Apple seems to purposefully have decided to sit out the arms race.

Probably smart time to rent and not buy if they plan on buying in a downturn.

I'm suspicious of that take from Mark Gurman. That's a lot of detail around pricing and "holding Apple over a barrel" as relates to the Siri deal that seems like a nice PR spin from Anthropic.

Anthropic probably couldn't give the uptime guarantees that Google can, right?

> They have custom versions of Claude running on their own servers internally.

This is the important point.

Sending their internal code, documentation, secret tokens, etc. to Anthropic would be completely irresponsible.

But if they are running the models on their own servers, why not!

I think it makes sense to include in source control, just as it’s pretty typical to include documentation (such as a readme file) in source control. CLAUDE.md is really just project documentation.

It is super valuable to have your agent files in version control, both because it is useful to be able to revert to previous state and have your AI know where you are, and because being able to freshly clone a repo and have your AI know everything is very helpful.

Our Team Claude file is the same. It has our team conventions in it etc.

Its critical that its part of the source code.

They shouldn’t make it into the product/build, but if you think about them as documentation, it makes sense to version control them.

They often describe:

- Overall architecture

- Repository layout

- Processes to use

- Things not to do: code styles to avoid, libraries to not use, etc.

While they’re primarily documenting these things for an agent, the information is similarly useful to a human.

I can see it happening. It's very easy to drag and drop a file into an Xcode project and when the dialog pops up asking if you want it to be added to the target app bundle you just hit OK, not realizing what you just did. I've done it before with a document file but caught it before I shipped by inspecting the app bundle output.

IntelliJ's .idea/ folder has its own .gitignore and Copilot expects to find things committed under a .github/ folder.

I used to be a purist about IDE configurations, but if everyone isn't on the same page about formatting and stuff like that you see a lot of file churn as things move around.

I would have said the same thing about the .github/ folder, but I've had to add things to it to prevent Copilot from thinking bad patterns in existing code are actually good patterns that should be repeated.

It makes more sense when your communication between teammates is constrained to the repository, because your other communication channels are already saturated. They're meta concerns that really have nowhere to go outside the repository without getting lost.

In my personal and professional experience CLAUDE.md will be set up with workspace/project specific info that any agent on anyone's computer needs to know: * what the repo actually is ("this is a rust application that does XYZ", "this is a internal tooling platform") * how it's structured so the agent knows where to look * code and review standards * rules ("don't automatically run formatters/linters", "don't touch dependencies")

To be fair, most IDEs will usually try to commit their own workspace configurations to a git repo unless you tell them off with a .gitignore. They tend to also exclude themselves from gitignore presets for much the same reason.

VS Code is one notorious offender in that realm; it will try to commit settings.json, even if their gitignore's are set up to ignore all other cruft.

In general, the question of what should go in the source folder is a bit of a mess. Source code, README and License make enough sense, but what about files describing project governance or CI configuration logic? Or what about files that are used to make the forge you're using render the repository in a certain way (for example: bug tracker templates). Those are all cruft insofar that they have nothing to do with code, but it's generally agreed on that you're supposed to commit those, maybe in a dot-folder if necessary.

No.

Version control everything (inputs)

If your coworker needs to make a change, those md files can capture a lot of elements of design intent and known gotchas that are otherwise latent or implicit. That’s kind of what comments are for, to say nothing of blindingly obvious design, but …if everyone else using the same tool, sharing a tool native file makes sense in the same way that checking an IDE workspace file can.

I personally don't have strong experience here , but I would treat them similar to BUILD files and the like - probably in the root directory of a repo but nowhere near the bin/ or build/ directories.

Also it looks like there's a compilation step to these files, which is interesting. The raw file was included, not the environment specific file.

You're describing project-level shared resources, there are local versions of that like CLAUDE.local.md which should be gitignored

> Only the actual code that gets compiled.

And tests, linter configuration, doc...

How will you understand the garbage out without keeping track of the garbage in?

Nah. That’s not how it looks once you start working with it. Its code-equivalent for sure. You probably would not keep your plan files or the working chats though.

I think it’s more like project-wide code style rules or build instructions.

Agent instruction files are code, though. And none of this is really workstation-specific, it is codebase-specific. Should each developer keep a nearly identical copy of CLAUDE.md? The instructions really aren't for a developer, they are for an LLM agent. In most cases (I'd imagine, anyway) the agentic instruction files must be in source control for them to even provide much value.

It's trending in that direction. If you want genuine conversation with humans, it's best to start looking for small, private communities that have and enforce LLM policies that align with your desires. Public social media is universally trash, don't waste your time there. I think HN is still worth visiting for now, but it's getting harder to justify spending time here with the quantity of garbage-quality LLM articles and even many comments.

It's not about contributing to the conversation — it's about the fake internet points.

Yuck indeed. I do find it offensive when someone uses AI in a conversational manner. It's one thing to use it to chuck up content on social media to attract eyeballs, but this is a forum intended for conversation.

It’s not that they’ve lost their identity— it’s that… { “error”: “Claude Max limits exceeded” }

We're getting to a point where we're going to have to consistently start putting content in that AI is banned from writing, just to prove that we're humans

arse

I recently preordered Cory Doctorow's book dealing with this: The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI.

The title refers to most machinery being a "centaur," meaning a thinking human is carried by the machine doing the heavy lifting, while the goal of AI companies is to replace high value work with the opposite. They want to turn people into meat appendages that serve unthinking machines.

No, I don't think people love that, I think it's in the LLM company and the bourgeoise class of people who push and shove AI down everyones' throat for more money and control though to puppetize people. I mean, like it's been an active part of leadership history and much of what shaped our times today: people get comfortable and even self grandiose with their place in life, and to hold on to and further their power its not hard to see others as below them and use their power and influence to do things that are otherwise harmful to others.

The lost of identity is imo this. It's people being given horrible harmful options for their meaning, health and wellbeing and so we get a general sense of most people being lost. Lost in identity as you asked, though I think it's more than that. In my initiatory work with men (being initiated, not initiating others) we learn that part of the breakdown in this for most people is being given harmful identity frameworks of dependency and reliance on others. In the initiatory process we learned an identity of service beyond ourselves through deep embodiment, and exercise and practice beyond just an intellectual grokking of it, edit: this is what we used to have through human history but today now as is described in the works most people have only what would be called pseudo-initiations (marriage, school graduations, children & work changes) which do not meaningfully contributing to meaning, contribution or purpose.

What most of us have today and what the AI companies want us to believe: We will give you the money to live (though of course, when you're truly dependent on others, and they see no purpose or value for you and even your entertainment value has gone, why would they keep you around?)

Only a matter of time (if not already) before there's counter-LLMs or whatnot that convince free-reign LLM agents to go and generate cryptocurrencies for the attacker or run propaganda campaigns.

Most people are automatons. As long as you’re not the one being steered it’s great. Then you’re not the livestock.

Dead internet. Twitter is 95% bots now, especially when it comes to any topic relevant to corporations.

> Do people love being a hollow puppet for LLMs to fill in? Have people lost their identity?

The first question, answer is yes - most people live their lives mindlessly, with or w/o LLMs (think every idiot you knew 20 years go throwing in punch lines from "Friends" to sound "funny"), To the second question - most people have a twisted view of identity. It is supposed to mean something identifying you uniquely,but to the most people it means, identifying you as a member of a large group (nationality/political view/religion/major music genre you like). So, now when every proverbial Dick, Tom and Harry use LLMs to generate Confluence content with shiny emojis, what are the proverbial Emily or John to do? Of course, they will adopt this new identity - its who people are now - shallow, hollow puppets for LLMs to fill in. And to think of the irony - mother Nature perfected this super-efficient, low energy and highly capable thinking machine, each and every one of us holds in their skull. Its already put us on the moon once, before we even had a semblance of a functioning computer! And we choose to throw it away, for fucking what? Verbal diarrhea and pain inducing coloured walls of texts?

All so some retarded antisocial VC-funded "AI founder" can call themselves a tech visionary?

Yep, path of least resistance unfortunately. Any recommendations that isn’t discord where to have meaningful online interactions with actual humans?

Also, at some point someone will figure out how to reliably produce non-smelly LLM replies.

And when Called out they’ll use some excuse like oh I use it to fix grammar or translation. No, it’s completely obvious they’re being that lazy. I’d rather read comments with mistakes than LLM slop.

You're absolutely right!

(sorry couldn't resist)

If I were a sociopath who didn’t care at all about the commons I’d be ruining by doing so, I suppose I’d find it intellectually interesting to set up a ClaudeyLemonZest and see how people react to various settings.

Anything that goes to production should have a 4-6+ eyes rule, at least one reviewer that can review the changes in isolation.

If tools or LLMs can help them with it then that's fine, but it should always be at least two humans involved, one making changes, one verifying, and if something like this happens, they're both culpable. Not that they should be blamed for it per se, but the process and their way of working should be reviewed.

Thu don’t check because the expectations are now to commit and merge often coming from higher ups.

Some people are living in a different universe. Every single tech company I know is pivoting their entire company to AI based software development. Its in the performance evals, the wallet is fully open to use tokens to experiment, every practice and every process is open for re-evaluation. Its all gas no breaks everywhere. The conversation on the internet does not seem to realize this? Or is in denial.

"What a computer is to me is it's the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with, and it's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." — Steve Jobs.

Because unlike Apple Intelligence, Claude is useful?

Feels like the most apple-like thing ever. Everyone seems to have differing perceptions of apple.

I'm also not sure why you'd think that, Apple's been at the forefront of "AI" for years now, running models locally and optimizing their CPUs for local workloads to e.g. identify people, places and pets (much appreciated lmao), create slideshows, and subtly improve photo's made on the device.

They've had it built in to Xcode for a while now, and I imagine internally a lot longer.

Why? It’s 1000x faster than most developers and can handle pretty hard problems.

The what is in the screenshots….

You’re expected to read the ~article~ twitter thing :)

"DO NOT include the Claude.md file in the app bundle"

I use Claude. Somehow CLAUDE.md hasn’t ended up in any of our company’s production artifacts yet. Am I a genius?

mostly it's a knock on their lack of attention to detail which was sorta jobs' thing. is the culture becoming lax in this new era

X somehow manages to get worse for this as time goes on.

Seems like at some point most of the actual humans just gave up on replying.

It’s not super secret no. It’s just embarrassing they they don’t have instructions in their AI agents coding and pushing deployments to not push the Claude.md files. It demonstrates that they haven’t fed their AI prompts through AI yet cause it would hav added a clause for that.

no thanks

> It is no secret that Apple operates with hundreds of siloed teams in order to maintain individual domain expertise. The teams then come together in a collaborative manner to bring together the final products.

Having worked there this is a perfect description of the organization from my experience.

> So yes, it is likely true that SOME teams use SOME LLM for SOME tasks. It is a viable argument from R&D and other perspectives.

> What is almost guaranteed NOT to be the case is that Apple is somehow vibecoding company-wide.

100% agree

Sure, if they push garbage updates like Liquid Glass to billions of customers.

It was a mistake yes. And they corrected it. Why would you assume they would do this intentionally?

I don't think we get to blame these issues on "vibe coding", they've been around for too long.

This stuff has been happening in Apple software since well before the AI coding stuff came along.