> Even more importantly, what happens to teamwork? If we are all a BBM now—or rather, if we all have personal armies of BBMs, permanently locked in a manic state, springloaded at all hours to generate things for us-and-only-us—how do we work together? How do cocoons communicate, interoperate? What does a team of ai solipsists look like? It sounds oxymoronic.
One example of teamwork is how the programmers and researchers worked together to build the UNIX SYSTEM (https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~doug/reader.pdf). It is not a product but an environment optimized for building tools and solving practical problems with tools written in C (while BBMs were busy with Lisp in Boston .;-)
C++ is a totally different story and you need an IDE for that.
If WASM succeeded in being the one universal ABI, it could be the perfect successor to the unix pipe for the AI age. Wasm modules for libraries, that double as terminal tools.. One could only imagine
I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between human aging and “filling up” the context window in Agentic AI: the “chain of thoughts” getting so heavy that nothing new can be created.
On the other hand, there was lot of disruptive work did survive, or we can call them “hallucinations”.
The reason I wrote that compact makefile is that I am at the beginning of a long journey to study the coding style of ngnk (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ngnk).
I can see the potential of doing some implementation of APL/J/K at levels even lower than C, like how those guys did APL\360 using assembly language. It is going to be super fun in the era of everyone using LLM to pump out verbose Python/TS/Rust code with context windows bigger than the whole operating system.
Some people must be working on training some models exclusively on high quality OSS code base like curl and SQLite without the noise of low quality training data.
I would do that with 100% local models from scratch.
Especially when the solid core now ships with a web ui and API compatibility with OpenAI and Antropic. In my test of ai clients, Ollama was the only one I deleted.
I didn't see it on mobile. So it only happened to desktop browser.
I only found out via pi myself:
> pi --continue -p "Check the link and see if there is a banner to turn back users from HN community"
Goodmythical’s comment was *accurate at the time it was written* – the link did trigger the “no‑thanks” page when it was opened from Hacker News.
The “banner” is not a visual element that lives on the main article page; it is the content of the separate *`/nothanks.html`* file that the site redirects to.
When the redirect was in place, the user experience was:
1. User clicks the link while still on `news.ycombinator.com`.
2. The script in `components.js` sees the referrer and redirects the browser to `/nothanks.html`.
3. The `/nothanks.html` page displays the single line “hi orange site user …” – this is what Goodmythical described as the banner.
If you now visit the same link directly (e.g., from a bookmark or a search engine) the redirect is bypassed and you see the normal article, so you won’t see that page at all.
I found out last night via pi.dev. And the new repo of pi didn’t exist yet.
I have been working with pi-mono locally for a few months now. Great code base to study. Much higher quality than CC. (I have posted a gist analysis before.)
Will keep an eye on the work of these talented engineers and entrepreneurs. Good luck guys!
My reading of that isn't that the harness matters so much as the overall platform environment that agents operate in and the approach taken by the team.
> Before Blitzy starts any work on code generation, the platform launches collaborative agents to deeply analyze the repository – mapping dependencies, understanding conventions, and capturing domain logic. This documentation process can take hours or days. When prompted to add a feature, refactor code or fix bugs, Blitzy replies with a highly detailed technical specification.
The same approach could be taken with any harness with a skill to perform this step first before starting work.
What exactly are you pointing out? I read the link and the linked thread and it's not clear what position is being presented.
I don't see evidence that the harness -- rather than the approach to information indexing and agent tooling -- makes much of a difference.
You can make a case "this harness bakes X in" (or in the case of pi "this harness bakes nothing in; you choose your own adventure"), but at the end of the day, skills are just markdown files and CLIs and shell scripts can be used by any harness; they are portable. CC allows override of the system prompt[0] and I would guess most harnesses have similar facilities. I don't see how the harness is going to be the bigger impact versus the configured tooling (skills, scripts, plugins).
The extraordinary claim here is that if I configured pi and CC, Codex, etc. with the same system prompt, same tools, same skills, that pi would outperform CC, Codex. That's what it means to say the harness matters. That just doesn't seem right; rather its the configuration of tools, skills, and default prompt that matters.
My point is pi-coding-agent [1] is a very well designed and implemented open source project that we all can learn from as software engineers. His blog post about his decision making [2] is also very well written.
I should've given original links instead of noisy HN threads.
It is very inspiring.
reply