Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m literally dead
My condolences.
[deleted]
Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
201–210 of 257 posts
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#202[flagged]
> 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…
Agent teams working autonomously sounds cool until you actually try it. We've been running multi-agent setups and honestly the failure modes are hilarious. They don't crash, they just quietly do the wrong thing and act super confident about it.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is exactly why enforcement needs to be architectural. The "challenges around maintainability and scalability" your clients hit exist because their AI workflows had zero structural constraints. The output quality problem isn't the model, it's the lack of workflow infrastructure around it.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#204[flagged]
> 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…
I think this is exactly the crux: there are two different UX targets that get conflated.
In operator/supervisor mode (interactive CLI), you need high-signal observability while it’s running so you can abort or re-scope when it’s reading the wrong area or compounding assumptions. In batch/autonomous mode (headless / “run overnight”), you don’t need a live scrollback feed, but you still need a complete trace for audit/debug after the fact.
Collapsing file paths into counters is a batch optimization leaking into operator mode. The fix isn’t “verbose vs not” so much as separating channels: keep a small status line/spine (phase, current target, last tool call), keep an event-level trace (file paths / commands / searches) that’s persisted and greppable, and keep a truly-verbose mode for people who want every hook/subagent detail.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude Code's handling of multiple choice questions is awfully nice (it uses an interactive interface to let you use arrows to select answers, and supports multiple answers). I haven't seen opencode do that yet, although I don't know if that's just a model integration issue -- I've only tried with GLM 4.7, GPT 5.1 Codex Mini, and GPT 5.2 Codex.
Opencode also has that feature, I've seen it multiple times in the last days (mostly using Opus 4.5/4.6/Gemini 3)
Indeed, Opencode has it too. They've been improving it the past few weeks to look more like the one in Claude-Code. I disable it all the time though, I find it such a pain (in both Claude-Code and OpenCode)
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Claude-Code do different that you still prefer it? I'm so in love with OpenCode, I just can't go back. It's such a nicer way of working. I even love the more advanced TUI
Are you paying per-token after Anthropic closed the loophole on letting you log in to OpenCode?
When did they successfully close the loophole? I know they tried a few times, but even the last attempt from a week or two ago was circumvented rather easily.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. If there are several agents doing analysis of solutions, how do you define a consensus? Should it be unanimous or above some threshold? Are agents scores soft or hard? How threshold is defined if scores are soft? There is a whole lot of scienc…
We have a voting algorithm that we use, but we're not at the level of confidential disclosure if we proceed further in this discussion. There's lots of research out there into unbiased voting algorithms for consensus systems.
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#208Not 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…
> I measure, test, and validate outputs exhaustively.
How do you do this? Do you follow traditional testing practices or do you have novel strategies like agents with separate responsibilities?
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#209Srsly? People actually watch all the chatter in the little window?
Pro tip: "git diff"
Re: Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is exactly why enforcement needs to be architectural. The "challenges around maintainability and scalability" your clients hit exist because their AI workflows had zero structural constraints. The output quality problem isn't the model, it's the lack of workflow infrastructure around it.
Is this not just “build a better prompt” in more words?
At what point do we realize that the best way to prompt is with formal language? I.e. a programming language?