<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Isolation on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</title>
    <link>http://programmer.ie/tags/isolation/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Isolation on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 05:00:23 +0100</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="http://programmer.ie/tags/isolation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Context Is an Input, Not a Transcript</title>
      <link>http://programmer.ie/books/applied-ai/15-chapter/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 05:00:15 +0100</pubDate>
      <guid>http://programmer.ie/books/applied-ai/15-chapter/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Part 3 — Give Intelligence a Runtime&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2 id=&#34;the-question-the-acceptance-could-not-answer&#34;&gt;The question the acceptance could not answer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter 14 ended with a task that was provably complete. The acceptance cited the task&amp;rsquo;s criteria, the call, its final attempt, the interpretation, the exact artifact bytes and the checks run on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It did not cite what the model was shown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ask most systems that question and you get one of two answers. The first is &amp;ldquo;the conversation so far&amp;rdquo;: everything that happened, in the order it happened. The second is &amp;ldquo;whatever was in the prompt&amp;rdquo;: a string someone assembled and nobody recorded. Neither answer can be checked afterwards, and neither was decided on purpose.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Independent Calls</title>
      <link>http://programmer.ie/books/applied-ai/23-chapter/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 05:00:23 +0100</pubDate>
      <guid>http://programmer.ie/books/applied-ai/23-chapter/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Part 5 — More Intelligence Is Not Automatically Better&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2 id=&#34;three-reviewers-one-paragraph&#34;&gt;Three reviewers, one paragraph&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Constructed scene.&lt;/strong&gt; Three reviewers receive the same versioned paragraph and the same source pack. Each writes a proposal. Every proposal is collected before any is revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast that with a second procedure: show the second reviewer the first answer and ask for agreement. The second process costs less and runs faster. It also sounds more confident, while answering a different experimental question. Agreement after exposure cannot distinguish shared insight from shared influence — which is why the blind collection exists first, and why the next four chapters need it before they ask whether extra candidates help.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
