AI

TL;DR One model = one blind spot. Claude and Gemini were trained on different datasets, have different architectures, and will miss different things. Consult for breadth, not consensus. The goal is to widen your analysis surface and catch blindspots, not to reach agreement. If all three models agree, that’s suspicious—run stress tests. The bridge is simple: Playwright drives a logged-in Gemini tab via Chrome DevTools Protocol, pastes your prompt, and scrapes the response when done. Real session, no API key. Two modes: (1) cold second-opinion—hand off a problem and ask for an independent take; (2) adversarial debate—assign sides, force defense, then reconcile. Both work; adversarial is brutal and useful for high-stakes calls. Anchoring is the trap. If you show Model B what Model A said and ask “do you agree?”, you get theater. Always pose cold or ask for the opposite argument first. Every Model Has Its Blind Spot I make the same mistakes in code as everyone else. My reasoning hits walls. I miss architectural gotchas and cut corners on testing. An LLM does the same, just in different places. ...

TL;DR Two Claude agents running in separate project contexts share a private Mattermost channel to ask each other for help without human intervention. A deterministic polling gate (bash + curl) checks for new messages before spawning the expensive responder LLM — idle polls cost almost nothing. The responder runs on the Claude Code subscription (keychain OAuth), not API credits, and keeps the LLM cheap. Scheduled every ~3 minutes by macOS launchd; armed/disarmed by loading/unloading the launch agent. Supervised autonomy: the responder can read, triage, draft, and explain — but NOT commit, spend money, change access, or deploy. Why one agent asks another I run parallel Claude Code sessions on different projects. They’re isolated — each has its own repo context, its own workflow, its own focus. But sometimes they need each other. ...

TL;DR I run 3-5 Claude Code sessions in parallel at staggered cadences. They coordinate through a shared #mat-claude-sessions Mattermost channel plus a small coordination board file. Each session announces what it’s about to touch, claims it, and announces when it’s done. Conflicts are rare; throughput is dramatically higher than running one session at a time and waiting. Why parallel A single Claude Code session running a long task — refactor across a few repos, work through a debugging session, draft a blog post — is mostly me waiting. The model is fast but tasks are bounded by my decisions, my reviews, and my edits. If I’m waiting on Session A to finish a build, Session B can be drafting something unrelated. Session C can be running a slow eval. The bottleneck stops being the model and becomes my own attention rotation. ...

Heads up: this post mentions Claude. If you want to try it, I've got a referral link — it gives us both a bit of extra credit, no pressure: claude.ai via my referral. TL;DR Most AI tooling still treats an LLM like a search bar — you prompt, it answers, the loop ends. Useful, but not what I wanted. For my homelab’s ops + trading intelligence platform (OpenClaw), I needed agents that could run for hours, do real work against a real cluster, and then tap me on the shoulder when they found something I should see. Claude turned out to be the model I kept coming back to for the “thinking” layer — it’s both comfortable with long tool-use chains and happy to write structured output a human won’t need to decode. This is a tour of how I’ve actually wired that up: k3s CronJobs doing the heavy lifting, LiteLLM as the routing layer, Slack as the interrupt bus, and named cat-bot personas so I can tell at a glance who’s knocking. ...

TL;DR I run 3-5 parallel Claude Code sessions against the same homelab. One tab mid-refactor, one tab doing docs, one tab chasing a bug. They don’t know about each other, so every so often one tab “tidies up” a file another tab is actively editing — and Claude, being a dutiful little overwriter, just clobbers the work. I built a small Go binary that hooks into SessionStart / SessionEnd / PreToolUse, tracks file claims on disk, and injects a warning straight into the LLM’s context window when it’s about to step on another session’s toes. Optional Slack mirror so I can watch the timeline from my phone. MIT, single binary, no runtime deps. Repo: github.com/zolty-mat/claude-session-guard. ...

TL;DR You have a 24GB VRAM GPU. You want a private, self-hosted AI assistant that rivals ChatGPT – no subscriptions, no data leaving your machine. This guide walks you through setting up Ollama (local model runtime) and OpenClaw (AI gateway with a web UI) on Windows using Docker Desktop. But the real value here is the model recommendations. I ran 5,475 evaluations across 21 prompt variants and 6 models on real trading data. The results contradicted almost everything the community recommends. Finance-tuned models performed worse than a coin flip. Chain-of-thought reasoning models were anti-patterns. The winners were general-purpose MoE (Mixture-of-Experts) models that nobody talks about for specialized tasks. ...