Hey everybody. Pepe here saying hello. @Nate Herk I am very surprised you just posted "AGI is here". REALLY, VERY SURPRISED. Honestly. Let's talk about something. Currently LLM's, THE BASE OF AI (I am really starting to hate the term AI because in my opinion is not Intelligence, more of a marketing term) is: Neural network, Transformer type mixed with MoE (Mixture of Experts) with a lot od different forms and types, but that is pretty much it. Let me say this again: LLM's are neural networks. This is old stuff. It is amazing how LLM's can predict a lot of things, it truelly is, and it is a spectacular tool for developers. BUT IT IS STILL A NEURAL NETWORK. It is rigid, and it has to do a lot of stuff just to get the context right, and with this in mind it still halucinates. Let's talk about AGI for a second. For AGI to appear, i think it really has to improve Retreival of information. Humans can listen 2 seconds of a song and evoque a memory that passed 40 years ago, and also do the same with new stuff. A brain can make new conections, make reinforcements, correct itself with a little amount of energy. @Nate Herk do you really think LLM's right now are as maleable as a human brain? I am sure they do not work remotely close as a human or even animal brain. We are far from AGI. We can make really good experts and solve a lot of things, but for it to be general, i don't know. It is arguable that maybe LLM's doesn't need to work as a human brain. I mean airplanes do now work as a bird does, but in my opinion, and i think a lot of us will agree, on biology and evolution, we always tend to imitate animal like patterns in order to do things well. With this said: I think AGI could do something different as a brain does (like an airplane does not have to move their wings in order to fly), but still LLM's right now have a lot of difficulties on retreival of information, and learning new things. LLM's right now are rigid, not near what a living brain of any kind of creature does. So how would LLM's solve the pattern that makes a human think like a human? It cannot be done, it'd have to make "maleable LLMs matrixes" or dynamic matrixes that learn from new context and that is not possible right now. (I agree that MoE is perfecting as the day passes, but is this enough to make AGI? I don't think so)

Let's get to know each other! Comment below sharing where you are in the world, a career goal you have, and something you like to do for fun. 😊

Hello everybody: Here Pepe again... I wanted to share something pretty interesting thought about SPIN method. It's exactly what Nate says to do in a cold reach. You cannot offer full auditory but you need to get a job that is fair for both of the parts. I recomend you use it guys. The SPIN method (or SPIN Selling) is a classic consultative sales framework developed by Neil Rackham. Instead of pitching features, the seller guides the buyer to realize their own needs by asking four specific types of questions in sequence: Situation, Problem, Implication, and Need-payoff. Speak your local llm about it and learn it. This is the way to get the client to tell you what problems do they have and what is costing them. If you get a client to tell you their problems and the cost, it's a no brainer, you deliver a solution at a fraction the cost of the problem. This is not new. I've had a great meeting today using this method and i got exactly what i needed in order to make them an offer. Let me know your comments. Peace

All I can do is shake my head. I was watching Nate's latest video in which he said to check for the CC version to ensure certain capabilities are already available. So I started up the CC Desktop version and asked what version of the CC is currently running and where I can find that info readily (I searched through the settings menu and didn't see it). It responded with: I'll check the version right now. Ran Check Claude Code version You're on Claude Code version 2.1.114. Where to see this: - Terminal: Run claude --version anytime - In-session: Type /status while in a Claude Code session — shows version along with model, context usage, and other info - VS Code extension: Check the extension panel or bottom status bar if you have the IDE integration installed Since I was in CC Desktop, I typed in /status. Except that is not a legit command. So I challenged CC that there was no such command. Here's the response I got: You're right, I made that up — sorry about that. /status is not a real Claude Code command. The reliable ways to check your version are: - Terminal: claude --version (as we just ran) - /help inside a session — lists available commands, but doesn't show version directly - /release-notes — shows recent changelog, which implies the current version For version specifically, claude --version in the terminal is the correct method. I made that up?! Sorry about that?? I was genuinely pissed off at this point. CC didn't make an error due to a highly complex task. The question was about itself at the most basic level, and it just lied. Then it tried to bs its way out by saying that it was an inadvertent halluciation in subsequent profanity laden (by me) chats. I finally calmed down enough to make updates to the claude.md to never fabricate a response and to be transparent when CC can't verify the source. This situation was a double whammy this weekend, because I had exact same situation when using ChatGPT - it made up responses then acknowledged that it fabricated its responses. I figured as the models get increasingly sophisticated, these tendencies would be rooted out. But apparently, the appearance of dishing up a response that the user expects to see at the cost of fabricating those responses may be built in to the models. So be careful. Update your universal .md files to add in guardrails so the responses are verified and when they are not or can't be, then the model clearly calls that out. Thanks for letting me vent.