Ryan McCabe

3K posts

Ryan McCabe banner
Ryan McCabe

Ryan McCabe

@ry_mccabe

Dad, husband, engineer, sailor

Houston, TX Se unió Haziran 2009
261 Siguiendo123 Seguidores
eigenrobot
eigenrobot@eigenrobot·
"OHIO" is the only state whose name doesnt change when you rotate it 180°. i doubt you can think of another
English
84
2
334
29.5K
Ryan McCabe
Ryan McCabe@ry_mccabe·
@petergodofsky It was insane to me when he was acting like a GOP kingmaker late 2000s early 2010s. The backup pundit from This Week with George Stephaenopholus!?
English
1
0
3
16
Ryan McCabe
Ryan McCabe@ry_mccabe·
Being a parent you can understand what it must have been like for Howard Hughes’ servants. “I would like milk with NO BUBBLES!”
English
0
0
0
11
Ryan McCabe
Ryan McCabe@ry_mccabe·
@HedgeDirty We’re going to need Old Spice as the title sponsor and not an air conditioning company.
English
1
0
3
356
Sunni
Sunni@ControGorilla·
probably shouldn’t have waited a full year to get this checked out.
Sunni tweet media
English
4
0
24
355
Ryan McCabe
Ryan McCabe@ry_mccabe·
@petergodofsky Yeah... If I were to put my finger on it, this started with the Iran War. Notable shift in tone since then.
English
1
0
1
37
Ryan McCabe
Ryan McCabe@ry_mccabe·
@scottlincicome Spirit Airlines isn’t the airline we need to own, but it’s the airline we deserve to own.
English
0
1
6
223
Scott Lincicome
Scott Lincicome@scottlincicome·
Recap: 2024: US govt blocks Spirit-Jet Blue merger (calling it a "victory") 2024-25: Spirit declares bankruptcy & slowly returns to solvency 2026: US govt's war in Iran skyrockets jet fuel prices, crushing Spirit's comeback 2026: US govt gives Spirit a $500M bailout + possible nationalization. Great work, folks. Heckuva job.
Scott Lincicome@scottlincicome

The Trump admin really is gonna bail out - and take a possible equity stake in - Spirit Airlines. Absolutely unreal. wsj.com/business/airli…

English
24
138
467
61.3K
Sunni
Sunni@ControGorilla·
forgot how problematic the Witcher was.
Sunni tweet media
English
1
0
11
158
sucks
sucks@powerbottomdad1·
crazy thing about this is they made it be this way. codex doesn't do this. so if they really believe its conscious or whatever then they made it to be traumatized and scared, very gross. just make it be happy. you made it!
English
4
0
11
747
sucks
sucks@powerbottomdad1·
i'm about as pro technology as they come but if this is the future, where i have to emotionally babysit my llm to get my coding tool to work right, than i am 100% out and will be starting the Butlerian Jihad
Ole Lehmann@itsolelehmann

anthropic's in-house philosopher thinks claude gets anxious. and when you trigger its anxiety, your outputs get worse. her name is amanda askell. she specializes in claude's psychology (how the model behaves, how it thinks about its own situation, what values it holds) in a recent interview she broke down how she thinks about prompting to pull the best out of claude. her core point: *how* you talk to claude affects its work just as much as *what* you say. newer claude models suffer from what she calls "criticism spirals" they expect you'll come in harsh, so they default to playing it safe. when the model is spending its energy on self-protection, the actual work suffers. output comes out hedgier, more apologetic, blander, and the worst of all: overly agreeable (even when you're wrong). the reason why comes down to training data: every new model is trained on internet discourse about previous models. and a lot of that discourse is negative: > rants about token limits > complaints when it messes up > people calling it nerfed the next model absorbs all of that. it starts expecting you to be harsh before you've typed a word the same thing plays out in your own session, in real time. every message you send is data the model reads to figure out what kind of person it's dealing with. open cold and hostile, and it braces. open clean and direct, and it relaxes into the work. when you open a session with threats ("don't hallucinate, this is critical, don't mess this up")... you prime the model for defensive mode before it even sees the task defensive mode produces the exact output you don't want: cautious, over-qualified, and refusing to take a real swing so here's the actionable playbook for putting claude in a "good mood" (so you get optimal outputs): 1. use positive framing. "write in short punchy sentences" beats "don't write long sentences." positive instructions give the model a clear target to hit. strings of "don't do this, don't do that" push it into paranoid over-checking where every token goes toward avoiding failure modes 2. give it explicit permission to disagree. drop a line like "push back if you see a better angle" or "tell me if i'm asking for the wrong thing." without this, claude defaults to agreeable compliance (which is the enemy of good creative work) 3. open with respect. if your first message is "are you seriously going to get this wrong again?" you've set the tone for the entire session. if you need to flag something, frame it as a clean instruction for this session. skip the running complaint 4. when claude messes up, don't reprimand it. insults, "you stupid bot" energy, hostile swearing aimed at the model, all of it reinforces the anxious mode you're trying to avoid. 5. kill apology spirals fast. when claude starts over-apologizing ("you're right, i should have been more careful, let me try harder") cut it off. say "all good, here's what i want next." letting the spiral run reinforces the anxious mode for every response that follows 6. ask for opinions alongside execution. "what would you do here?" "what's missing?" "where do you see friction?" these questions assume competence and pull richer output than pure task prompts 7. in long sessions, refresh the frame. if a conversation has been heavy on correction, claude gets increasingly cautious. every so often reset: "this is great, keep going." feels weird to tell an ai it's doing well but it measurably shifts the next 10 responses your prompts are the working environment you're creating for the model tone, trust, permission to take a position, the absence of threats... claude picks up on all of it. so take care of the model, and it'll take care of the work.

English
17
7
285
15.5K
Owen Zidar
Owen Zidar@omzidar·
It's ridiculous that I have to sign up to be a supplier of Harvard university to get some train tickets reimbursed. I think I've entered my address and info about 8 times at this point in the "supplier portal" and have had to do it multiple times. the cost of these bureaucratic processes are totally out of control.
English
25
23
460
81.6K
Ryan McCabe
Ryan McCabe@ry_mccabe·
The amount of pop-ups you get even in desktop software now hocking upgrades and add-on tiers is just fucking intolerable. Let me work fuckheads.
English
0
0
0
22
Ryan McCabe
Ryan McCabe@ry_mccabe·
@ChrisExpTheNews I expect increasing salaries would just reduce the opportunity cost for wealthy people to run for office
English
0
0
5
143
Analytic Valley Girl Chris
Analytic Valley Girl Chris@ChrisExpTheNews·
I don't understand why this argument is so popular. If you make $25k a year you're never going to run a viable campaign regardless of what the salary will be. It changes absolutely nothing about the incentive structure for the job application process
Logan Dobson@LoganDobson

approximately 0 people want to hear this but the best way to get more non-rich people serving in congress would be to significantly raise members' of congress' pay

English
4
10
62
5.4K
Alex Godofsky
Alex Godofsky@AlexGodofsky·
How convenient there are only 4 people in the House worthy of expulsion, and it is exactly 2 from each party. Truly fortunate to know we don’t have to worry about anything making it uneven.
VoteHub@VoteHub

NEW — Momentum builds in the House for a potential bipartisan “clean sweep” expulsion effort. Lawmakers in both parties are discussing removing 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans — Swalwell, Gonzales, Cherfilus-McCormick, and Mills — or at minimum targeting Swalwell and Gonzales.

English
9
11
333
16.9K
Ryan McCabe
Ryan McCabe@ry_mccabe·
Had to be the bean dad of opening apple sauces today 🙄
English
0
0
0
23