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. Whi…
> Another thing: is it possible to turn off the words like finagling and similar (I can't remember the spelling of any of them) ? Big +1 on that. I find the names needlessly distracting. I want to just always say a single thing like “thinking”
> I want to just always say a single thing like “thinking”
As a counterview, I like the whimsical verbs. I'll be sticking with them. But nice to see there is an option.
>As features keep getting added ... so things need to be hidden Here lies the problem Your first users were here without all the added features. It's very likely they didn't need those features to use the software. Then you add new features and clutter it... then remove features from the UX that they were using .
> then remove features from the UX that they were using Yeah but like I said, people make mistakes. The thing about text output is that it's impossible to track if people are using it at first. You can measure button clicks and key presses. You can't measure eye gaze (at least not usually!). The good news is, if you remove it and get complaints, you can measure complaints. If you put in a toggle to re-enable it, you…
>You can measure button clicks and key presses.
This is a common failure complain of all large companies that use metrics but don't actually talk to people. It's not a new complaint at all. And at the day it's one only solved by users throwing an apocalyptic fucking fit at the group producing the software.
>If a feature is view-only, you literally can't tell how much it's used
Posting like this is an anti-pattern. "Everyone wants what I want, and if you don't build it my way you are stupid." Props to teams that can find some value in feedback like this, but I think I would have stopped reading. If you have really valuable feedback for a product the last thing you want to do is deliver it wrapped in ignorance and entitlement.
I never claimed Opus 4.5 can one-shot things? Even human-written software takes a few iterations to add/polish new features as they come to mind. > And you clearly “broke” the model a few times based on your prompt log where the model was unable to solve the problem given with the spec. That's less due to the model being wrong and more due to myself not knowing what I wanted because I am definitely not a UI/UX person…
Apologies, I may have misinterpreted the passage below from your repo: > This crate was developed with the assistance of Claude Opus 4.5 initially to answer the shower thought "would the Braille Unicode trick work to visually simulate complex ball physics in a terminal?" Opus 4.5 one-shot the problem, so I decided to further experiment to make it more fun and colorful. Also, yes, I don’t dispute that human written so…
If you click the video that line links to, it one-shot the original problem as very explicitly defined as a PoC, not the entire project. The final project shipped is substantially different, and that's the difference between YOLO vibecoding and creating something useful.
There's also the embarrassing corner physics bugs present in that video, which was something that required a fix in the first few prompts.
> then remove features from the UX that they were using Yeah but like I said, people make mistakes. The thing about text output is that it's impossible to track if people are using it at first. You can measure button clicks and key presses. You can't measure eye gaze (at least not usually!). The good news is, if you remove it and get complaints, you can measure complaints. If you put in a toggle to re-enable it, you…
>You can measure button clicks and key presses. This is a common failure complain of all large companies that use metrics but don't actually talk to people. It's not a new complaint at all. And at the day it's one only solved by users throwing an apocalyptic fucking fit at the group producing the software. >If a feature is view-only, you literally can't tell how much it's used Then think fucking twice and don't touch…
I don't know why you're so angry about it.
Large companies do talk to people. User interviews are extremely common -- it's standard practice that you need to use metrics and talk to users. But like I said, interviews aren't going to cover every tiny little detail.
PM's and designers usually do think twice. But they're human, they're not omniscient. So maybe show a little grace?
Hey, 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…
For me, Opus 2.6 has been a huge regression. It now hangs for 10+ minutes on a task that it used to take a few minutes to complete, and all I see is some "Reading 3 files" etc. messages showing nothing else. The 2 issues where Opus 2.6 is absolutely not as good as 2.5 at all by miles and also showing just some obscure unnecessary messages makes me say "why?" Why did you decide to screw something up that was awesome and dumb it down and keep insisting that the "verbose" mode is the way to go?? Seriously who wants to see messages that are essentially the same? 2 patterns, 3 files read?? Seriously? Who is that mode for? Why is it even a default??
Hey, 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…
> The amount of output this generates can quickly become overwhelming in a terminal, and is something we hear often from users. Terminals give us relatively few pixels to play with; they have a single font size; colors are not uniformly supported; in some terminal emulators, rendering is extremely slow. We want to make sure every user has a good experience, no matter what terminal they are using. This is important to…
(An example of something which may already exist but I didn't see in my demo - more thoughtfulness on how to handle long-running tasks, and let us switch to something else, instead of us busy waiting on CC. For example, perhaps use of the system bell? That's usually set to flash or update the terminal title, and you can set your window manager to focus a window on the bell. I have my XMonad set to jump to a visible bell, which is great for invoking a possibly slow command: I can go away and focus completely on whatever else I am doing because I know I will be yanked to the backgrounded command the instant it finishes. I even set up a Bash shortcut, `alert () { echo -n -e '\a'; }`, so I simply run stuff like `foo ; alert` and go away.)
I don't know why you keep insisting that no one is making any money off of this. Claude Code has made me outrageously more productive. Time = Money right?
That's true if you're working as a contractor and being able to do more translates to higher income but it doesn't work so for employees.
I'm an employee, and my boss loves me because I deliver things he wants quickly and reliably - because I use AI tools. Guess who he will keep in the next round of layoffs?
That's approaching the problem from the worst possible angle. If your security depends on you catching 1 message in a sea of output and quickly rotating the credential everywhere before someone has a chance to abuse it then you were never secure to begin with. Not just because it requires constant attention which will eventually lapse, but because the agent has an unlimited number of ways to exfiltrate the key, for e…
I sent email to Anthropic (usersafety@anthropic.com, disclosure@anthropic.com) on January 8, 2025 alerting them to this issue: Claude Code Exploit: Claude Code Becomes an Unwitting Executor. If I hadn't seen Claude Code read my ssh file, I wouldn't have known the extent of the issue.
To improve the Claude model, it seems to me that any time Claude Code is working with data, the first step should be to use tools like genson (https://github.com/wolverdude/GenSON) to extract the data model and then create why files (metadata files) for data. Claude Code seems eager to use the /tmp space so even if the end user doesn't care, Claude Code could do this internally for best results. It would save tokens. If genson is reading the GBs of data, then claude doesn't have to. And further, reading the raw data is a path to prompt injection. Let genson read the data, and claude work on the metadata.