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

What Claude Code chooses

amplifying.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 266 posts

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#51

Post by inigyou »

rafaelmn wrote: post #31
evdubs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You specify which software patents you want it to use?

AI reading the patent is basically cleanroom reverse engineering according to current AI IP standards :D

Patents aren't vulnerable to cleanroom reverse engineering. You can create something yourself in your bedroom and use it yourself without knowing the patented thing exists, and still violate the patent. That's why they're so scary.

You won't get caught if you write something yourself and use it yourself, but programmers (contrary to entrepreneurs) have a pattern of avoiding illegal things instead of avoiding getting caught.

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#52

Post by ch4s3 »

It really disappointing to see it so strongly preferring Github Actions which is in my experience terrible. Almost everything about GHA pushes you in the direction of constantly blowing out the 10GB cache limit in an attempt to have CI not run for ages. I also feel like the standard cache action using git works poorly with any tools that use mtime on files to determine freshness.

I guess at least Opus can help you muddle through GHA being so crappy.

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#53

Post by torginus »

What coding with LLMs have taught me, particularly in a domain that's not super comfortable for me (web tech), is that how many npm packages (like jwt auth, or build plugins) can be replaced by a dozen lines of code.

And you can actually make sense of that code and be sure it does what you want it to.

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#54

Post by logicchains »

dvt wrote: post #50
dataviz1000 wrote: post #39

I'm running a server on AWS with TimescaleDB on the disk because I don't need much. I figure I'll move it when the time comes. (edit: Claude Code is managing the AWS EC2 instance using AWS CLI.) Claude Code this morning was about to create an account with NeonDB and Fly.io (edit: it suggested as the plan to host on these where I would make the new accounts) although it has been very successful managing the AWS EC2 se…

> Claude Code likely is correct that I should start to use NeonDB and Fly.io which I have never used before and do not know much about I wouldn't be so sure about that. In my experience, agents consistently make awful architectural decisions. Both in code and beyond (even in contexts like: what should I cook for a dinner party?). They leak the most obvious "midwit senior engineer" decisions which I would strike down…

From what you said it sounds like the conclusion should be "you still need to design the architecture yourself", not necessarily "you still need to write your own code".

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#55

Post by esafak »

mjheadd wrote: post #32

Worth reading alongside recent research on AGENTS.md file effectiveness. The clearest use case for these files isn't describing your codebase, it's overriding default behavior. If your project has specific requirements around tooling (common in government and regulated industries), that's exactly what belongs in the AGENTS.md files.

It still ignores it. I always have to say 'Isn't this mentioned in AGENTS??' and it will concede that it is.

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#56

Post by rafaelmn »

inigyou wrote: post #51
rafaelmn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI reading the patent is basically cleanroom reverse engineering according to current AI IP standards :D

Patents aren't vulnerable to cleanroom reverse engineering. You can create something yourself in your bedroom and use it yourself without knowing the patented thing exists, and still violate the patent. That's why they're so scary. You won't get caught if you write something yourself and use it yourself, but programmers (contrary to entrepreneurs) have a pattern of avoiding illegal things instead of avoiding getting…

It's not a perfect joke I'll admit.

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#58

Post by drc500free »

dvt wrote: post #50
dataviz1000 wrote: post #39

I'm running a server on AWS with TimescaleDB on the disk because I don't need much. I figure I'll move it when the time comes. (edit: Claude Code is managing the AWS EC2 instance using AWS CLI.) Claude Code this morning was about to create an account with NeonDB and Fly.io (edit: it suggested as the plan to host on these where I would make the new accounts) although it has been very successful managing the AWS EC2 se…

> Claude Code likely is correct that I should start to use NeonDB and Fly.io which I have never used before and do not know much about I wouldn't be so sure about that. In my experience, agents consistently make awful architectural decisions. Both in code and beyond (even in contexts like: what should I cook for a dinner party?). They leak the most obvious "midwit senior engineer" decisions which I would strike down…

I find they are very concerned about ever pulling the trigger on a change or deleting something. They add features and codepaths that weren't asked for, and then resist removing them because that would break backwards compatibility.

In lieu of understanding the whole architecture, they assume that there was intent behind the current choices... which is a good assumption on their training data where a human wrote it, and a terrible assumption when it's code that they themselves just spit out and forgot was their own idea.

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#59

Post by dvt »

logicchains wrote: post #54
dvt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claude Code likely is correct that I should start to use NeonDB and Fly.io which I have never used before and do not know much about I wouldn't be so sure about that. In my experience, agents consistently make awful architectural decisions. Both in code and beyond (even in contexts like: what should I cook for a dinner party?). They leak the most obvious "midwit senior engineer" decisions which I would strike down…

From what you said it sounds like the conclusion should be "you still need to design the architecture yourself", not necessarily "you still need to write your own code".

Yeah, I actually wanted to write an addendum, so I'll just do it here. I think that going from pseudocode -> code is a pretty neat concept (which is kind of what I mean by "write your own code"), but not sure if it's economically viable if the AI industry weren't so heavily subsidized by VC cash. So we might end back up at writing actual code and then telling the AI agent "do another thing, and make it kinda like this" where you point it to your own code.

I'm doing it right now, and tbh working on greenfield projects purely using AI is extremely token-hungry (constantly nudging the agent, for one) if you want actual code quality and not a bloated piece of garbage[1][2].

[1] https://imgur.com/a/BBrFgZr

[2] https://imgur.com/a/9Xbk4Y7

Re: What Claude Code chooses

#60

Post by parliament32 »

logicchains wrote: post #54
dvt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claude Code likely is correct that I should start to use NeonDB and Fly.io which I have never used before and do not know much about I wouldn't be so sure about that. In my experience, agents consistently make awful architectural decisions. Both in code and beyond (even in contexts like: what should I cook for a dinner party?). They leak the most obvious "midwit senior engineer" decisions which I would strike down…

From what you said it sounds like the conclusion should be "you still need to design the architecture yourself", not necessarily "you still need to write your own code".

But he did design the architecture:

> even though Memory.md has the AWS EC2 instance and instructions well defined

I will second that, despite the endless harping about the usefulness of CC, it's really not good at anything that hasn't been done to death a couple thousand times (in its training set, presumably). It looks great at first blush, but as soon as you start adding business-specific constraints or get into unique problems without prior art, the wheels fall off the thing very quickly and it tries to strongarm you back into common patterns.

Post reply on HN