| ▲ | whateveracct 7 hours ago |
| It's proof that Anthropic is high on their own supply. I've heard them described as data science script kiddies with inflated egos and it seems spot-on. |
|
| ▲ | 2001zhaozhao 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That is exactly the impression I get from the claude code team, and by extension some of their recent launches like Cowork and Design. And of course with the growth team or whoever is in charge of the subscription and quota side of things. They just do the basic experiment -> ship workflow over and over again, doing whatever optimizes their product in the short term, and never seem to step back and think about the full long-term impact of their changes. They evidently seem to not even consider immediate regressions or negative blowback from users if it's not within the area of expertise of the guy who ships the change. That is despite their other teams (especially alignment) having a track record of being fairly well thought-out and intelligent. To the guys at Anthropic's product teams, every problem is a data science problem that you slap an A/B test onto, and they seem to think that the A/B test is all that's needed, and actual verification and thinking things through is overrated af. That's what leads to countless regressions in Claude Code as well as removing claude code from the pro plan in their product page for a few hours (lol). |
| |
| ▲ | ffsm8 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tbf, their harness was surprisingly ahead of the curve for most of the last year.. Are this point, the difference is mostly made up by issues like the OP has, so you're likely better off using eg pi (-agent) and writing your own custom skills and extensions (or any of the other harnesses the providers create, even copilot-cli has gotten decent nowadays) | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Tbf, their harness was surprisingly ahead of the curve for most of the last year.. Do a `s/harness/software` on that statement, and that is going to describe most companies shipping AI written software. > this point, the difference is mostly made up by issues like the OP has, so you're likely better off using eg pi (-agent) and writing your own custom skills and extensions (or any of the other harnesses the providers create, even copilot-cli has gotten decent nowadays) They (AI-written software) are all going to be ahead in some way, until they aren't because they hit the practical limits of codebase size that can be reasonably understood by an LLM. | |
| ▲ | karlgkk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Tbf, their harness was surprisingly ahead of the curve for most of the last year.. Yeah and now it’s not. We’ll see if they have the product ability to retake the lead, although I suspect not. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | deaux 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What a joke. If "Anthropic is just a bunch of script kiddies" then everyone is, considering dozens of billions pored into beating their models yet they're still the go-to for coding and have been for quite a while now. Just a nonsensical thing to say. |
|
| ▲ | stingraycharles 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What is this reply even, what’s wrong with the vibe coding community? They have such ridiculous takes, it reminds me a lot of the extreme stances from the gaming community. Terminology also seems to come from there, “nerfing” etc. |
| |
| ▲ | balamatom an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >what’s wrong with the vibe coding community For starters, the vibes. Vibe coding, like Web3 before it (like Web 2.0 before it, like the dotcom boom before that - what preceded?) - harnesses the kind of focused attention with which gamers hook their brains into portals to virtual worlds - and directs all that bargain-basement wetware compute towards some obscured "real-world" goal instead. (See also: CADT development.) Hyperscale these very inefficient but very dependable almost-not-efforts, and you beat the more efficient approaches. See also: evolutionary algorithms, autoresearch, price dumping; "attention is all you need", which though a legit piece of mathemagic always sounded to me like a rehash of that old adage, "all you need is love" (pejorative). Really, "real world" is a consensus; we don't generally observe balamatoms or even balamolecules, we reason in terms of material objects' socially constructed balameanings and interrelations. Therefore, by redirecting sufficient attention to some thing labeled "unrealistic", we can remove that label; by this technique, a sufficiently large collective actor can quite literally, and quite directly, change the world. Without asking anyone, least of all me! | |
| ▲ | achierius 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think a lot of non-vibe-coding types also hold similar opinions -- in fact they might dislike Anthropic products even more, given that they (however few they might be) choose not to use them. | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You honestly think “Anthropic employees are script kiddies with inflated egos that are high on their own supply” is a reasonable stance? This seems such an immature take to me, and hard to take serious. Anthropic just a bunch of script kiddies? Really? | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Claude Code is a vibe-coded product that doesn't seem to be undergoing regression tests. It looks like they're running it in the loops then ship whatever looks the coolest. How is this not "high on own supply"? | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why the insults/hostility? Why call them script-kiddies? Why the inflated egos? How do you know what testing procedures they use? Do you honestly think they're running some kind of Ralph loop without any testing and just ship whatever looks the coolest? Really ? | | |
| ▲ | dkersten 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > How do you know what testing procedures they use? We don’t, but we can see the end result, so we know whatever they do isn’t adequate and it suggests they value shipping fast over quality or even listening to customer feedback. > Do you honestly think they're running some kind of Ralph loop without any testing and just ship whatever looks the coolest? Really ? No, but given how sharply the quality has been dropping over the past few months and how it suspiciously coincided with the time they admitted that Claude code is now 100% vibe coded, it certainly doesn’t feel too far off. I’ve personally found the code that the AI writes, even this week (ie not some old models from months ago) to be shockingly shoddy. I’ve rewritten some AI code (created via spec driven development and a workflow that includes planning and refactoring) by hand and I’ve been very conscious of the amount of micro-design-changes I as a human make where the AI just blows forward shoehorning a solution into the design. My implementation happens b has adjusted and shifted many times to insure clear and performant logic, while the AI commits to an approach early and applied whatever brute force is necessary to make it work.
I’ve also asked it to write various tests for me or to make isolated changes and quite frankly the code was just not very good. Working, but convoluted. Even with guidance and iteration, it’s still not on a human level. So it’s not hard to see that if you have an application as large and complex as Claude code and you let the AI do it all, that it’s going to be a mess. I’m not against using AI for development, but you have to be realistic about its capabilities. I feel like this is where they “got high on their own supply” and are blinded to the AI’s shortcomings and failures. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dkersten 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They’ve said themselves that Claude code is 100% vibe coded now. That certainly meets the criteria of “script kiddies” and “high on their own supply”. The negative connotations are there on purpose because of the bugs and issues that these products have, something which presumably they wouldn’t have if there was human oversight and acknowledgement that the AI isn’t infallible. | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They’ve said themselves that Claude code is 100% vibe coded now. That certainly meets the criteria of “script kiddies” That's not what script kiddies are at all. > The negative connotations are there on purpose because of the bugs and issues that these products have, something which presumably they wouldn’t have if there was human oversight and acknowledgement that the AI isn’t infallible. That's a big assumption, given that Anthropic is also currently growing by more than 3x per quarter. Maybe the problem is more complicated and we don't know everything, and they're also just simply suffering from growth pains? |
| |
| ▲ | lelanthran 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You honestly think “Anthropic employees are script kiddies with inflated egos that are high on their own supply” is a reasonable stance? Maybe not the script kiddies part, but "high on their own supply" is certainly not unreasonable. | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t understand the hostility and insulting tones being reasonable now. The comment is not at all just saying “their usage of their own AI is causing these issues”, it’s just a lot of hostility, I don’t see the value of these kind of insults. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don’t understand the hostility and insulting tones being reasonable now. Maybe it's just interpretation: "high on their own supply" is no different from "poisoned by their own dogfood" or similar. It means that they have completely committed to a thing that the person proffering the quote thinks is "wrong" in some way. |
|
| |
| ▲ | processunknown 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Seems reasonable to me |
|
|
|
