251–260 of 451 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the first to be tired of everyone, for every model, that says "uuuh became dumber" because I didn't believe them ... until this week! Opus is struggling worse than Sonnet those last two weeks.
In my experience Opus and Claude have declined significantly over the past few weeks. It actually feels like dealing with an employee that has become bored and intentionally cuts corners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them > […] > Put another way, LLM companies are trying to climb the ladder to be a platform, I have zero interest in that, I was a "dumb pipe", I want a commodity, I want a provider, not a platform. That is my sentiment precisely, and a big reason why I’ve started moving away from Claude Code in the past few weeks when I realised how much of…
They can’t allow third party software because the third parties save the outputs of Claude responses and distill them into new models to compete with Claude.
LLMs and LLM providers are massive black boxes. I get a lot of value from them and so I can put up with that to a certain extent, but these new "products"/features that Anthropic are shipping are very unappealing to me. Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them: - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature - No trust they won't sunset the feature (the graveya…
This sounds like someone complaining about how Windows is a black box while ignoring the existence of Linux/BSD. I'm currently hosting, on very reasonable consumer grade hardware, an LLM that is on par performance wise what every anyone was paying for about a year ago. Including all the layers in between the model and the user. Llama.cpp serves up Gemma-4-26B-A4B, Open WebUI handles the client details: system prompt,…
LLMs and LLM providers are massive black boxes. I get a lot of value from them and so I can put up with that to a certain extent, but these new "products"/features that Anthropic are shipping are very unappealing to me. Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them: - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature - No trust they won't sunset the feature (the graveya…
> Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them > […] > Put another way, LLM companies are trying to climb the ladder to be a platform, I have zero interest in that, I was a "dumb pipe", I want a commodity, I want a provider, not a platform. That is my sentiment precisely, and a big reason why I’ve started moving away from Claude Code in the past few weeks when I realised how much of…
Both give you optionality because they support N models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question, do we actually know what we're paying for? All I know is it's access to models via cli, aka Claude Code. We don't know what models they use, how system prompt changes or what are the actual rate limits (Yet Anthropic will become 1 trillion dollars company in a moment).
> We don't know what models they use, how system prompt changes or what are the actual rate limits (Yet Anthropic will become 1 trillion dollars company in a moment). Not just that, but there’s really no way to come to an objective consensus of how well the model is performing in the first place. See: literally every thread discussing a Claude outage or change of some kind. “Opus is absolutely incredible, it’s one sh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature To the contrary, they've proven again and again and again they'll absolutely do that the first chance they get.
You can lessen your dependence on the specific details of how /loop, code routines, etc. work by asking the LLM to do simpler tasks, and instead, having a proper workflow engine be in charge of the workflow aspects. For example, this demo ( https://github.com/barnum-circus/barnum/tree/master/demos/co... ) converts a folder of files from JS to TS. It's something an LLM could (probably) do a decent job of, but 1. not n…
Straight up asking Claude to run the tests, or to generate a test, could result in potential inconsistencies between runs or between tests, between models, and so on, so instead he created a tool which defines a test, inputs and outputs and some details. Now we have a system where we have a directory full of markdown files describing a test suite, parameters, test cases, error cases, etc., and Claude generates the usage of the tool instead.
This means that whatever variation Claude, or any other LLM, might have run-to-run or drift over time, it all still has to be funneled through a strictly defined filter to ensure we're doing the same things the same way over time.
LLMs and LLM providers are massive black boxes. I get a lot of value from them and so I can put up with that to a certain extent, but these new "products"/features that Anthropic are shipping are very unappealing to me. Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them: - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature - No trust they won't sunset the feature (the graveya…
Website is https://amika.dev
And part of our code is OSS (https://github.com/gofixpoint/amika) but we're working on open sourcing more of it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vevSJsSCWT_reuD7JwAuGCX5...
We've been signing up private beta users, and also looking for feedback on the OSS plans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can lessen your dependence on the specific details of how /loop, code routines, etc. work by asking the LLM to do simpler tasks, and instead, having a proper workflow engine be in charge of the workflow aspects. For example, this demo ( https://github.com/barnum-circus/barnum/tree/master/demos/co... ) converts a folder of files from JS to TS. It's something an LLM could (probably) do a decent job of, but 1. not n…
One thing my team lead is working on is using Claude to 'generate' integration tests/add new tests to e2e runs. Straight up asking Claude to run the tests, or to generate a test, could result in potential inconsistencies between runs or between tests, between models, and so on, so instead he created a tool which defines a test, inputs and outputs and some details. Now we have a system where we have a directory full o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a similar sentiment I heard early on in the cloud adoption fever, many companies hedged by being “multi cloud” which ended up mostly being abandoned due to hostile patterns by cloud providers, and a lot of cost. Ultimately it didn’t really end up mattering and the most dire predictions of vendor lock in abuse didn’t really happen as feared (I know people will disagree with this, but specifically speaking abou…
I credit containerization, k8s, and terraform for preventing vendor lock in. Compute like EC2 or GCE are effectively interoperable. Ditto for managed services for k8s or Postgres. The new products Anthropic is shipping is more like Lambda. Vendor kool-aid lots of people will buy into. What grinds my gears is how Anthropic is actively avoiding standards. Like being the only harness that doesn't read AGENTS.md. I work…
Counterpoint: there are probably tons of people out there who were hacking together lousy versions of these same tools to somehow spin up Claude to generate the release notes for their PRs or analyze their Github Issues every week. This is a smarter, faster, easier, and likely far more secure way of implementing the same thing, which will make the people using those things much better.
In the meantime, it wouldn't be surprising if other AI companies started doing similar things; I could see Cursor, for example, adding a similar sort of hosted cursor 'Do Github Things' option for enterprises, and if they do then that means more variety and less lock-in (assuming the competitors have similar features).
From my perspective it's no different than writing a Claude skill, which is something it seems like everyone is doing these days; it's just that in this case the 'skill' is hosted somewhere else, on (likely) more reliable architecture and at cheaper scale.