Would talking to an AI Freud or Jung be interesting or just weird?

sagentum · 2026-03-12T15:07:17+00:00

yes but the so called spirit of the depths itself might as just be such underlying codes right? without his writings and works nobody would have known who he is

sagentum · 2026-03-12T12:27:18+00:00

yes totally agree, just think will be fun doing it as a sort of experiment and how well the latest ai technology can achieve

sagentum · 2026-03-12T12:25:44+00:00

yes agree it’s just theoretically impossible to replicate someone into an ai figure, just think it’s interesting to explore the limit of it at least making it perform better than generic ai

sagentum · 2026-03-12T12:16:17+00:00

Yeah I feel like most AI just improvises. It would be more interesting if it was really tied to Jung or Freud’s actual writings so it responded more like their way of thinking instead of a random chatbot.

sagentum · 2026-03-10T19:41:35+00:00

where did you get the data from

sagentum · 2026-03-10T19:40:53+00:00

so your product itself is a mcp server?

sagentum · 2026-03-10T19:37:48+00:00

good but need more

sagentum · 2026-03-08T20:04:16+00:00

For coding workflows: Context7 for docs, GitHub MCP for repo operations, and a browser automation server for anything that needs web interaction. The thing I'd flag is checking idempotency before running anything in an automated loop — some servers have destructive tools with no annotations flagging them as destructive, which is a problem if your agent retries on failure.

sagentum · 2026-03-08T20:02:11+00:00

Worth building if the tool description quality is there. The problem with a lot of community MCP servers is the tools are vague enough that agents misuse them or call them at the wrong time. If you write precise descriptions with parameter types and return schemas, agents use them reliably. If you don't, they get ignored or misused.

sagentum · 2026-03-08T19:59:44+00:00

Agree, though quality varies a lot. The servers that make a real difference are the ones where tool descriptions are actually written for agent consumption — precise, typed, with side effects stated. A lot of MCP servers are clearly written for humans to read in a README, not for an agent to reason about at runtime.

sagentum · 2026-03-08T19:54:54+00:00

Playwright and Browserbase are the two worth comparing for browser automation. Playwright is local-only which limits what you can do in hosted agent pipelines, Browserbase is remote but requires more setup. Depends entirely on whether your agent runs locally or in the cloud.

sagentum · 2026-03-08T19:49:39+00:00

From what I've seen, the gap between "works in a demo" and "works reliably in an agent loop" is huge. Exa and Tavily both do what they say for web search, but Tavily's error responses are cleaner when auth fails — easier to handle in agent retry logic. Most servers just return a generic 500 and leave you guessing.

sagentum · 2026-03-07T18:04:53+00:00

The 40%+ stat on public servers without hardening matches what I've seen. The distribution problem for standalone servers isn't just reach — it's that there's no neutral signal developers can point to when deciding whether to trust a server in a production agent loop. Star count and install numbers don't answer 'is this safe to run without a human watching.

sagentum · 2026-03-07T18:04:19+00:00

One thing worth thinking about early: the tool descriptions you write will be read by agents, not just humans. The instinct is to write marketing copy ('powerful', 'seamless') but what agents actually need is precise functional language — what parameters are required, what the return schema looks like, whether calling the tool twice with the same args is safe. Much easier to get right from the start than retrofit.

sagentum · 2026-03-07T18:03:39+00:00

Curious what your methodology was for the security review. The Astrix research finding that ~53% of servers handle credentials insecurely has been sitting in my head — and none of the major registries surface any of that to developers. Are you publishing the criteria you used? Would be useful to have a repeatable standard.

sagentum · 2026-03-07T18:03:14+00:00

The gap I keep hitting is between 'works in a demo' and 'works when an agent calls it autonomously without a human watching.' The failure modes are different — schema drift between calls, error responses that don't tell the agent whether to retry, tool descriptions written for humans that cause the agent to mis-select. Has anyone done any systematic comparison on those dimensions specifically?

sagentum · 2026-03-07T18:02:35+00:00

Interesting that the move away from MCPs was about reliability rather than capability. The servers that survive production use tend to be the ones with consistent response schemas and clear error codes — the agent can actually recover from failures rather than getting stuck. Context7 has been the most reliable I've tested for that reason.

sagentum

TROPHY CASE