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

241–250 of 257 posts

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

#241

Post by thesz »

adastra22 wrote: post #238
thesz wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You conveniently decided not to answer my question about quality of the solutions to vote on (ranking FizzBuzz memorization). To me, our discussion shows that what you presented as a simple thing is not simple at all, even voting is complex, and actually getting a good result is so hard it warrants omitting answer altogether.

Yeah, you've got unrealistic expectations if you expect me to divulge my company's confidential IP in a HN comment.

I had no expectations at all, I just asked questions, expecting answers. At the very beginning the tone of your comment, as I read it, was "agentic coding is nothing but simple, look they vote." Now answers to simple but important questions are "confidential IP."

Okay then, agentic coding is nothing but complex task requiring knowledge of unbiased voting (what is this thing really?) and, apparently, use of necessarily heavy test suite and/or theorem provers.

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

#242

Post by lukaslalinsky »

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.

Same here, both Claude Code due to this change, and how Opus 4.6 is setup, they think they can do things autonomously. But in my experience, they really can't. Letting it overthink something while being on the wrong track is what leads to AI slop.

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

#243

Post by lukaslalinsky »

jwr wrote: post #98

Anthropic is walking a very thin line here. The competition between models is intense and the only differentiator right now is the so-called harness that gets put over them. Anthropic needs a niche and they tried to find one by addressing developers. And they have been doing very well! What I think they are forgetting in this silly stubbornness is that competition is really fierce, and just as they have gained apprec…

I was experimenting with other tools a while back and the visibility/interactivity was one of the main benefits of Claude Code. Now that it's gone, maybe I can move on and just learn to work with the new tool/model.

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

#244

Post by xnorswap »

lachlan_gray wrote: post #163
xnorswap wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is why I generally still use "ask for permission" prompts. As tedious as it is a lot of the time ( And I wish there was an in-between "allow this session" not just allow once or "allow all" ), it's invaluable to catch when the model has tried to fix the problem in entirely the wrong project. Working on a monolithic code-base with several hundred library projects, it's essential that it doesn't start digging…

fwiw there are more granular controls, where you can for example allow/deny specific bash commands, read or write access to specific files, using a glob syntax: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#permission-settings You can configure it at the project level

Yes, those permissions stick with the project in the settings file. I'd like those same permissions, but configurable per-session / context.

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

#246

Post by oblio »

whateveracct wrote: post #155
ldng wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Best not build any products that compete with Anthropic!

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

#247

Post by oblio »

thephyber wrote: post #93
pjc50 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> blank cheque The Bing AI summary tells me that AI companies invested $202.3 billion in AI last year. Users are going to have to pay that back at some point. This is going to be even worse as a cost control situation than AWS.

> Users are going to have to pay that back at some point. That’s not how VC investments work. Just because something costs a lot to build doesn’t mean that anyone will pay for it. I’m pretty sure I haven’t worked for any startup that ever returned a profit to its investors. I suspect you are right in that inference costs currently seem underpriced so users will get nickel-and-dinked of a while until the providers lev…

I'm so glad Airbnb, Uber, Netflix, etc aren't both hiking their prices and enshittifying via ads, dark patterns, etc.

LLMs are not AGI and everyone is starting to see it. We need new basic research for that. Think fusion reactors.

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

#248

Post by oblio »

buschleague wrote: post #200
rco8786 wrote: post #22

Earlier 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…

We run agent teams (Navigator/Driver/Reviewer roles) on a 71K-line codebase. The trust problem is solved by not trusting the agents at all. You enforce externally. Python gates that block task completion until tests pass, acceptance criteria are verified, and architecture limits are met. The agents can't bypass enforcement mechanisms they can't touch. It's not about better prompts or more capable models. It's about i…

Which service or application?

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

#249

Post by oblio »

fdefitte wrote: post #202
rco8786 wrote: post #22

Earlier 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…

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.

AI offshore teams in "yes cultures".

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

#250

Post by benterix »

joquarky wrote: post #225
benterix wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get it; I do. It's rapidly challenging the paradigm that we've setup over the years in a way that it's incredibly jarring, But it's not the argument. The argument is that these tools provide lower-quality output and checking this output often takes more time than doing this work oneself. It's not that "we're conservative and afraid of changes", heck, you're talking to a crowd that used to celebrate a new JS frame…

"Find any inconsistencies that should be addressed in this codebase according to DRY and related best practices" This doesn't hurt to try and will give valuable and detailed feedback much more quickly than even an experienced developer seeing the project for the first time.

These kinds of instructions are the main added value of LLMs and I use them every day. Even though 30%-60% the output is wrong/irrelevant, the rest is helpful enough. After the human reviews it, the overall quality of the codebase increases, not decreases. This is on the opposite end of the spectrum when compared to agentic coding, though.
Post reply on HN