[deleted]
Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
71–80 of 253 posts
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, Claude Code only works if you have the plan. It’s impossible to use it on the API, and it makes me wonder if $100/month is truly enough. I use it all day every day now, and I must be consuming a whole lot more than my $100 is worth.
I think it is available on Claude Pro now, so just $20.
It is but very limited. I use API only, since this is the only plan, without usage limits and on demand pricing:
5x Pro usage ($100/month)
20x Pro usage ($200/month)
Source: https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/11145838-using-cla...
"Pro ($20/month): Average users can send approximately 45 messages with Claude every 5 hours, OR send approximately 10-40 prompts with Claude Code every 5 hours."
"You will have the flexibility to switch to pay-as-you-go usage with an Anthropic Console account for intensive coding sprints."
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s impossible to use it on the API What does this mean?
Not OP but probably just cost.
This.
You can EASILY burn $20 a day doing little, and surely could top $50 a day.
It works fine, but the $100 I put in to test it out did not last very long even on Sonnet.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#74.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#75Assuming attention to detail is one of the best signs people give a fuck about craftsmanship, isn’t the fact the Anthropic legal terms are logically impossible to satisfy a bad sign for their ability to be trusted as careful stewards of ASI? Not exactly “three laws safe” if we can’t use the thing for work without violating their competitive use prohibition
I can’t speak for their legal department, but their product, Claude Code, bears signs of lavish attention to detail. Right down to running Haiku on the context to come up with cute appropriate verbs for the “working…” indicators.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
You pay junior devs way way way more money for the privilege of them being bad. And since they're human, the juniors themselves do not have the patience of an LLM. I really would not want to be a junior dev right now... Very unfair and undesirable situation they've landed in.
I think it would be great to be a junior dev now and be able to learn quickly with llms.
If you actually want to learn………
I have experienced multiple instances of junior devs using llm outputs without any understanding.
When I look at the PR, it is immediately obvious.
I use these tools everyday to help accelerate. But I know the limitations and can look at the output to throw certain junk away.
I feel junior devs are using it not to learn but to try to just complete shit faster. Which doesn’t actually happen because their prompts suck and their understanding of the results is bad.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
sort of, except I think the future of llms will be to to have the llm try 5 separate attempts to create a fix in parallel, since llm time is cheaper than human time... and once you introduce this aspect into the workflow, you'll want to spin up multiple containers, and the benefits of the terminal aren't as strong anymore.
Who or what will review the 5 PRs (including their updates to automated tests)? If it's just yet another agent, do we need 5 of these reviews for each PR too? In the end, you either concede control over 'details' and just trust the output or you spend the effort and validate results manually. Not saying either is bad.
If you can define your problem well then you can write tests up front. An ML person would call tests a "verifier". Verifiers let you pump compute into finding solutions.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#78Asking it to explain rust borrow checker is one of the worst examples to demonstrate its ability to read code. There are piles of that in its training data.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#79The terminal really is sort of the perfect interface for an LLM; I wonder whether this approach will become favored over the custom IDE integrations.
sort of, except I think the future of llms will be to to have the llm try 5 separate attempts to create a fix in parallel, since llm time is cheaper than human time... and once you introduce this aspect into the workflow, you'll want to spin up multiple containers, and the benefits of the terminal aren't as strong anymore.
Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code
#80.
How does this compare with Apples or Orange?