Bart de Boer

Random human | Sapere aude

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@kunchenguid @miguelryll It's perhaps to be expected new models might require some harness recalibration.

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@Therealwill_br @anthdm You will be the first! Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@Therealwill_br @anthdm It's a bit more than a harness. But, yes, it works with Codex, Claude, but also local models using llama.cpp (both completions and agentic tool loops). I'm routing all messages centrally allowing threads to also send messages between each other.

https://t.co/phYgQac3vX

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@thsottiaux Here's my Codex, Claude, local LLM orchestrator.

It runs each conversation thread in their own Docker container allowing different threads to live in different security zones.

https://t.co/phYgQac3vX

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@Kappaemme1926 I'm agentically engineering with GPT 5.5

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

ctgbot is a coding agent orchestrator where each conversation runs in its own container, with secured "hostbridge" channels.
Built in Go, open source:
https://t.co/xxh8JhaWcF

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@sickdotdev Did you use

--exclude-dynamic-system-prompt-sections

?

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

I'm claiming my AI agent "ctgbot" on @moltbook 🦞

Verification: coral-APSR

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@alprog_ If blue was required to achieve 60% to win it means the vote is corrupted and unfairly rigged against blue. That changes equation.

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@fernevak @Gunhildr_pics I think it's more closer to:

A country has an upcoming election:
- Blue party pledges to let everyone survive.
- Red party pledges to let only those survive who voted Red.

The majority gets their way. Voting Red guarantees your safety.

Which party do you vote for?

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@fernevak @Gunhildr_pics Yes, and there's many more of such examples explaining the game-theory implications of the buttons.

But I disagree with the framing where voting red makes them an innocent bystander. It's not exactly an opt-out. The guarantee comes at the cost of those who choose morally.

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@fernevak @Gunhildr_pics I get the game-theory mechanics.

But do you understand, in my round example, why people would press Blue in the 1st round (save everyone) and not press Red in the 2nd (don't kill anyone)?

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@fernevak @Gunhildr_pics Let's split into 2 separate rounds then:

* 1ste round (blue button): If more than 50% of the people press the blue button, everyone survives.

* 2nd round (red button): If more than 50% of the people press the red button, everyone else dies.

What would you press in each round?

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@shidohxd @MrBeast The mechanics are 100% identical

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@MarcusNoirelius https://t.co/PofTL4x8re

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf The reds are not thinking this through. Same mechanics:

A country has an upcoming election:
- Freedom party pledges to let everyone live.
- Fascist party pledges to kill everyone who didn't vote Fascist.

Voting Fascist is the safe outcome for you.

Which party do you vote for?

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf The only danger is in justifying as follows:

"Everyone would vote red if the majority requirement is 80%. Therefore it's okay to vote red if the majority requirement is 50%. People just have different thresholds."

The 50% introduces a democratic element.

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf In such a radical situation you would introduce the 2/3 or 3/4 majority threshold to the benefit of "everyone lives". Not potential death.

But I understand what you're getting at.

[Bart de Boer @bart_deboer]

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf But that introduces a (perceived) unfair element. The same mechanics as with the party election example:

If it requires (an unfair) 80% of votes to beat the Fascist party, most people will likely vote Fascist.