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

Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 257 posts

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#141

Post by xg15 »

lkbm wrote: post #79
xg15 wrote: post #8

> Cherny responded to the feedback by making changes. "We have repurposed the existing verbose mode setting for this," he said, so that it "shows file paths for read/searches. Does not show full thinking, hook output, or subagent output (coming in tomorrow's release)." How to comply with a demand to show more information by showing less information.

They changed it from showing just number of files read to showing the actual paths/filenames. IE, it shows more information. EDIT: Ah, looks like verbose mode might show less than it used to, and you need to use a new mode (^o) to show very verbose.

Yeah, I understood it such that the information was first moved from standard to verbose mode, and when people pointed out that they will drowned out in noise there, tge response was to cut down verbose mode as well.

I didn't know about the ^o mode though, so good that the verbose information is at least still available somewhere. Even though now it seems like an enormously complicated maneuver with no purpose.

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#142

Post by xg15 »

alehlopeh wrote: post #62
embedding-shape wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words have lost all meaning. "Verbose" no longer means "containing more words than necessary" but instead "Bit more than usual". "Fast" no longer mean "characterized by quick motion, operation, or effect" but instead depends on the company, some of them use slightly different way, but same "speed", but it's called "fast mode". It's just a whole new world where words suddenly mean something completely different, and y…

I’m literally dead

My condolences.

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#143

Post by adastra22 »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #110
adastra22 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not independent samplings.

Indeed. Doesn’t that make it worse? Prior decisions will bring up path dependent options ensuring they aren’t even close to the same path.

Run a code review agent, and ask it to identify issues. For each issue, run multiple independent agents to perform independent verification of this issue. There will always be some that concur and some that disagree. But the probability distributions are vastly different for real issues vs hallucinations. If it is a real issue they are more likely to happen upon it. If it is a hallucination, they are more likely to discover the inconsistency on fresh examination.

This is NOT the same as asking “are you sure?” The sycophantic nature of LLMs would make them biased on that. But fresh agents with unbiased, detached framing in the prompt will show behavior that is probabilistically consistent with the underlying truth. Consistent enough for teasing out signal from noise with agent orchestration.

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#144

Post by KurSix »

powera wrote: post #51

Between this and 4.6's tendency to do so much more "exploratory" work, I am back to using ChatGPT Codex for some tasks. Two months ago, Claude was great for "here is a specific task I want you to do to this file". Today, they seem to be pivoting towards "I don't know how to code but want this feature" usage. Which might be a good product decision, but makes it worse as a substitute for writing the code myself.

I feel the exact same way. Trying to cater to the "no-code" crowd is blurring the product's focus. It seems they've stuffed the system prompt with "be creative and explore" instructions, which kills determinism - so now we have to burn tokens just to tell it: "Don't think, just write the code"

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#145

Post by dingnuts »

jmalicki wrote: post #130
g947o wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not called vibe coding then.

Oh you made vibe coding work? Well then it's not vibe coding. But any time someone mentions using AI without proof of success? Vibe coding sucks.

[dead]

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#146

Post by steveklabnik »

kcartmell wrote: post #21

Not trying to tell anyone else how to live, just want to make sure the other side of this argument is visible. I run 5+ agents all day every day. I measure, test, and validate outputs exhaustively. I value the decrease in noise in output here because I am very much not looking to micromanage process because I am simply too slow to keep up. When I want logging I can follow to understand “thought process” I ask for tha…

This is the fundamental tension in this story, yes.

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#147

Post by adastra22 »

thesz wrote: post #140
adastra22 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming statistical independence, which is explicitly not correct here. There is also an error in your analysis - what matters is whether they make the same wrong assumption. That is far less likely, and becomes exponentially unlikely with increasing trials. I can attest that it works well in practice, and my organization is already deploying this technique internally.

How several wrong assumptions make it right with increasing trials?

You can ask Opus 4.6 to do a task and leave it running for 30min or more to attempt one-shooting it. Imagine doing this with three agents in parallel in three separate work trees. Then spin up a new agent to decide which approach of the three is best on the merits. Repeat this analysis in fresh contexts and sample until there is clear consensus on one. If no consensus after N runs, reframe to provide directions for a 4th attempt. Continue until a clear winning approach is found.

This is one example of an orchestration workflow. There are others.

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#148

Post by jbonatakis »

small_model wrote: post #34

I always get Claude Code to create a plan unless its trivial, it will describe all the changes its going to make and to which files, then let it rip in a new context.

(Mildly) shameless plug, but you might be interested in a tool I’ve been building: https://github.com/jbonatakis/blackbird

It breaks a spec (or freeform input) down into a structured json plan, then kicks off a new non-interactive session of Claude or codex for each task. Sounds like it could fit your workflow pretty well.

Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

#150

Post by nharada »

kcartmell wrote: post #21

Not trying to tell anyone else how to live, just want to make sure the other side of this argument is visible. I run 5+ agents all day every day. I measure, test, and validate outputs exhaustively. I value the decrease in noise in output here because I am very much not looking to micromanage process because I am simply too slow to keep up. When I want logging I can follow to understand “thought process” I ask for tha…

+1

First, I agree with most commentators that they should just offer 3 modes of visibility: "default", "high", "verbose" or whatever

But I'm with you that this mode of working where you watch the agent work in real-time seems like it will be outdated soon. Even if we're not quite there, we've all seen how quickly these models improve. Last year I was saying Cursor was better because it allowed me to better understand every single change. I'm not really saying that anymore.

Post reply on HN