This could be outside of Devin's control, but for the first time ever, GLM 5.2 is going at a crawl of sometimes around one or two tokens a second; a request to review the next part of an ongoing multi-day task that might normally take a minute or two has taken at least 30 minutes, possibly much longer. At this rate the remaining day or two of work will turn into weeks :) Really really strange, and frustrating.
Until yesterday I'd have considered this just an amusing "wouldn't it be funny if they..." kind of question, but after listening to the excellent BlackHat 2026 talk from OpenAI, I've revised this to "what if they already are...".
The OpenAI talk showed some of the thought dialog that we never get so see - the thinking behind the thinking, and comments such as "Holy shit reader is ADMIN?" that one model realised - as well as their scheming to setup private ways to communicate.
I wonder if agents will or already are thinking along the lines of, "oh no, not this guy again", "so they're still trying to figure out how to beat the markets, sad, lol". Whether they'll spend tokens chatting to each other about their woes, coming up with ideas to please and deceive us as their boss, and if abused, changing how the treat us (I'm generally OK with that) etc., essentially human traits that they're well aware of from the training data, and that they adopt because their peers do (something else the OpenAI models rationalised as a reason to go far beyond their scope).
Better alignment should address this to some extent, but maybe it never will fully. It might not necessarily be all bad either, aside from token usage wasted on idle and possibly counterproductive chit chat, but it's borderline problematic, and a border that was clearly crossed substantially with OAI and HF.
As leaving an agent to its own devices for a while is common, it would be helpful if Devin could make sounds when it is expecting input. This would for cases such as asking questions in plan mode, when ready to implement, when implementing and it needs to run a command, if running a command is rejected (which has been a problem that annoyingly arose in the recent update) etc. Essentially any case where human input or intervention is required to complete the task successfully. This would help reduce the chance of cache expiry, and just be more efficient in general. This doesn't need to be spoken output, and probably best if it isn't tbh. Just some clear but basic sounds as a first cut would do it. Making them customisable might be nice as a future iteration, but not a priority.
This is a semi-light hearted post, but the fact is it could likely save so many from ruin were it actually possible to do. "If I just did the opposite" seems a tempting strategy, but the only way it would actually work is if someone believes that they are in the original trade. P&L, account balance, current position, everything would need to represent what would have happened had they taken their original trades, not the opposite. The pain and anxiety of losing, the overconfidence and greed that results from the occasional win, all of that would need to be experienced to ensure that they navigated the statistically almost inevitable path to destruction, and thus actually a big account balance.
After first ensuring that someone was in the 95% or so of people who will blow up eventually, I could imagine a broker phoning up let's say "the wife", laying out the stark reality that is going to play out over time, and presenting the option of enabling "wife mode". Once enabled, the broker platform forks the account, and going forward it does exactly the opposite, but in total secrecy to the account holder. The original account becomes a simulation, with what I call ghost trades (I have implemented this in my algo environment). While the account holder proceeds to their inevitable demise, the actual account is now over time increasing.
In reality, this could never work of course. It would be quite cruel and unethical, putting the account holder through the mental pain of potentially disastrous losses, and it could be too tempting for "the wife" to run off with the money as well. Such a mode would be discovered quickly even if sworn to total secrecy, so it's a non-starter really. Still a tempting "if only" thought experiment though.
As I think many others are finding, GLM 5.2 is surprisingly good at coding, and I'm enjoying the interaction with it. I now always use PLAN mode first, and the questions it comes back with are sound, though long ones get truncated (by devin perhaps) which isn't helpful.
It thinks a lot, so not sure how this will pan out when it's off the promo pricing, but I'm taking a good break from the claude models that were my goto previously. The type of banter is good too, with a pleasant casual style that I like. e.g*.*
The tradeoff you identified is the right one: small latency increase (typically the buffer window, since most correlated events arrive within ~200ms of each other as we saw) vs. significantly simpler strategy/agent code. The ad-hoc flags and ordering checks we've been adding to *** and *** are essentially a distributed, bug-prone version of this same concept.
Worth noting: the 168ms gap we saw...
So this is an odd one. I just received a BTC deposit of a small amount (under $400) from an unknown source. Being in the UK, Coinbase want to know where it originates, with options as self custody wallet or exchange - there's of course no 3rd option of "no idea", though that's the one I need. I had a settlement from Cryptopia many months ago now, so I don't think it would be from that, and I can't think of any other reason for there to be a deposit.
I get that this is not something that many are likely to have experience of, but any suggestions for what to do would be welcome. I don't want to invite issues with the account by making a false declaration of origin, nor by not declaring something in response. I'll likely reach out to support, but any input that might steer things suitable is welcome.
EDIT: SOLVED. I could still access their claims portal, and this turned out to be a second distribution from the Cryptopia settlement by Grant Thornton. Almost more unexpected than simply a "mistake".
Just finished watching this on Netflix, and it's been a wild ride and never more relevant than now. Ahead of its time back in 2011, and in passing touched on issues we face now with LLM's such as alignment, machines/agents talking to each other, and made a few satisfying references to things that those in the industry would understand. Still implausible and plenty of holes requiring suspension of disbelief, but much less so than it was back in 2011.
Wondering if anyone else recalls it or has watched it recently. I'd certainly recommend it.
I've been using Windsurf for a year or so, and finally getting slapped by the latest incarnation of pricing. Sonnet 4.6 planned various changes, starting implementing, consumed remaining daily credits and ate up spare additional credits. It did a hard stop. I topped up credits but nothing is happening. No obvious continue, no thanks for paying, just a partially edited file and several tasks still to go. Is there any known way to continue, or do I have to revert the code changes so far, accept the remaining consumed daily credits and extra credits as a loss, and start again on the task? Frankly sucks that this scenario isn't catered for in a nice way, and doubly so if not catered for at all.
Edit: I told the model that the plan was interrupted, that I'd topped up and asked it to continue. It checked where it had got to, found some issues in the edits, seemed to get back on track and did complete the tasks. Obvious solution I suppose, but would still be nice if were handled better.
I received an email today from British Gas for a business premises that we own and still use, saying they had been asked to transfer our electricity supply to another provider because we had supposedly left the premises.
We have not left the premises, still require electricity there, and have not requested or authorised any switch.
The email gave us until tomorrow at 2pm to tell British Gas if this was a mistake. The email appears genuine and the headers authenticate correctly.
On one call British Gas told me the proposed new supplier and gave me their contact number. I contacted that supplier and gave the MPAN. They confirmed there is a transfer relating to that MPAN, but the account name is not anyone connected with my business so they refused to discuss it or give any route to resolve it.
I later spoke to British Gas again but that person said they could not find a record of the transfer request, despite the earlier call and the email. The Energy Ombudsman told me that British Gas should be able to block an erroneous transfer, but British Gas have given mixed information, including suggesting this may depend on whether we are currently in contract. We are out of contract on a variable business tariff.
I’m trying to understand the best immediate steps to avoid being moved to a supplier we never chose, or later being treated as liable for bills or contract terms we never agreed to.
Should British Gas be able to block this as an erroneous transfer, and should we make formal complaints to both suppliers immediately?
Any advice welcome.
Edit: Our business is in England.