The difference in response time - especially versus a regex running locally - is really difficult to express to someone who hasn't made much use of LLM calls in their natural language projects.

Someone said 10,000x slower, but that's off - in my experience - by about four orders of magnitude. And that's average, it gets much worse.

Now personally I would have maybe made a call through a "traditional" ML widget (scikit, numpy, spaCy, fastText, sentence-transformer, etc) but - for me anyway - that whole entire stack is Python. Transpiling all that to TS might be a maintenance burden I don't particularly feel like taking on. And on client facing code I'm not really sure it's even possible.

Don’t worry, they used an llm to generate the regex.

Because they want it to be executed quickly and cheaply without blocking the workflow? Doesn’t seem very weird to me at all.

> That's like a truck company using horses to transport parts. Weird choice.

Easy way to claim more “horse power.”

Well, regex doesn't hallucinate....right?

what you are suggesting would be like a truck company using trucks to move things within the truck

Because they actually want it to work 100% of the time and cost nothing.

This just proves its vibe coded because LLMs love writing solutions like that. I probably have a hundred examples just like it in my history.

Good to have more than a hammer in your toolbox!

Not everything done by claude-code is decided by LLM. They need the wrapper to be deterministic (or one-time generated) code?

Using some ML to derive a sentiment regex seems like a good actually?

because impact of WTF might be lost in the result of the analysis if you solely rely on LLM.

parsing WTF with regex also signifies the impact and reduces the noise in metrics

"determinism > non-determinism" when you are analysing the sentiment, why not make some things more deterministic.

Cool thing about this solution, is that you can evaluate LLM sentiment accuracy against regex based approach and analyse discrepancies

More like a car company transporting their shipments by truck. It's more efficient

> Weird choice.

Lots of discussion under this reply about whether or not this is a good choice, but isn't the whole deal with claude code supposedly that it itself is vibecoded..?

It's all regex anyways

I used regexes in a similar way but my implementation was vibecoded, hmmm, using your analysis Claude Code writes code by hand.

They had the problem of sentiment analysis. They use regexes.

You know the drill.

Using regex with LLMs isn't uncommon at all.

The amount of trust and safety work that depends on google translate and the humble regex, beggars the imagination.

Asking a non deterministic software to act like a deterministic one (regex) can be a significantly higher use of tokens/compute for no benefit.

Some things will be much better with inference, others won’t be.

Because they are engineers? The difference between an engineer and a hobbyist is an engineer has to optimize the cost.

As they say: any idiot can build a bridge that stands, only an engineer can build a bridge that barely stands.

hmm not a terrible idea (I think).

You have a semi expensive process. But you want to keep particular known context out. So a quick and dirty search just in front of the expensive process. So instead of 'figure sentiment (20seconds)'. You have 'quick check sentiment (<1sec)' then do the 'figure sentiment v2 (5seconds)'. Now if it is just pure regex then your analogy would hold up just fine.

I could see me totally making a design choice like that.

It's almost as if LLMs are unreliable

They're searching for multiple substrings in a single pass, regexes are the optimal solution for that.

WTF per minute strongly correlates to an increased token spending.

It may be decided at Anthropic at some moment to increase wtf/min metric, not decrease.

/feedback works for that i believe

Continue?

>Everyone is commenting how this regex is actually a master optimization move by Anthropic

No? I'd say not even 50% of the comments are positive right now.

The only time that function is used in the code is to log it.

    logEvent('tengu_input_prompt', { isNegative, isKeepGoing })

I always type "please continue". I guess being polite is not a good idea.

“Go on” works fine too

I doubt they're all classified the same. I'd guess they're using this regex as a litmus test to check if something should be submitted at all, they can then do deeper analysis offline after the fact.

It's actually pretty common for old sysadmin code too..

You could always tell when a sysadmin started hacking up some software by the if-else nesting chains.

Nah, it's a hallmark of your average codebase in pre-LLM era.

They stole everything and now they want to close the gates behind them.

"I got the loot, Steve!"

I feel like the distillation stuff will end up in court if they try to sue an American company about it. We'll see what a judge says.

It's not really paranoia if it's happening a lot. They wrote a blog post calling several major Chinese AI companies out for distillation.[0] Perhaps it is ironic, but it's within their rights to protect their business, like how they prohibit using Claude Code to make your own Claude Code.[1]

[0]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46578701

I would say not all that ironic. Book publishers, Reddit, Stackoverflow, etc., tried their best to attract customers while not letting others steal their work. Now Anthropic is doing the same.

Unfortunately (for the publishers, at least) it didn't work to stop Anthropic and Anthropic's attempts to prevent others will not work either; there has been much distillation already.

The problem of letting humans read your work but not bots is just impossible to solve perfectly. The more you restrict bots, the more you end up restricting humans, and those humans will go use a competitor when they become pissed off.

It is absolutely not paranoia. People are distilling Claude code all the time.

That isn't irony, it's hypocrisy.

You'll never win this battle, so why waste feelings and energy on it? That's where the internet is headed. There's no magical human verification technology coming to save us.

But will this be released as a feature? For me it seems like it's an Anthropic internal tool to secretly contribute to public repositories to test new models etc.

This is my pet peeve with LLMs, they almost always fails to write like a normal human would. Mentioning logs, or other meta-things which is not at all interesting.

> Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does.

The undercover mode prompt was generated using AI.

Time to ask if the contributor know what a Capybara is as a new Turing test

1) This seems to be for strictly Antrophic interal tooling 2) It does not "pretend to be human" it is instructed to "Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does."

Since when "describe only what the code change does" is pretending to be human?

You guys are just mining for things to moan about at this point.

That whole “feature” is vile.

This seems like a good way to weed out models: ask them to include the term capybara in their commit messages

lol that's funny, I have been working seriously [1] on a feature like this after first writing about it jokingly [2] earlier this year.

The joke was the assistant is a cat who is constantly sabotaging you, and you have to take care of it like a gacha pet.

The seriousness though is that actually, disembodied intelligences are weird, so giving them a face and a body and emotions is a natural thing, and we already see that with various AI mascots and characters coming into existence.

[1]: serious: https://github.com/mech-lang/mech/releases/tag/v0.3.1-beta

[2]: joke: https://github.com/cmontella/purrtran

You heard it here first

So close to April Fool's too. I'm sure it will still be a surprise for a majority of their users.

Not necessarily; I would very much like to use those features on a Linux server. Currently the Anthropic implementation forces a desktop (or worse, a laptop) to be turned on instead of working headless as far as I understand it.

I’ll give clappie a go, love the theme for the landing page!

Poor mum

Relieved to know I'm not the only one who grepped for that. Thank you for making me feel sane, friend.

It seems human. It taught me 合影, which seems to be Chinese slang for just wanting to be in the comments. Probably not a coincidence that it's after work time in China.

Really interesting to see Github turn into 4chan for a minute, like GH anons rolling for trips.

There have been massive GitHub issue spams recently, including in Microsoft's WSL repository.

https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/40028

I saw this on restic's main repository the other day.

trying to get github to nuke the repo? at a guess.

certainly nothing friendly.

oh wow, there are like 10 opened every minute. seems spam-y

All that is needed to solve that is to reliably put AI disclaimer on things done by AI

Which of course won't be done because corporations don't want that (except Valve I guess), so blame them.

To me, this is a sign of just how much regular people do not want AI. This is worse than crypto and metaverse before it. Crypto, people could ignore and the dumb ape pictures helped you figure out who to avoid. Metaverse, some folks even still enjoyed VR and AR without the digital real estate bullshit. And neither got shoved down your throat in everyday, mundane things like writing a paper in Word or trying to deal with your auto mechanic.

But AI is causing such visceral reactions that it's bleeding into other areas. People are so averse to AI they don't mind a few false positives.

I think the original repo OP mentioned decided not to host the code any more, but given there are 28k+ forks, it's not too hard to find again...

LOOOOOOOOOOL

lmao

Because it’s based on human slop. It’s simply the student.

LLMs are so so far away from being able to independently work on a large codebase, and why would they not benefit from modularity and clarity too?

Oh boy, you couldn't be more wrong. If something, LLM-s need MORE readable code, not less. Do you want to burn all your money in tokens?

Can't we have generated / llm generated code to be more human maintainable?

Can't wait to have LLM generated physical objects that explode on you face and no engineer can fix.

Ye I honestly don't understand his comment. Is it bad code writing? Pre 2026? Sure. In 2026. Nope. Is it going to be a headache for some poor person on oncall? Yes. But then again are you "supposed" to go through every single line in 2026? Again no. I hate it. But the world is changing and till the bubble pops this is the new norm

They accept real money though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6godSEVvcmU

First time I hear about this, it's interesting to have written all of this out.

Now this makes me think of game decompilation projects, which would seem to fall in the same legal area as code that would be generated by something like Malus.

Different code, same end result (binary or api).

We definitely need to know what the legal limits are and should be

It's not a parody when they accept money and deliver the service.

What about trade secrets, breach of contract, etc, etc?

You'd be playing cat and mouse like yt-dlp, but there's probably more value to this code than just a temporary way to milk claude subscriptions.

Just use one of the distilled claude clones instead https://x.com/0xsero/status/2038021723719688266?s=46

Could you use claude via aws bedrock?

It reads attribution really?

It is a real product. They take real payments and deliver on whats promised. Not sure if its an attempt to subvert criticism by using satirical language, or if they truly have so little respect for the open source community.

Yeah... look again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6godSEVvcmU

Well, the thing is, I do not just use my computer, but connect to their computers and I do not like to get banned. I suppose simple UI things like expanding source files won't change a thing, but the more interesting things, editing the context etc. do have that risk, but no idea if they look for it or enforce it. Their side is, if I want to have full control, I need to use the API directly(way more expensive) and what I want to do is basically circumventing it.

You are not allowed to use the assistance of Claude to manufacture hacks and bombs on your computer

Popular, yes... but have you seen the issues? SOMETHING is going on in that repo: https://github.com/instructkr/claude-code/issues

which has already been deleted

won't they just try to dmca or take these down especially if they're more popular

One tengentially interesting thing about that is how THEY talk to Claude.

"Don't blow your cover"

Interesting to see them be so informal and use an idiom to a computer.

And using capitals for emphasis.

They even leaked their April Fool’s fun. Brutal!

Your favorite LLM is great at building a super buggy renderer, so that's no longer a moat

Very easily these days, even if minified is difficult for me to reverse engineer... Claude has a very easy time of finding exactly what to patch to fix something

I have a 16GB RAM laptop. It's a beast I bought in 2022.

It's all I need for my work.

RAM on this machine can't be upgraded. No issue when running a few Codex instances.

Claude: forget it.

That's why something like Rust makes a lot of sense.

Even more now, as RAM prices are becoming a concern.

While not directly related to GP, I would guess that a codebase developped with a coding agent (I assume Claude code is used to work on itself) would benefit from a stricter type system (one important point of Rust)

I think pi has stolen the top honors, but people consider the Claude code harness very good (at least, better than Cursor)

It may be economically effective but such heartless, buggy software is a drain to use. I care about that delta, and yes this can be extrapolated to other industries.

This is the dumbest take there is about vibe coding. Claiming that managing complexity in a codebase doesn't matter anymore. I can't imagine that a competent engineer would come to the conclusion that managing complexity doesn't matter anymore. There is actually some evidence that coding agents struggle the same way humans do as the complexity of the system increases [0].

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24755

Do compilers care about their assembly generated code to look good? We will soon reach that state with all the production code. LLMs will be the compiler and actual today's human code will be replaced by LLM generated assembly code, kinda sorta human readable.

Users stick around on inertia until a failure costs them money or face. A leaked map file won't sink a tool on its own, but it does strip away the story that you can ship sloppy JS build output into prod and still ask people to trust your security model.

'It works' is a low bar. If that's the bar you set you are one bad incident away from finding out who stayed for the product and who stayed because switching felt annoying.

>Two things that matter at this day and age.

That's all that has mattered in every day and age.

Team has been extremely open how it has been vibe coded from day 1. Given the insane amount of releases, I don’t think it would be possible without it.

the "useCanUseTool.tsx" hook, is definitely something I would hate seeing in any code base I come across.

It's extremely nested, it's basically an if statement soup

`useTypeahead.tsx` is even worse, extremely nested, a ton of "if else" statements, I doubt you'd look at it and think this is sane code