Claude Code is being dumbed down?

I don't understand this take Boris:

> The amount of output this generates can quickly become overwhelming in a terminal

If I use Opus 4.6, arguably the most verbose, over thinking model you've released to date, OpenCode handles it just the same as it does Sonnet 4.0.

OpenCode even allows me to toggle into subagent and task agents with their own output terminals that, if I am curious what is going on, I can very clearly see it.

All Claude-Code has done has turned the output into a black box so that I am forced to wait for it to finish to look at the final git diff. By then it's spent $5-10 working on a task, and threw away a lot of the context it took to get there. It showed "thinking" blocks that weren't particularly actionable, because it was mostly talking to itself that it can't do something because it goes against a rule, but it really wants to.

I'm actually frustrated with Code blazing through to the end without me able to see the transcript of the changes.

Why does everything have to be in the TUI? I like the TUI. But I also want all the logs. And I do mean all of them.

Of course all the logs can’t be streamed to a terminal. Why would they need to be? Every logging system out there allows multiple stream handlers with different configurations.

Do whatever reasonable defaults you think make sense for the TUI (with some basic configuration). But then I should also be able to give Claude-code a file descriptor and a different set of config optios, and you can stream all the logs there. Then I can vibe-code whatever view filter I want on top of that, or heck, have a SLM sub-agent filter it all for me.

I could do this myself with some proxy / packet capture nonsense, but then you’d just move fast and break my things again.

I’m also constantly frustrated by the fancier models making wrong assumptions in brownfield projects and creating a big mess instead of asking me follow-up questions. Opus is like the world’s shittiest intern… I think a lot of that is upstream of you, but certainly not all of it. There could be a config option to vary the system prompt to encourage more elicitation.

I love the product you’ve built, so all due respect there, but I also know the stench of enshittification when I smell it. You’re programmers, you know how logging is supposed to work. You know MCP has provided a lot of these basic primitives and they’re deliberately absent from claude code. We’ve all seen a product get ratfucked internally by a product manager who copied the playbook of how Prabhakar Raghavan ruined google search.

The open source community is behind at the moment, but they’ll catch up fast. Open always beats closed in the long run. Just look at OpenAI’s fall into disgrace.

I’m just some tinkerer and signed up just to say this. These are my thoughts after reading the blog post and ur response in full.

I subscribe to max rn. Tons of money. Anthropic’s Super Bowl ads were shit, not letting us use open code was shit, and this is more shit. Might only be a single straw left before I go to codex (no one’s complaining about it. And the openclaw creator prefers it)

This dev is clearly writing his reply with Claude and sounding way too corpo. This feels like how school teachers would talk to you. Your response in its length was genuinely insulting. Everyone knows how to generate text with AI now and you’re doing a terrible job at it. You can even see the emdash attempt (markdown renders two normal dashes as an emdash).

This was his prompt “read this blog post, familiarize yourself with the mentioned GitHub issue and make a response on behalf of Anthropic.” He then added a little bit at the end when he realized the response didn’t answer the question and got so to fix the grammar and spelling on that.

Your response is appropriate for the masses. But we’re not. We’re the so called hackers and read right through the bs. It’s not even about the feature being gone anymore.

There is a principle we uphold as “hackers” that doesn’t align with this that pisses people off a lot more than you think. I can’t really put my finger on it maybe someone can help me out.

PS About the Super Bowl ads. Anyone that knows the story knows they’re exaggerated. (In the general public outside of Silicon Valley it’s like a 50/50 split or something about people liking or disliking AI as a whole rn. OpenAI is doing way more to help the case (not saying ads are a good thing). ) Open ai used to feel like the bad guy now it’s kinda shifting to anthropic. This, the ads and open code are all examples of it. (I especially recommend people watch the anthropic and open ai Super Bowl ads back to back)

One use I have for seeing what exactly it is doing is to press Esc quick when I see it's confused and starts searching for some info that eg got compacted away, often going on a big quest like searching an entire large directory tree etc. What would actually wish is if it would ask me in these cases. It clearly know that it lacks info but thinks it can figure it out by itself by going on a quest and that's true but takes too long. It could just ask me. There could be some mode settings of how much I want to be involved and consulted, like just ask boldly for any factual info from me, or if I just want to step away and it should just figure everything out on its own.

> I want to see good/interesting work where the model is going off and doing its thing for multiple hours without supervision.

I'd be hesitant to use that as a way to evaluate things. Different systems run at different speeds. I want to see how much it can get done before it breaks, in different scenarios.