Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 829 posts

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#63

Post by matheusmoreira »

tmpz22 wrote: post #53
matheusmoreira wrote: post #33

That analysis is pretty brutal. It's very disconcerting that they can sell access to a high quality model then just stealthily degrade it over time, effectively pulling the rug from under their customers.

> effectively pulling the rug from under their customers. This is the whole point of AI. Its a black box that they can completely control.

I hope local models advance to the point they can match Opus one day...

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#64

Post by fer »

Called it 10 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47533297#47540633

Something worse than a bad model is an inconsistent model. One can't gauge to what extent to trust the output, even for the simplest instructions, hence everything must be reviewed with intensity which is exhausting. I jumped on Max because it was worth it but I guess I'll have to cancel this garbage.

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#65

Post by andai »

Aperocky wrote: post #56

In my opinion cramming invisible subagents are entirely wrong, models suffer information collapse as they will all tend to agree with each other and then produce complete garbage. Good for Anthropic though as that's metered token usage. Instead, orchestrate all agents visibly together, even when there is hierarchy. Messages should be auditable and topography can be carefully refined and tuned for the task at hand. Ot…

Isn't Claude Code supposed to be like a person? What would the Unix equivalent of that be?

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#67

Post by riskassessment »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #33

That analysis is pretty brutal. It's very disconcerting that they can sell access to a high quality model then just stealthily degrade it over time, effectively pulling the rug from under their customers.

Stealthily degrade the model or stealthily constrain the model with a tighter harness? These coding tools like Claude Code were created to overcome the shortcomings of last year's models. Models have gotten better but the harnesses have not been rebuilt from scratch to reflect improved planning and tool use inherent to newer models.

I do wonder how much all the engineering put into these coding tools may actually in some cases degrade coding performance relative to simpler instructions and terminal access. Not to mention that the monthly subscription pricing structure incentivizes building the harness to reduce token use. How much of that token efficiency is to the benefit of the user? Someone needs to be doing research comparing e.g. Claude Code vs generic code assist via API access with some minimal tooling and instructions.

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#68

Post by enraged_camel »

petcat wrote: post #12

I have found that Claude Opus 4.6 is a better reviewer than it is an implementer. I switch off between Claude/Opus and Codex/GPT-5.4 doing reviews and implementations, and invariably Codex ends up having to do multiple rounds of reviews and requesting fixes before Claude finally gets it right (and then I review). When it is the other way around (Codex impl, Claude review), it's usually just one round of fixes after t…

I have a similar workflow but I disagree with Codex/GPT-5.4 reviews being very useful. For example, in a lot of cases they suggest over-engineering by handling edge cases that won't realistically happen.

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#69

Post by SkyPuncher »

I've noticed this as well. I had some time off in late January/early February. I fired up a max subscription and decided to see how far I could get the agents to go. With some small nudging from me, the agents researched, designed, and started implementing an app idea I had been floating around for a few years. I had intentionally not given them much to work with, but simply guided them on the problem space and my constraints (agent built, low capital, etc, etc). They came up with an extremely compelling app. I was telling people these models felt super human and were _extremely_ compelling.

A month later, I literally cannot get them to iterate or improve on it. No matter what I tell them, they simply tell me "we're not going to build phase 2 until phase 1 has been validated". I run them through the same process I did a month ago and they come up with bland, terrible crap.

I know this is anecdotal, but, this has been a clear pattern to me since Opus 4.6 came out. I feel like I'm working with Sonnet again.

Post reply on HN