Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

Post by alehlopeh » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 2:24 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #23

xg15 wrote: post #8

> Cherny responded to the feedback by making changes. "We have repurposed the existing verbose mode setting for this," he said, so that it "shows file paths for read/searches. Does not show full thinking, hook output, or subagent output (coming in tomorrow's release)." How to comply with a demand to show more information by showing less information.

Words have lost all meaning. "Verbose" no longer means "containing more words than necessary" but instead "Bit more than usual". "Fast" no longer mean "characterized by quick motion, operation, or effect" but instead depends on the company, some of them use slightly different way, but same "speed", but it's called "fast mode". It's just a whole new world where words suddenly mean something completely different, and y…

Post by rco8786 » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 2:30 PM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #59

rco8786 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agreed. Those assumptions often compound as well. So the AI makes one wrong decision early in the process and it affects N downstream assumptions. When they finally finish their process they've built the wrong thing. This happens with one process running. Even on latest Opus models I have to babysit and correct and redirect claude code constantly. There's zero chance that 5 claude codes running for hours with…

Actually it works the other way. With multiple agents they can often correct each others mistaken assumptions. Part of the value of this approach is precisely that you do get better results with fewer hallucinated assumptions. Still makes this change from Anthropic stupid.

Post by snvzz » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #2

Why not run Claude on an FUSE based filesystem, and make a script that shows the user which files are being accessed?

Post by groundzeros2015 » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #57

g947o wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those wild experiments are running on a "real", existing codebase that is more than 6 months old. The thing they don't talk about is that nobody outside these AI companies wants to vibe code with a 10 year old codebase with 2000 enterprise customers. As you as you start to work with a codebase that you care about and need to seriously maintain, you'll see what a mess these agents make.

I work at a company with approximately $1 million in revenue per engineer and multiple 10+ year old codebases. We use agents very aggressively, combined with beads, tons of tests, etc. You treat them like any developer, and review the code in PRs, provide feedback, have the agents act, and merge when it's good. We have gained tremendous velocity and have been able to tackle far more out of the backlog that we'd been…

Post by Kye » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

pzs wrote: post #65

rco8786 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's about catching when it goes off the rails before it makes a mess The latest "meta" in AI programming appears to be agent teams (or swarms or clusters or whatever) that are designed to run for long periods of time autonomously. Through that lens, these changes make more sense. They're not designing UX for a human sitting there watching the agent work. They're designing for horizontally scaling agents that work…

Related question: how do we resolve the problem that we sign a blank cheque for the autonomous agents to use however many tokens they deem necessary to respond to your request? The analogy from team management: you don't just ask someone in your team to look into something only to realize three weeks later (in the absence of any updates) that they got nowhere with a problem that you expected to take less than a day t…