| ▲ | stevenae 2 days ago |
| The quantitative ux research team at Google was created for exactly this problem: a service which became popular before the right metrics existed, meaning metrics need to be derived first, then optimized. We would observe users (irl), read their logs, then generate experiments to improve the behavior as measured by logs, and return to see if the experiment improves irl experiences. There were not many of us and we are around :) |
|
| ▲ | ajma 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I worked with Boris in the past and in my experience, Boris cares deeply about the customer. I'd vouch that Boris really cares about the issue people are running into. |
| |
| ▲ | thejazzman a day ago | parent | next [-] | | “ Hello. My name is Mr. Sirob,” https://amphetamem.es/meme/?id=the-simpsons_04_12_89×ta... | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But no other user has yet come and said "I worked with ajma in the past ..." so how can we trust your judgement about Boris? | | | |
| ▲ | bodegajed 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nice try boris | |
| ▲ | dkersten a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles a day ago | parent [-] | | Anthropic can't win in this case. They don't use Claude Code, they get accused that they don't even trust it themselves. They use Claude Code, they get accused the code is shit because it's slop. I think dogfooding is known to be a legitimate approach here. | | |
| ▲ | Toutouxc a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The idea is that Claude Code is surprisingly buggy and unrefined for something created by the very tool and processes that are supposed to be replacing us as we speak. | | |
| ▲ | KptMarchewa a day ago | parent [-] | | The idea is that sculpted ideal code is rarely the best choice. | | |
| ▲ | mrbungie a day ago | parent [-] | | At the same time I'd say sloppy code (human or AI generated) is rarely the best choice. I'd say the best is in between. |
|
| |
| ▲ | visarga a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And they don't use our version of CC, or with our settings. They have flags for internal use only. | |
| ▲ | latexr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Anthropic can't win in this case. Sure they can. The solution is pretty simple and in your own post. Choose either: * Make the product good to the point code is no longer slop and shit. * Stop hyping the quality when it isn’t there. * Do a hybrid approach. Use their own product but actually have competent humans in the loop to make the code good. This is not hard. Be honest and humble and that criticism goes away. It’s no one’s fault but Anthropic’s that they hype up their product to more than it can do and use it carelessly to build itself. It’s not a no-win scenario if you’re the one causing your own obviously avoidable problems. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Traubenfuchs a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Google products ux is widely acknowledged to be a steaming pile of shit though, so I am not sure you should follow their example. Many of the metrics they use are obviously actively user hostile. |
|
| ▲ | TheLegace 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Metrics and quantitative ux results in really bad software, making it rigid while optimizing for the wrong things. The most obvious example is Google creating multiple steps for Login where you have to enter your password after you put in your user. I wonder what metric lead to that decision or was it a political decision to make it seem like their "old" software has some new feature. |
| |
| ▲ | saltcured 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you mean Google website login, that step is needed because the email address is used to determine which identity provider to use. E.g. I have three different accounts that branch off from that same initial login flow. One is my person "gmail.com" account, and the other two go through enteprise identity providers related to my employment and their G-Suite licenses. So after I put in one of these three email addresses, I get prompted for the appropriate next step. Only one of them involves giving a password to a Google server. The other two are redirects to completely separate login systems operated by my employer. | | |
| ▲ | TheLegace 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean I get it logically makes sense. But it still seems like a waste of time for a small percentage of use cases. Maybe a better approach is put in your login have it automatically detect if it requires an identity provider. Gray out the password to signal to the user password is not necessary and automatically redirect. Less clicking, don't break flow and think of a smoother solution. |
|
|
