Feels like moment that would be looked back at as the beginning of enshittification
Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
151–160 of 257 posts
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#152Earlier 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.
> According to Karpathy, vibe coding typically involves accepting AI-generated code without closely reviewing its internal structure, instead relying on results and follow-up prompts to guide changes.
What you are doing is by definition not vibe coding.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#153Anthropic optimized for "clean UI" metrics and forgot developers care more about not having their codebase silently corrupted. Every AI company relearns the same lesson: autonomy is the enemy of trust.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#154Earlier 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.
It's not vibe coding if you personally review all the diffs for correctness.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like you could have correctly stated this a few months ago, but the way this is "solved" is by multiple agents that babysit each other and review their output - it's unreasonably effective. You can get extremely good results assuming your spec is actually correct (and you're willing to chew through massive quantities of tokens / wait long enough).
And unreasonably expensive unless you are Big Corp. Die startups, die. Welcome to our Cyberpunk overlords.
Companies will just shift money from salaries to their Anthropic bill - what's the problem?
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's about catching when it goes off the rails before it makes a mess The latest "meta" in AI programming appears to be agent teams (or swarms or clusters or whatever) that are designed to run for long periods of time autonomously. Through that lens, these changes make more sense. They're not designing UX for a human sitting there watching the agent work. They're designing for horizontally scaling agents that work…
None of those wild experiments are running on a "real", existing codebase that is more than 6 months old. The thing they don't talk about is that nobody outside these AI companies wants to vibe code with a 10 year old codebase with 2000 enterprise customers. As you as you start to work with a codebase that you care about and need to seriously maintain, you'll see what a mess these agents make.
Even on codebases within the half-year age group, these LLMs often do perform nasty (read: ungodly verbose) implementations that become a maintainability nightmare. Even for the LLMs that wrote it all in the first place. I know this because we've had a steady trickle of clients and prospects expressing "challenges around maintainability and scalability" as they move toward "production readiness". Of course, asking if we can implement "better performing coding agents". As if improved harnessing or similar guardrails can solve what is in my view, a deeper problem.
The practical and opportunistic response is too tell them "Tough cookies" and watch the problems steadily compound into more lucrative revenue opportunities for us. I really have no remorse for these people. Because half of them were explicitly warned against this approach upfront but were psychologically incapable of adjusting expectations or delaying LLM deployment until the technology proved itself. If you've ever had your professional opinion dismissed by the same people regarding you as the SME, you understand my pain.
I suppose I'm just venting now. While we are now extracting money from the dumbassery, the client entitlement and management of their emotions that often comes with putting out these fires never makes for a good time.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#157Earlier 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.
No, what the other commenter described is narrowly scoped delegation to LLMs paired with manual review (which sounds dreadfully soul-sucking to me), not wholesale "write feature X, write the unit tests, and review the implementation for me". The latter is vibe-coding.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#158"Hiding" is doing some heavy lifting here. You can run --json and see everything pretty much (besides the system prompt and tool descriptions).... I love the terminal more than the next guy but at some point it feels like you're looking at production nginx logs, just a useless stream of info that is very difficult to parse. I vibe coded my own ADE for this called OpenADE ( https://github.com/bearlyai/openade ) it use…
> --json Seriously? This can't be a comparable experience in terms of UX.
I think my read of "hiding" was more of a "trying to hide the secret sauce" which was implied in a few places.
Otherwise it seems like a minor UI decision any other app would make and it surprising there's whole articles on it.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#159The real issue isn’t whether Claude hides actions or shows them. It’s that once you move from “assistant” to “agent”, observability becomes a hard requirement, not a nice-to-have.
When an agent can read, modify, and orchestrate multiple parts of a codebase, you need the equivalent of logs, traces, and diffs — not just summaries. Otherwise debugging becomes guesswork.
Traditional software became reliable only after we built strong observability tooling around it. Agent workflows will need the same evolution: clear execution traces, deterministic diffs, and full transparency into what happened and why.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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.
Is it possible for analyzing agents to choose the best of wrong solutions? E.g., longest remembered table of FizzBuzz answers amongst remembered tables of FizzBuzz answers.