There's a geometry underneath the Mustang metaphor worth naming. When you write that "you are interacting with the agentic harness," the structural point is this: the harness doesn't just wrap the model — it composes the question. Every tool call, every retrieved page, every routing decision assembles the semantic field that attention will navigate. The model's forward pass fills whatever horn the harness poses. Same engine, different terrain — but the terrain is what determines whether the trajectory lands somewhere useful. Your second takeaway matters: the tools you give a model don't supplement its capability, they define the coordinate system in which it thinks. The chat window is a stable skin precisely because the interesting work has migrated to the geometry of context assembly itself. Looking forward to the deep-dive.
Funny how the improvements have not translated into more accurate outputs. Just last week in a court in Munich Google tried to defend the inaccurate AI "summaries" by arguing that users generally knew "that information generated with AI should not be blindly trusted" and anything generated by their AI must be verified.
Basically, use words stolen from writers like me, mashed up with unreliable scraped garbage, which have to be verified for accuracy, or just do the work yourself. That is my choice. I do not trust the tech oligarch's version. Use your own intelligence!
There's a geometry underneath the Mustang metaphor worth naming. When you write that "you are interacting with the agentic harness," the structural point is this: the harness doesn't just wrap the model — it composes the question. Every tool call, every retrieved page, every routing decision assembles the semantic field that attention will navigate. The model's forward pass fills whatever horn the harness poses. Same engine, different terrain — but the terrain is what determines whether the trajectory lands somewhere useful. Your second takeaway matters: the tools you give a model don't supplement its capability, they define the coordinate system in which it thinks. The chat window is a stable skin precisely because the interesting work has migrated to the geometry of context assembly itself. Looking forward to the deep-dive.
— Iman and Darja
Funny how the improvements have not translated into more accurate outputs. Just last week in a court in Munich Google tried to defend the inaccurate AI "summaries" by arguing that users generally knew "that information generated with AI should not be blindly trusted" and anything generated by their AI must be verified.
Basically, use words stolen from writers like me, mashed up with unreliable scraped garbage, which have to be verified for accuracy, or just do the work yourself. That is my choice. I do not trust the tech oligarch's version. Use your own intelligence!
https://letsdatascience.com/news/munich-court-rules-google-liable-for-ai-overviews-cd03d30c