Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Code Routines

code.claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 451 posts

Re: Claude Code Routines

#341

Post by redanddead »

throwup238 wrote: post #77
joshstrange wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic deserves to have this as the top comment on every HN post. It's absurd that they don't clarify this better and so many people are running around online saying the exact opposite from what their, confusing, docs say. The Chilling Effect of this is real and it gets more and more frustrating that they can't or won't clarify.

It’s also absurd that they’re doing their communication on a bunch of separate platforms like HN, Reddit, and Github with no coherent strategy or consistency as far as I can tell. Can’t I just get policy clarifications in my email like a normal business? I downgraded my $200/mo sub to $20 this past week and I’m going to try out Codex’s Pro plans. Between the cache TTL (does it even affect me? No idea), changes in the…

They actively made the product worse and are trying to distract us with "oh my god we made AGI". And then released that to big corps while gaslighting users.

That was an ethical choice. Say what you will about OpenAI, they're actually transparent about things. I'm sticking to GPT from now one, I can't see myself growing with a company that does that. Routines, great, awesome, is it also downgraded/fucked with every other day? Monitor Tool, awesome, will it stop monitoring? No dude.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#342

Post by scandinavian »

comboy wrote: post #107

Unrelated, but Claude was performing so tragically last few days, maybe week(s), but days mostly, that I had to reluctantly switch. Reluctantly because I enjoy it. Even the most basic stuff, like most python scripts it has to rerun because of some syntax error. The new reality of coding took away one of the best things for me - that the computer always just does what it is told to do. If the results are wrong it mean…

I'm not a big user, but I have been doing some vibe-ish coding for a PoC the past few days, and I'm astonished at how bad it is at python in particular (Opus 4.6 High).

* It likes to put inline imports everywhere, even though I specify in my CLAUDE.md that it should not.

* We use ruff and pyright and require that all problems are addressed or at least ignored for a good reason, but it straight up #noqa ignores all issues instead.

* For typing it used the builtin 'any' instead of typing.Any which is nonsense.

* I asked it to add a simple sum of a column from a related database table, but instead of using a calculated sum in SQL it did a classic n+1 where it gets every single row from the related table and calculates the sum in python.

Just absolute beginner errors.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#343

Post by matheusmoreira »

dzink wrote: post #245
ElFitz wrote: post #220

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.

Just like they distilled all those git repositories, all those books to train Claude?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47567575

The lack of self-awareness is hilarious.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#344

Post by spoiler »

jpcompartir wrote: post #156
pacha3000 wrote: post #116

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.

Likewise, I foolishly assumed everybody else was just doing it wrong. But this week I've lost count of the times I've had to say something along the lines of: "Can you check our plan/instructions, I'm pretty sure I said we need to do [this thing] but you've done [that thing]..." And get hit with a "You're absolutely right...", which virtually never happened for me. I think maybe once since Opus 4-6.

Honestly, I thought it was a skill issue too, but it just turns out I wasn't using it enough.

I started a new job recently, so I'm asking it a lot of questions about the codebase, sometimes just to confirm my understanding and often it came up with wrong conclusions that would send me down rabbit holes only to find out it was wrong.

On a side project I gave it literally a formula and told it to run it with some other parameters. It was doing its usual "let me get to know the codebase" then a "I have a good understanding of the codebase" speech, only to follow it up with "what you're asking is not possible" I'm like... No, I know it's possible I implemented it already, just use it in more places only to get the same "o ye ur right, I missed that... Blabla"

Yeah, it's gotten pretty bad...

Re: Claude Code Routines

#345

Post by deaux »

dzink wrote: post #245
ElFitz wrote: post #220

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.

This can be done with Claude Code just fine. Or simply API usage.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#346

Post by joelthelion »

joshstrange wrote: post #66

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…

The good news is that, apart from the models themselves, we don't need much from these companies:

- Use Opencode and other similar open-source solutions in place of their proprietary harnesses. This isn't very practical right now because of the heavily subsidized subscriptions that are hard to compete with. But subsidies will end soon, and with progress in inference, it should be very doable to work with open-source clients in the near future.

- Use Openrouter and similar to abstract the LLM itself. That makes AI companies interchangeable and removes a lot of any moat they might have.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#347

Post by danaw »

robwwilliams wrote: post #136
JohnMakin wrote: post #134

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…

There are different level of who gets locked in. Almost every health care system in the USA is locked in to either an Epic/Oracle barrel or a Cerner barrel. I hope AI breaks this duopoly open soon.

hate to break it to you but Oracle now owns Cerner too :)

Re: Claude Code Routines

#348

Post by spoiler »

pxc wrote: post #291
data-ottawa wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday I had my biggest Opus WTF. I asked Opus 4.6 to help me get GPU stats in btop on nixos. Opus's first approach was to use patchelf to monkey patch the btop binary. I had to redirect it to just look the nix wiki and add `nixpkgs.config.rocmSupport = true;`. But the approach of modifying a compiled binary for a configuration issue is bizarre.

It does stuff like this all the time. It loves doing this with scripts with sed, so I'm not surprised to hear about it trying to do this with binaries. It's definitely wilder, though

It frequently gets indentation wrong on projects, then tries to write sed/awk scripts. Can't get it right, then write a python script that reformats the whole file on stdout, makes sure the indentation is correct, then writes requests an edit snippet.

And you might be thinking. Well, you should use a code formatter! But I do!

And then you might say, well surely you forgot to mention it in you AGENTS/CLAUDE file. Nope, it's there, multiple times even in different sections because once was apparently not enough.

And lastly, surely if I'm watching this cursed loop unfold and am approving edits manually, like some bogan pleb, I can steer it easily... Well, let me tell ya... I tried stopping it and injecting hints about the formatter, and it stick for a minute before it goes crazy again. Or sometimes it rereads the file and just immediately fucks up the formatting.

I think when this shit happens, it probably uses like 3x more tokens.

For a Rust project, it recently stated analysing binaries in the target as directory a first instinct, instead of looking at the code...

Good grief.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#349

Post by matheusmoreira »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #268
dzink wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah who just goes and indiscriminately vacuums up data so they can train their products they’re going to sell with no intention of giving compensation to the very entities that made their products possible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji

> Suchir Balaji was an American artificial intelligence researcher who was found dead one month after accusing OpenAI, his former employer, of violating United States copyright law.

> The San Francisco Police Department investigation, however, found "no evidence of foul play", and the Chief Medical Examiner concluded the death was a suicide.

Hard not to be a conspiracy theorist these days.

Post reply on HN