[dead]
Claude Code is being dumbed down?
481–490 of 732 posts
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
So in a nutshell Claude becoming smarter means that logic that once resided in the agent is being moved to the model? If that's the case, it's important to asses wether it'll be consistent when operating on a higher level, less dependent on the software layer that governs the agent. Otherwise it'll risk Claude also becoming more erratic.
I'm going to be paranoid and guess they're trying to segment the users into those that'll notice they're dumbing down the system via caches, limited model via quantized downgrade and those that expect the fully available tools.
Thariq (who's on the Claude Code team) swears up and down that they do not do this.
Honestly, man, this is just weird new tech. We're asking a probabilistic model to generate English and JSON and Bash at the same time in an inherently mutable environment and then Anthropic also release one or two updates most workdays that contain tweaks to the system prompt and new feature flags that are being flipped every which way. I don't think you have to believe in a conspiracy theory to understand why it's a little wobbly sometimes.
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone and I mean everyone keeps parroting this "inflection point" marketing hype, which is so damn tiring.
Believe me, I wish it was just parroting. The real annoying thing about Opus 4.5 is that it's impossible to publicly say "Opus 4.5 is an order of magnitude better than coding LLMs released just months before it" without sounding like a AI hype booster clickbaiting, but it's the counterintuitive truth, to my personal frustration. I have been trying to break this damn model since its November release by giving it compl…
I don't know how to say this but either you haven't written any complex code or your definition of complex and impossible is not the same as mine, or you are "ai hyper booster clickbaiting" (your words).
It strains belief that anyone working on a moderate to large project would not have hit the edge cases and issues. Every other day I discover and have to fix a bug that was introduced by Claude/Codex previously (something implement just slightly incorrect or with just a slightly wrong expectation).
Every engineer I know working "mid-to-hard" problems (FANG and FANG adjacent) has broken every LLM including Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, and GPT-5.2-Codex on routine tasks. Granted the models have a very high success rate nowadays but they fail in strange ways and if you're well versed in your domain, these are easy to spot.
Granted I guess if you're just saying "build this" and using "it runs and looks fine" as the benchmark then OK.
All this is not to say Opus 4.5/6 are bad, not by a long shot, but your statement is difficult to parse as someone who's been coding a very long time and uses these agents daily. They're awesome but myopic.
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, just use OpenCode. It works with Claude Code Max, and the TUI is 100x better. The only thing that sucks is Compaction.
Nope, OpenCode is nowhere near Claude Code. It's amazing how much other agentic tools suck in comparison to Claude Code. I'd love to have a proper alternative. But they all suck. I keep trying them every few months and keep running back to Claude Code. Just yesterday I installed Cursor and Codex, and removed both after a few hours. Cursor disrespected my setting to ask before editing files. Codex renamed my tabs afte…
I use Opencode as my main driver, and I don’t experience what you have experienced.
For instance, opencode has /undo command which allows you to scroll back and edit a prior prompt. It also support forking conversations based on any prior message.
I think it depends on the set up. I overwrote the default planning agent prompt of opencode to fit my own use cases and my own mcp servers. I’ve been using OpenAI’s gpt codex models and they have been performing very well and I am able to make it do exactly what I ask it to do.
Claude code may do stuff fast, but in terms of quality and the ability to edit only what I want it to do, I don’t think it’s the best. Claude code often take shortcuts or do extra stuff that I didn’t ask.
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that?
DeepSeek had a theoretical profit margin of 545 % [1] with much inferior GPUs at 1/60th the API price. Anthropic's Opus 4.6 is a bit bigger, but they'd have to be insanely incompetent to not make a profit on inference. [1] https://github.com/deepseek-ai/open-infra-index/blob/main/20...
American labs trained in a different way than the Chinese labs. They might be making profit on inference but they are burning money otherwise.
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t count how many times I benefitted from seeing the files Claude was reading, to understand how I could interrupt and give it a little more context… saving thousands of tokens and sparing the context window. I must be in the minority of users who preferred seeing the actual files. I love claude code, but some of the recent updates seem like they’re making it harder for me to see what’s happening.. I agree with…
I think folks might be crossing wires a bit. To make it so you can see full file paths, we repurposed verbose mode to enable the old explicit file output, while hiding more details behind ctrl+o. In effect, we've evolved verbose mode to be multi-state, so that it lets you toggle back to the old behavior while giving you a way to see even more verbose output, while still defaulting everyone else to the condensed view.…
I thought I was the only person going crazy by the new default behavior not showing the file names! Please don't expect users to understand your product details and config options in such detail, it was working well before, let it remain. Or at least show some message like "to view file names, do xyz" in the ui for a few days after such a change.
While we're here, another thing that's annoying: the token counter. While claude is working, it read some files, makes an edit, let's say token counter is at 2k tokens, I accept the edit, now it starts counting very fast from 0 to 2k and then shows normal inference speed changes to 2.1k, 2.3k etc. So wanted to confirm: is that just some UI decision and not actually using 2k tokens again? If so, it would be nice to have it off, just continue counting where you left off.
Another thing: is it possible to turn off the words like finagling and similar (I can't remember the spelling of any of them) ?
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#487I’m a heavy Claude code user and it’s pretty clear they’re starting to bend under their vibe coding. Each Claude code update breaks a ton of stuff, has perf issues, etc. And then this. They want to own your dev workflow and for some reason believe Claude code is special enough to be closed source. The react TUI is kinda a nightmare to deal with I bet. I will say, very happy with the improvements made to Codex 5.3. I’…
Codex has been useless for me on standard Plus plan unfortunately. Actually thoroughly disappointed. And VS code integration is totally broken.
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW I mentioned this in the thread (I am the guy in the big GH issue who actually used verbose mode and gave specific likes/dislikes), but I find it frustrating that ctrl+o still seems to truncate at strange boundaries. I am looking at an open CC session right now with verbose mode enabled - works pretty well and I'm glad you're fixing the subagent thing. But when I hit ctrl+o, I only see more detailed output for th…
Yes totally. ctrl+o used to show all messages, but this is one of the tricky things about building in a terminal: because many terminals are quite slow, it is hard to render a large amount of output at once without causing tearing/stutter. That said, we recently rewrote our renderer to make it much more efficient, so we can bump up the default a bit. Let me see what it feels like to show the last 10-20 messages -- fi…
Just tell people to install a fast terminal if they somehow happen to have a slow one?
Heck, simply handle the scrolling yourself a la tmux/screen and only update the output at most every 4ms?
It's so trivial, can't you ask your fancy LLM to do it for you? Or you guys lost the plot at his point and forgot the most basics of writing non pessimized code.
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#489Hey, Boris from the Claude Code team here. I wanted to take a sec to explain the context for this change. One of the hard things about building a product on an LLM is that the model frequently changes underneath you. Since we introduced Claude Code almost a year ago, Claude has gotten more intelligent, it runs for longer periods of time, and it is able to more agentically use more tools. This is one of the magical th…
boris-4.6-humble
Re: Claude Code is being dumbed down?
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good PM's are extremely good at understanding users, and use soft-skills to make the rest of the org focus on users more. I've worked with a couple, and they've added an enormous amount of value, sometimes steering teams of dozens of engineers in a more productive direction. The problem is, it's hard to measure how good a PM is, even harder than for engineers. The instinct is to use product KPI's to do so, but especi…
> Voila: you've re-invented product management. This is a names vs. structure thing. For a moment, taboo the term product manager. What I'm suggesting is a low risk way to see if an engineer has an aptitude for aligning the roadmap with what the users want. If they aren't great at it, they can go back to engineering. We also know for sure that they are technically competent since they are currently working as an engi…
> What I'm suggesting is a low risk way to see if an engineer has an aptitude for aligning the roadmap with what the users want. If they aren't great at it, they can go back to engineering. We also know for sure that they are technically competent since they are currently working as an engineer, no risk there.
It doesn't have to be the most socially competent engineer to gather feedback. Having the engineering team sit with the target users gives so much insight into how the product is being used.
I once worked on an administrative tool at a financial institution. There were lots of pain points, as it started as a dev tool that turned into a monstrosity for the support staff. We asked to have a meeting with some reps who were literally 2 floors below us. Having the reps talk as they worked with the tool in real time over 1 hour was worth more than a year's worth of feedback that trickled in. It's one thing to solicit feedback. It's another to see how idiosyncrasies shape how products get used.