291–300 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Serious question, how many people, by your own standards, have you had killed because you haven't contributed money that you had the capacity for? Why should we hold you at a lesser standard than anyone else?
your argument is obviously ridiculous and you should feel bad about it.
I find myself in an awkward tug of war between Claude and Codex. Claude is the buggiest product, always breaking in bizarre and aggravating ways. Codex is much more polished, especially on mobile. However the main thing that's prevented me from adopting Codex full time is its poor implementation of plan mode. While Claude persists it to disk and re-reads it in full on compaction, Codex's just lives in context, so it…
I ask it just to make a plan file
It's much easier when the harness itself "knows" about planning and does it properly without me holding its hand.
I find myself in an awkward tug of war between Claude and Codex. Claude is the buggiest product, always breaking in bizarre and aggravating ways. Codex is much more polished, especially on mobile. However the main thing that's prevented me from adopting Codex full time is its poor implementation of plan mode. While Claude persists it to disk and re-reads it in full on compaction, Codex's just lives in context, so it…
I ask it just to make a plan file
I find myself in an awkward tug of war between Claude and Codex. Claude is the buggiest product, always breaking in bizarre and aggravating ways. Codex is much more polished, especially on mobile. However the main thing that's prevented me from adopting Codex full time is its poor implementation of plan mode. While Claude persists it to disk and re-reads it in full on compaction, Codex's just lives in context, so it…
while everyone is somehow still stuck on and fascinated by claude, heres your quick update on the sota of coding models and harnesses mid august 2026 codex is good, both cli and desktop app, you get lots of usage on any plan. sol is good! and gets the job done, write or dictate a very long and thoughtful prompt, and leave sol xhigh or max fast working on it for an hour or so omp is an amazing harness, any feature cla…
Pi by itself is more than capable, OMP is okay but you really don't need much for a great harness (these models are RL trained to hell to be a coding agent, sometimes less is more) I run a lot of SlopCodeBench - https://github.com/michaelasper/benchmarks Fable/Sol/GLM 5.3/Kimi are its league (in that order) Deepseek/Opus is solid Qwen 27B is the floor - there's no reason to use Sonnet/Terra/Haiku For everyday activit…
But seriously:
Fable still makes the best/smartest plans. That new Ox Alpha (also in Freepi right now!) can do a very good job but it doesn't necessarily recheck it's own reasoning (and can get stuck in an incorrect assumption and try to fit the world around it's reasoning) Sol xhigh is also very smart but god it's slow, and it frequently massively overbuilds. It's like it's main goal is to spend tokens so it makes your react app Soc 2 compliant before it proves it even works.
I've largely stopped using the Gemini models. :-/ just hard to justify.
Basically the only thing I care about these days is SPEED.
I find myself in an awkward tug of war between Claude and Codex. Claude is the buggiest product, always breaking in bizarre and aggravating ways. Codex is much more polished, especially on mobile. However the main thing that's prevented me from adopting Codex full time is its poor implementation of plan mode. While Claude persists it to disk and re-reads it in full on compaction, Codex's just lives in context, so it…
Are you using the desktop verion? The CLi is very robust, but these days it just feels crazy slow to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn’t. The comments end up complicating simple tasks, and if you open the repo after a week it takes a while to find out why Claude is reading irrelevant files or replying about irrelevant things
If that happens you do notice that something is off though, and can steer accordingly. Unless you aren't monitoring the agent, which I suspect is the real issue here; people send a prompt, go do whatever else, return and send the next prompt or use/release the artifact, without reviewing the transcript to see how Claude - or whatever agent - did.
I only leave meta-comments in if its actually helpful (i.e. it goes in a wrong direction without it)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that were the case, the habit would have been trained out of it by the LLM researchers at Anthropic, etc. As for humans... well Idk about you but I'm not reading every line of generated code. I read the live transcript, and only dive in if something is off that the agent isn't resolving.
I'm certainly reading the code and comments, and I encourage all of my team members to do so. You are assuming that this excessive and nonsensnical comment choice is deliberate. It cannot be, or should not be because it regularly confused our team, and it regularly confuses claude also. Also many many people keep saying the same thing and you keep repeating adnausium the same tired comments. I get it, you think the c…
Yes, I "push back" because an LLM using any means at it's disposal to improve itself is just a logical thing, and I have seen it help Claude. Because I read the live transcript (so I know what it's doing and can steer if I see it veering off), I've seen quite a few times the comments it made previously give it some extra context, which more times than not leads to it self-correcting. There are a few times where it becomes a bit confused because some comment block is stale, but it usually surfaces this confusion, which again I will usually catch and properly steer because I read that live transcript.
It's very similar to someone scribbling notes in the margins or between the lines in the pages of a printed work. Sure it looks messy to others (I personally would hate reading something with another's scribblings), but it's a sensible thinking aid for that person. And if another person reads some given note, they can always question the writer about it, if deemed appropriate.
No, I'm going to take a stance similar to Galileo and "stick to my guns" despite what others were/are saying, because it's not only empirical (I've seen it), but also logical (it makes sense). LLMs need extra context for non-obvious things, and without it, they can easily lose their way. There are many tools out there trying to solve the extra context problem with various degrees of success, but I say the most efficient method is having that extra context always available at the point where it's relevant, so there's no need for the agent to waste tokens making tool calls to get it, or even waste thinking tokens wondering if it should call a tool in the first place to see if there is extra context. Just like a human rereading a work will naturally encounter any previous notes they made between the lines or in the margins, and trigger related recollections. And yes, human-scribbled notes also become stale and irrelevant, but that won't stop the human finding at least some of it useful and timely. In either case, the quality of the notes taken could likely use improvement, but blocking the at-site note-taking itself leads to generally reduced effectiveness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that happens you do notice that something is off though, and can steer accordingly. Unless you aren't monitoring the agent, which I suspect is the real issue here; people send a prompt, go do whatever else, return and send the next prompt or use/release the artifact, without reviewing the transcript to see how Claude - or whatever agent - did.
I don't notice it because, agent running in full-auto until there is a PR to review or decisions to make. If I wanted to go step-by-step, I'd write code myself with LLM auto-complete. I only leave meta-comments in if its actually helpful (i.e. it goes in a wrong direction without it)