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

Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 489 posts

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#371

Post by snoman »

xena wrote: post #336
some-guy wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree that the expectations are higher, but token output hardly correlates to code output worthy of merging.

They don't care about quality as long as it works enough. It's a clown show all the way through.

As one that does, it’s a difficult discussion to have with the executives. My peers look like their teams are producing more than my teams are and any argument along the lines of “but their code sucks” isn’t going to hold water. The executives care but until there’s actual impact or poor quality, it won’t matter, and it’s a lagging metric. Many still don’t care about technical debt and that’s been well understood in industry for a while.

It’ll take production incidents, impacted customers, and brand damage to make the executives start to prioritize quality over quantity again.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#372

Post by bogota »

harimau777 wrote: post #266

The comments I see recommending selective use of cheaper models doesn't match the reality I experience working in the industry. I have the constant threat hanging over my head of being fired if I don't churn out code quickly enough. I'm not willing to gamble with my livelyhood by using a less effective model. Saving money on tokens isn't something that's rewarded during performance reviews; particularly because it's…

[dead]

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#373

Post by Quothling »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #157

From reading the article. They offered their developers both Claude code and Copilot. What they wanted was for them to use both and feedback which was better. The developers voted with their feet and didn’t use Copilot. What Microsoft were hoping was that the opposite would happen...

Maybe it's just Microsoft moving to more model agnostic tech within their copilot. I recently started using Microsoft 365 Copilot because corporate added Cowork which runs on Opus 4.7 which was better than the alternative we have available. Unlike the "real" Claude Code or Cowork this only has access to files in a specific onedrive folder in your personal sharepoint container, so it's much more compliant to things like NIS2.

Technically we're using Copilot and we're playing for it through Microsoft licenses, but it's using Opus 4.7. Even before this, most of our custom agents within m365 copilot were one of the GPT models.

Or maybe you're right and they want their developers to use the copilot models.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#374

Post by putlake »

cpeterso wrote: post #323
samastur wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you manage to do that? /model command returns only 4 choices for me: Opus 4.7, two Sonnet options and Haiku.

I’ve read (but haven’t tested yet) that you can still enable Opus 4.6 with: /model claude-opus-4-6[1M]

That gets billed as extra usage apparently:

/model claude-opus-4-6[1M]

  ⎿  Set model to Opus 4.6 (1M context) · Billed as extra usage

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#376

Post by arw0n »

cwsx wrote: post #370
bob1029 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think quantifying tokens used is analogous to quantifying the amount of sawdust generated on a construction site. Churning out useful code quickly is not solved by using more tokens per unit time. Most non-technical leaders can grasp this one and are likely more interested in the strategic game theoretical dynamics that are being forced by way of implied token consumption expectations (competition between developer…

Suddenly, LoC returned

With the rise of agentic coding, this has become a sign of quality for me in my own PRs and reviews: New features implemented in less than a thousand lines of productive code.

When I'm working on code that was heavily vibecoded, most of my PRs are reducing LoC by a couple hundreds of lines while fixing bugs or implementing a new feature.

My job kind of feels like being a garbage man, luckily my current employer appreciates it. Personally I think the current style of vibecoding only kinda works, because models are getting better fast enough to keep the shitpile from overflowing completely. Betting on the harnesses + models getting good enough to clean up after themselves is a bet, and I don't like gambling, but even I admit the odds don't seem to be bad.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#377

Post by suzzer99 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #236
jdsnape wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m interested in how this works in practise - I guess you’ve written a skill to do code review, then your Claude.md file tells it to use it after every change as a bg task? So does this work as a background task while Claude is working on the next ‘feature’?

I just committed the skill to my dotfiles repository. https://github.com/matheusmoreira/.files/tree/master/~/.clau... There are many "critics", one for each quality I want reviewed. Correctness, consistency, maintainability, security, testing... Everything I could think of, and I keep adding more. https://github.com/matheusmoreira/.files/tree/master/~/.clau... The scrutinize skill is the entry point. The Opus I'm tal…

Those critic skills are great. I see a real business opportunity for someone who can bundle everything you describe into a turnkey solution for a programmer like me who doesn't want to take months coming up with their own system and extensive .md files.

I'm currently, very painfully, removing a tiny bit of tech debt at a time from a massively complex project that we inherited from a 3rd-party vendor. Some of the tech debt is AI-related, some because it's a vendor who rarely has to maintain anything they create, some because when we first inherited it we had no grasp on the entire codebase and were just trying to change the plane wheels while flying (we still are).

What I'm doing now is the hardest kind of programming imo. I spend hours/week just meditating on how to chip away at this out-of-control codebase, figuring out how I can surgically remove some leaky abstraction that's spawned 5 cousins w/o disrupting the whole project. I'd be fascinated to see if the latest frontier model with a system like yours can actually help me. But I don't have the time or desire to invest the months of trial and error that I'm sure it took you to get to that point.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#378

Post by gausswho »

bob1029 wrote: post #363
harimau777 wrote: post #266

The comments I see recommending selective use of cheaper models doesn't match the reality I experience working in the industry. I have the constant threat hanging over my head of being fired if I don't churn out code quickly enough. I'm not willing to gamble with my livelyhood by using a less effective model. Saving money on tokens isn't something that's rewarded during performance reviews; particularly because it's…

I think quantifying tokens used is analogous to quantifying the amount of sawdust generated on a construction site. Churning out useful code quickly is not solved by using more tokens per unit time. Most non-technical leaders can grasp this one and are likely more interested in the strategic game theoretical dynamics that are being forced by way of implied token consumption expectations (competition between developer…

That sawdust analogy is fantastic!

We may be on the cusp of the AI age's new era of 'measure twice, cut once'.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#379

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

shomp wrote: post #364
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can do that with Claude Code. Tell it what to do. Commit, push to origin, review on GitHub. Tell it to make changes, amend the commit, push --force-with-lease. I'm attempting to make a memory safe language like Rust but with a substantially lower learning curve and added safety (but non-zero cost abstractions) fully with AI, almost entirely from my phone, commuting, getting coffee, walking the dog, between s…

You review the code on github also from your phone?

#1 -> part of scaling is you can't review every single line of code.

LLMs don't really scale if you're still the bottlneck, or they only scale as much as you reviewing every line of code - that's not that much scaling...

So I try to only review certain parts, like making sure they aren't changing tests to allow architecturally broken code to slip through (because they regularly try, even when given explicit instructions not to). Or if I'm watching them make changes on my phone and see that they are clearly doing the exact opposite of what they're supposed to be doing (regularly if I'm watching).

#2 -> if commits are small, GitHub's setup is good enough that you can review code on your phone.

#3 -> if they're huge, I can just review on my laptop at lunch or something.

Theoretically, all of this can be solved easily with orchestration and require minimal oversight.

If you're using LLMs to write code and you're carefully reviewing every line with a jade-handled magnifying glass, you're not really scaling - at least to the degree I'm interested in.

Re: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

#380

Post by drob518 »

gchamonlive wrote: post #339
harimau777 wrote: post #266

The comments I see recommending selective use of cheaper models doesn't match the reality I experience working in the industry. I have the constant threat hanging over my head of being fired if I don't churn out code quickly enough. I'm not willing to gamble with my livelyhood by using a less effective model. Saving money on tokens isn't something that's rewarded during performance reviews; particularly because it's…

> I have the constant threat hanging over my head of being fired if I don't churn out code quickly enough. And the tragedy is that this isn't sustainable, and we all involved deeply in tech know this. There is eventually going to be a big reality check the companies will have to pay, because you can't force creativity and quality, not even with AI, because actual intelligence lies with us at least for now and for the…

Unfortunately, I think this is correct. Such as it ever has been with technological change. The folks at the bottom bear the brunt of the dislocation and the folks at the top pat themselves on the back for being so forward looking and get huge payouts regardless of the actual results. Further, the folks at the top are always incentivized to go along with the herd of their peers because if it works then they were on the bandwagon, and if it doesn’t work, well then, how could they have known because “Everyone was deceived.”
Post reply on HN