81–90 of 636 posts
>Is it ironic? Sure. Is it also probably faster and cheaper than running an LLM inference just to figure out if a user is swearing at the tool? Also yes. Sometimes a regex is the right tool.
I'm reading an LLM written write up on an LLM tool that just summarizes HN comments.
I'm so tired man, what the hell are we doing here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems desirable? Like that's what commit messages are for. Describing the change. Much rather that than the m$ way of putting ads in commit messages
The commit message should complement the code. Ideally, what the code does should not need a separate description, but of course there can be exceptions. Usually, it's more interesting to capture in the commit message what is not in the code: the reason why this approach was chosen and not some other obvious one. Or describe what is missing, and why it isn't needed.
Writing and reading paragraphs of design discussion in a commit message is not something that seems common.
> Sometimes a regex is the right tool. I’d argue that in this case, it isn’t. Exhibit 1 (from the earlier thread): https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/22284 . The user reports that this caused their account to be banned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47588970 Maybe it would be okay as a first filtering step, before doing actual sentiment analysis on the matches. That would at least eliminate obvio…
> Anti-distillation: injecting fake tools to poison copycats Does this mean `huggingface.co/Jackrong/Qwen3.5-27B-Claude-4.6-Opus-Reasoning-Distilled` is unusable? Had anyone seen fake tool calls working with this model?
> The multi-agent coordinator mode in coordinatorMode.ts is also worth a look. The whole orchestration algorithm is a prompt, not code. So much for langchain and langraph!! I mean if Anthropic themselves arent using it and using a prompt then what’s the big deal about langchain
The name "Undercover mode" and the line `The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI` sound spooky, but after reading the source my first knee-jerk reaction wouldn't be "this is for pretending to be human" given that the file is largely about hiding Anthropic internal information such as code names. I encourage looking at the source itself in order to draw your conclusions, it's very short: https://git…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commit message should complement the code. Ideally, what the code does should not need a separate description, but of course there can be exceptions. Usually, it's more interesting to capture in the commit message what is not in the code: the reason why this approach was chosen and not some other obvious one. Or describe what is missing, and why it isn't needed.
That sounds like design discussions best had in the issue/ticket itself, before you even start writing code. Then the commit message references the ticket and has a brief summary of the changes. Writing and reading paragraphs of design discussion in a commit message is not something that seems common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm normally suspicious but honestly they've been so massively supply-constrained that I don't think it really benefits them much. They're not worried about getting enough demand for the new models; they're worrying about keeping up with it. Granted, there's a small counterargument for mythos which is that it's probably going to be API-only not subscription
Why would Claude code mention Mythos then
> This was one of the first things people noticed in the HN thread.
> The obvious concern, raised repeatedly in the HN thread
> This was the most-discussed finding in the HN thread.
> Several people in the HN thread flagged this
> Some in the HN thread downplayed the leak
when the original HN post is already at the top of the front page...why do we need a separate blogpost that just summarizes the comments?