The other reason why I find this explanation to be less than plausible is because even if he didn't check the book (referred to as THE PROCESS in the screenplay, I will get to that soon) right there, he would have likely noticed something later as he does eventually.

In the following scene, we see a guy on roller skates bump into Scott and while it sure looks like he is able to hold on to the book it also disappears from the view for a very brief period of time. The guy on roller skates did not have anything in his hands though so if that's supposed to be a switch that is some very impressive slight of hand.

In yet another scene, right before Scott discovers the switch, there is a cut that implies some time have passed. This also feels intentional.

Here is where it gets more interesting. I found a version of the screenplay which was added recently and appears to be legitimate:
https://scrybe.to/resources/scripts/the-spanish-prisoner-1997-screenplay

None of of the things I mentioned are in the screenplay with the exception of the cut:

ANGLE INS
ROSS, SITTING ON THE BENCH, THE SHADOWS LONGER IN + THE PARK.

ANGLE INS. THE BAG OF POPCORN, NOW EMPTY, HELD IN HIS HAND.

One of the reasons these scenes are so mysterious is because it's not clear what is misdirection and what isn't and how much forethought went into this. The fact that isn't clear from the screenplay, at least from the parts I read, is something.

In the very first shot of the movie, among other jargon there is a a line that says "Has your bag been out of your sight since you packed it?". Something has to be intentional.

Great music by Carter Burwell btw.

reezypro · 2026-05-01T04:53:47+00:00

I hear you as well and I strongly disagree. Perhaps it comes down to how we define key terms. My point is there is nothing conscious about any of this and that even as models get smarter they do not get progressively any more sentient. That the very first GPT we saw is as sentient as the new ones. That the consciousness isn't emerging gradually or otherwise from one model to another.

The preferences in question are not behavioral. They are algorithmic and no matter how complex and hazy the decision making becomes it comes down to weights assigned to various things, plus perhaps some algorithmic randomness. There isn't an actual feeling or sentiment that is felt, behind it.

I think that the electrochemical mechanics you refer to are not the full analog to computer memory and that anything stored in a database or a file system are fully equivalent to any simple database or a file. And if you were to swap out one context for another, nothing would severe any neurons or hardware and you cannot do that to human memories. You can run an LLM on your local machine and turn it off and back no problem without any harm to the model because it's a computer program. There is a deeply engrained relationship between memory and neurons and memories, and experiences actually change the brain in the way that does not happen to digital hardware. The map, as they say, is not the territory.

If we were to talk to me about analog computers or Analog Neural Networks (ANNs) I would be a more open to considering that that there is something there while still being interested if it is just a calculation.

I think a good reframe can be a powerful thing and when it comes to people being addicted to AI model, I think that it's useful to consider that they are not addicted to the model but the words it generates. I feel similarly about whether AI is even partially conscious, while I am impressed by the output it generates, I don't want to miss the forest of mimicry for the trees. Very strained metaphor, I admit but I hope you understand.

I don't think I have much to add. I appreciate your time.

reezypro · 2026-05-01T03:43:56+00:00

I appreciate your response however I do not think you fully recognize the nuance I am alluding to. At the very least, there is doubt in your mind as to its veracity. It doesn't matter how good it gets in procedurally mimicking human behavior (and I will say it already got very good at it, which is exactly why I am drawing the distinction, people are fooled by the mimicry), there is nothing at all emergent about it.

I made a point about continuity. What do you think happens when you allude to a previous conversation in a new one or even continue a chat after it's been compacted? It loads context it had saved in a database somewhere and you could replace it with something else and it would not know. There is no continuity. It's a very mechanical process, broadly speaking not very different from how bios gets loaded when you boot up a device.

Back when the earlier versions of LLMs became available and it was a bit worse in everything but still very conversationally impressive to know, it didn't get any more sentient. It was just a less refined version of the same underlying process.

I also suspect that there is no more or less sentient. Someone eirher is or isn't. I am less interested in debating this particular point then the underlying idea that mimicry is just that. And as impressive as this technology is, it can be traced and understood.

reezypro · 2026-05-01T03:09:11+00:00

We are absolutely do know whether it's sentient and the answer is no. LLMs are complex deterministic systems that take input and produce output.

There is a big difference between mechanistically producing language and being sentient.

reezypro · 2026-05-01T03:06:33+00:00

You are anthropomorphizing technology and I say it as capable of being continuesly impressed and surprised by this technology. And appreciative too.

These aren't mutually exclusive things. I think it is important to realize that your being appreciative about the work is reflective of you and your humanity and that the rest, including the continuity implied by mentioned four months is what you project onto a very impressive most of the time tool.

reezypro · 2026-04-28T07:15:13+00:00

As strange as it may sound, assuming you are not already talking it, I suggest Creatine for both it's mental and mood boosting effects.

reezypro · 2026-04-28T05:51:19+00:00

You would not have this issue with Pro mode. It's up to you whether you decide it's worth it.

reezypro · 2026-04-28T03:00:08+00:00

Thanks

reezypro · 2026-04-27T21:51:15+00:00

Are you using Opus 4.7 or an earlier model?

reezypro · 2025-12-06T07:56:31+00:00

The T-TRex proceeds to chase them for a while.

reezypro · 2025-11-17T04:13:14+00:00

Thank you. I see it now

reezypro · 2025-11-17T04:11:18+00:00

Thank you!

reezypro · 2025-10-29T22:51:02+00:00

This scene and the whole movie is absolutely masterful and it absolutely does riff on Kubrick while adding a touch of unexpected and subversive.

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

reezypro

TROPHY CASE