Often in these conversations we forget that editing is different from editorializing. Editing can make meaning clearer! (In this example, reactions are mixed as to whether it was successful).

Editorializing, on the other hand, is about adding clickbait or bias.

Yup, that's the rule. I changed the title because the original one was arguably misleading (in much the way that calling a computer a 'file creator and editor' might be), but of course these are not exact arguments and YMMV.

I find the new headline to be much more clear. Perhaps because I imagined Claude to already be able to "edit and create files" via Claude Code; the server-side container is the key difference.

The original headline made absolutely no sense to me, as a Claude user, and did not in fact convey what this would be used for.

Claude already has the ability to make or edit files, as artifacts in the web interface, and with the Write tool in Code.

I was a bit surprised by the pushback on this edit, which seems to me no different than the kind of editing we do day-in-day-out, and have done for a good 15 years.

Editorializing, in my understanding, is introducing spin or opinion, or cherry-picking a detail to highlight only one aspect of a story. It seems to me that this edit doesn't do that because it actually broadens the information in the title and corrects a misleading impression given by the original. The only way I could see this being a bad edit is if it's not actually true that Claude now has access to a server-side container environment. If it's accurate then it surely includes the file-creating-and-editing stuff that was spoken about before, along with a lot more important information—arbitrary computation is rather more than just editing files! No?

More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45202122.

(a) it's not that GitLab just launched

(b) it's an allowlist rule, not rocket science

(c) where's all this mythical "agent gonna do all the things for me" world?