That reminds of seeing Mike Rowe do something like this that just broke my brain of doing exactly that for extended periods of time for voice over work.
I've been using SSM a lot more recently with clients and jumping between environments and finding the right instance id, and troubleshooting when its not working has chewed up a bit too much of my life.
1. Its hard to get a sense of what task is being worked if you migrate back to the main page then come back to a running task. You kind just have to figure it out and hope its still running.
2. I wish you could opt into a global `git diff` view. Saying here's what we modified in the last iteration.
3. Also for local runs I'd greater prefer if it'd prompt confirmation before executing something I haven't seen yet. Essentially on a real piece of code you'd have to make sure you're 100% in a sandbox so you don't bork things for other developers.
4. ctr+c killing the current operation definitely happened on accident trying to copy another prompt.
5. It'd be really nice if it was git-aware. E.g. when files are finalized they're committed to whichever branch and uncommitted files are considered work in progress.
on (1) re: multi tasking ... that's a known UX limitation. You can "command+click" the logo in the top left to open a new window, then just keep the convos open. That's the way to multi-task with it today. We definitely want to clean this up in a future version.
(2) noted - yeah, a global git diff is a good feature request
on (3) in the settings (wrench icon) there's a toggle for "Manual" code execution. To be clear - you also want to be able to approve file edits, not just command execution?
(4) doh - that's a good point
(5) we actually run a shadow git repo that commits on every turn the agent takes. It's aware of your .gitignore too. We only expose checkpoints on user messages right now, but we're planning on doing more on this front.
You recently started using GH projects for one of our new products, and we actually like it a lot. Although this article feels like a bit more SEO fluff
While they have 884M cash/equivalents, they did have a yearly 157M Net loss, compared to 192M net loss last year. That's some good improvement but it means there's a lot of work to be done before they reach profitability. So I don't think they're strapped for cash, but there is likely pressure to make enough changes to reach profitability within 3-4 years.
They burned $129MM and forecast a loss of $142MM next fiscal year.
Given that they recently went public I’d imagine they would be trying to become profitable. The IPO appears to have netted them around $600M in cash, or about four years of runway.
reply