151–160 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Each failed prediction should lower our confidence in the next "it's finally useful!" claim. But this inductive reasoning breaks down at genuine inflection points. I agree with your framing that measuring should NOT be separated from political issues, but each can be made clear separately (framing it as "training the tools of the oppressor" seems to conflate measuring tool usefulness with politics).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really think a lof of people tried AI coding earlier, got frustrated at the errors and gave up. That's where the rejection of all these doomer predictions comes from. And I get it. Coding with Claude Code really was prompting something, getting errors, and asking it to fix it. Which was still useful but I could see why a skilled coder adding a feature to a complex codebase would just give up Opus 4.5 really is at a…
my issue hasn't been for a long time now that the code they write works or doesn't work. My issues all stem from that it works, but does the wrong thing
There's a lesser chance that you're working on a code base that Claude Code just isn't capable of helping with.
A JavaScript interpreter written in Python? How about a WebAssembly runtime in Python? How about porting BurntSushi's absurdly great Rust optimized string search routines to C and making them faster?
And these are mostly just casual experiments, often run from my phone!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really think a lof of people tried AI coding earlier, got frustrated at the errors and gave up. That's where the rejection of all these doomer predictions comes from. And I get it. Coding with Claude Code really was prompting something, getting errors, and asking it to fix it. Which was still useful but I could see why a skilled coder adding a feature to a complex codebase would just give up Opus 4.5 really is at a…
my issue hasn't been for a long time now that the code they write works or doesn't work. My issues all stem from that it works, but does the wrong thing
With the latest models if you're clear enough with your requirements you'll usually find it does the right thing on the first try.
Opus 4.5 really is something else. I've been having a ton of fun throwing absurdly difficult problems at it recently and it keeps on surprising me. A JavaScript interpreter written in Python? How about a WebAssembly runtime in Python? How about porting BurntSushi's absurdly great Rust optimized string search routines to C and making them faster ? And these are mostly just casual experiments, often run from my phone!
It produced tests, then wrote the interpreter, then ran the tests and worked until all of them passed. I was genuinely surprised that it worked.
The problem with this is none of this is production quality. You haven’t done edge case testing for user mistakes, a security audit, or even just maintainability. Yes opus 4.5 seems great but most of the time it tries to vastly over complicate a solution. Its answer will be 10x harder to maintain and debug than the simpler solution a human would have created by thinking about the constraints of keeping code working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> If I am unable to convince you to stop meticulously training the tools of the oppressor (for a fee!) then I just ask you do so quietly. I'm kind of fascinated by how AI has become such a culture war topic with hyperbole like "tools of the oppressor" It's equally fascinating how little these comments understand about how LLMs work. Using an LLM for inference (what you do when you use Claude Code) does not train the…
The prompts and responses are used as training data. Even if your provider allows you to opt out they are still tracking your usage telemetry and using that to gauge performance. If you don’t own the storage and compute then you are training the tools which will be used to oppress you.
Incredibly naive comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Frankly, in this comment thread you appear to be the oppressor.
Opus 4.5 really is something else. I've been having a ton of fun throwing absurdly difficult problems at it recently and it keeps on surprising me. A JavaScript interpreter written in Python? How about a WebAssembly runtime in Python? How about porting BurntSushi's absurdly great Rust optimized string search routines to C and making them faster ? And these are mostly just casual experiments, often run from my phone!
One of my first tests with it was "Write a Python 3 interpreter in JavaScript." It produced tests, then wrote the interpreter, then ran the tests and worked until all of them passed. I was genuinely surprised that it worked.
Though it seems to work best when context is minimized. Once the code passes a certain complexity/size it starts making very silly errors quite often - the same exact code it wrote in a smaller context will come out with random obvious typos like missing spaces between tokens. At one point it started writing the code backwards (first line at the bottom of the file, last line at the top) :O.
Just today:
Opus 4.5 Extended Thinking designed psql schema for “stream updates after snapshot” with bugs.
Grok Heavy gave correct solution without explanations.
ChatGPT 5.2 Pro gave correct solution and also explained why simpler way wouldn’t work.