681–690 of 817 posts
You can't trust any of the big AI labs as far as you can throw them, and most definitely not Anthropic. They may have a good model, but they've shown time and time again that they're not trustworthy. The CEO has recently started taking a stance against local AI. That must tell you something: local AI is the future. If you want to preserve privacy and be ready for the rug pull, you need to run things locally. Unfortun…
What do you mean “unfortunately”? What’s the hate for China I don’t understand
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd appreciate if the down voters explain why. I wasn't making a value judgement. Anthropic did pay more than a billion: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settl... And is now buying up a lot of books (controversially, as scanning involves cutting their spines) because that's what the law deems the legal method: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/01/27/anthrop... We know that models li…
Clearly paying that fine didn't do anything to stop Anthropic from doing it again. Buying a book doesn't make it legal to publish lossy compressed copies of it. Also, the vast majority of authors whose work was copied against their wishes didn't receive any of that fine. It sounds like your argument is that they paid a fine for breaking the law, and therefore it is okay they reap the benefits of breaking the law and…
I'm guessing the Sam avatar was related to OpenAI's deal with disney to use their characters: https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement/
It's true that "in the style of" (eg. Ghibli) is not currently legally protected, only actual character IP or using the Ghibli name. That's not inconsistent with US IP treatment.
But I wonder if there will ever be a day when VSCode, etc, would decide to engage in similiar practice but for the collection of business & research intels, etc... that will be the true cyberpunk era and the information dark age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you say more about Codex? I'm using GPT-5.5 in my own harness and it's not liking it very well, so I'm thinking I ought to make it more Codexy so it's more ergonomic for it. (edit format, tool calls etc.) But haven't gotten around to it yet.
In short its a good idea to have tool calling be closely representative to what the model expects as these models are tuned to their own preferred way of doing things, it will surely save you lots of time. The disadvantage is that now your harness system is not as model agnostic as you would like and also you will have to keep up in changing landscape by adapting the tool calling structure with major updates for best…
Generally the smaller ones are less flexible, but they're much cheaper and faster so, I try to design for the smaller models.
One thing I noticed is that if you get the loop fast enough, the work starts to feel different. It becomes real time and interactive. As opposed to the usual feeling of, having to wait a few minutes every time.
Another thing I noticed is that even very small models are capable of making many edits simultaneously. But most harnesses don't seem to design for that. Even editing one file they have to do a whole bunch of turns.
Whereas you can just edit several files in a single LLM call and it just works fine. So you get an order of magnitude speed up, as well as a reduction in costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And do a -10 in their reputation. Plus blow up on hn first item on home page. I’m sure they are not very happy about this. And the sentiment of the people is going more negative by the week. I have a feeling they will eventually drop the facade of “we’re the nice and ethic people” and will work with palantir so they can survive the future: ipo and models bans.
I doubt Anthropic cares about the HN front page. They've done a bunch of things that hurt their valuation to stick to their red lines. To me it just reads as unsupported cynicism to call it a facade.
I doubt Anthropic is cackling maniacally behind the scenes, this was almost certainly a stipulation from the government to put Fable back up.
It's definitely not good but I would rather they surgically separate out possible bad actors so that I don't have to trust them with my passport, to prove I am a US citizen. I don't want the internet version of TSA checkpoints.
Just like I don’t care that game clients run sneaky anti-cheat measures.
Right now they offer a good product, and I’m fine with them trying to limit abuse of their services. If an altruistic alternative company with an equivalent product pops up, sure, I’d swap over, but I don’t see one.
I’ve seen people here talking about how they should’ve been upfront about this. But they can’t? If they were, they wouldn’t be able to catch the resellers/distillers. Just like how anti-cheat doesn’t explain how it works, because to do so would be to nullify its effectiveness.