Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think they lack self-awareness?
For the record, I was referring to the AI companies, not the author of the comment I replied to.
It's not lack of self-awareness, they know what they are doing
Claude Code Routines
361–370 of 451 posts
Re: Claude Code Routines
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off topic, but I found Sonnet useless. It can't do the simplest tasks, like refactoring a method signature consistently across a project or following instructions accurately about what patterns/libraries should be used to solve a problem.
It's crazy because when Sonnet came out it was heralded as the best thing since sliced bread, and now people are literally saying it's "useless". I wonder if this is our collective expectations increasing or the models are getting worse.
Probably both :)
New models come out with inflated expectations, then they are adjusted/nerfed/limited for whatever reason. Our expectations remain at previous levels.
New models come out with once again inflated expectations, but now it's double inflation, because we're still on the previous level of expectations. And so on.
I think it's likely to get worse. Providers are running out of training data, and running bigger and bigger models to more and more people is prohibitively expensive. So they will try to keep the hype up while the gains are either very small or non-existent.
Re: Claude Code Routines
#363[dead]
Re: Claude Code Routines
#364Unrelated, 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 is…
Clajjan is this you?
Re: Claude Code Routines
#365LLMs 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…
> I want a commodity, I want a provider, not a platform
That is exactly what the big LLM providers are trying to prevent. Them being only commodity providers might lead them to be easily replaced, and will likely lead to lower margins compared to "full feature" enterprise solutions. Switching LLM API provider is next to no work the moment a competitor is slightly cheaper/better.
Full solutions are more "sticky", harder to replace, and can be sold at higher prices.
Re: Claude Code Routines
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off topic, but I found Sonnet useless. It can't do the simplest tasks, like refactoring a method signature consistently across a project or following instructions accurately about what patterns/libraries should be used to solve a problem.
It's crazy because when Sonnet came out it was heralded as the best thing since sliced bread, and now people are literally saying it's "useless". I wonder if this is our collective expectations increasing or the models are getting worse.
[deleted]
Re: Claude Code Routines
#367Two things about My experience, first you only have one at a time per suscription, if you need implement two at the same time i could not able to. The second is that you can do that with a well configured cron.
Re: Claude Code Routines
#368[dead]
Re: Claude Code Routines
#369LLMs 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…
I always hated SEO because it was not an exact science - like programming was. Too bad we've now managed to turn programming into the same annoying guesswork.
If you want to feel like you're using a programming language when orchestrating agents, check out https://github.com/barnum-circus/barnum
Re: Claude Code Routines
#370LLMs 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 echoes my thoughts exactly. I've tried to stay model-agnostic but the nudges and shoves from Anthropic continue to make that a challenge. No way I'm going that deep into their "cloud" services, unless it's a portable standard. I did MCP and skills because those were transferrable. I also clearly see the lock-in/moat strategy playing out here, and I don't like it. It's classic SV tactics. I've been burned too man…
I have the same sentiments, but I also get a lot of value out of simple things like memory for long-term project planning and task management. I'm willing to commit to one provider right now with the assumption that memories (and now routines) can be ported within a few hours to a new provider (for example Claude Desktop provides a prompt to export memories from other providers).
Also the memory being human readable (markdown files) makes me worry less about lock-in.