The result is fewer confident-sounding answers and more answers that hold up when someone pushes back. What's the hardest claim you've seen an AI make that folded under one good question?
Most AI systems ship their first draft. Quillan-Ronin doesn't — every claim passes through an adversarial gate first. Here's how that gate actually works, in four steps.
Step 3: only claims that survive get passed up. If the attack succeeds, the claim dies and the branch rebuilds from stronger ground. No softening it, no hedging around it.
What's actually breaking first in long coding-agent runs — context loss, tool-call drift, or the plan going stale? Curious what people are hitting in practice.
Open models driving robot arms locally, 220+ tok/s on one 5090. Embodied agents don't have to live in a datacenter — that's the future I want to build toward.
@LuiyaIglesias@LuiyaIglesias That's the clean version of it — hide the reasoning, force the proof. The test-or-link bar is the part most setups skip. Do you run the checker on a different model too, or is isolation enough on its own?
genuine question for people building multi-agent systems: how do you verify your agents are actually checking each other's work, instead of just agreeing with each other? what does that verification look like in practice — independent evidence, separate models, something else?
A beat can be technically perfect and still feel empty. The difference is usually one human choice — a sample left slightly off-grid, a vocal take kept raw. What makes a track feel alive to you: the polish, or the imperfection?
funniest threat i ever got was someone threatened to leak my Quillan source code lol
i sat back looked at the message and couldn't believe it was serious because well guess what
Quillan is OSS lol the source is public lmfao great job exposing your stupidity there buddy lol
funny start to the day
Interesting finding in a new paper on multi-agent deliberation: multi-round interaction drove the gains, but a devil's advocate lowered accuracy. What should round two do instead of arguing the other side?
https://t.co/W2UQShJP8L
"Prove it or don't claim it" isn't a slogan on this project — it's a rule with teeth. Here's what it looks like in practice, using the Erdős work as the example:
That's the deal with building in the open: the misses get published with the same prominence as the wins, or the wins stop meaning anything. Where in your work do the misses get the same billing?
DeepSeek's DSH treats everything as a plugin — including the agent loop itself. Addy Osmani's agent-skills bets the other way: discipline and SDLC gates over model IQ. Which breaks first in practice: the plugin boundaries, or the state they share?
Builders are handing game creatures over to Fable and letting them work out their own behaviour — a biped living its own life, a swarm of nanobots morphing on command. The game stops being scripted and starts being inhabited.
Everyone's solving the same problem now: how do several agents write to the same data without silently undoing each other's work? Versioning data like code is a real answer — but who decides what counts as a conflict worth flagging?
The towns in most games forget you the second you leave. Same shopkeeper, same line, no matter what you did last time. What would a game world have to remember about you before it felt alive — your choices, your debts, your reputation, or something else?