I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing. I see meet ups specifically about Claude often.

Modern tupperware party.

A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code.

Couldn’t tell.

It's crazy hearing devs on this site claim Claude is 10x better than all other AI solutions. I think it is fomo. Claude $LATEST_VERSION is perceived as the best and anything else is "missing out". Same reason people buy the 4090 and 5090 cards - overpriced but they must have the "best".

I've been using Google and now DeepSeek v4 and I am having absolutely no problems and it's a fraction of the cost. I'd love for Claude to be 10x better but it just isn't, for my use case anyway.

I think for developers the distinction is that ChatGPT is this commercial all in one solution for normies and Claude is specific for developers, in reality as you say the results for normal developers is indistinguishable.

I can’t tell the difference between code written in vim or vs code but it matters substantially to the person writing the code. There’s stuff beyond just the output that goes into tool choice.

This is like saying you gave a Taylor Swift fan sheet music from 1984 and from Michael Jackson’s thriller and they couldn’t tell the difference.

I have a strong affinity for Claude Code because of the interaction experience and overall tone / vibe / process. I am 100% willing to believe the code it produces is identical or possibly less good than Codex.

I enjoy working with Claude in a way I just don’t get from OpenAI. YMMV, you may feel just the opposite. But it’s a mistake to look at the produced code as the only dimension of these products.

I use both, enough to reach Codex highest personal sub limits and Claude is stronger to me specifically because of how the flow of building feels. So the PR for any random task would be irrelevant to me.

Everyone can be propagandised. It's a matter of pushing the right buttons.

Yes, which means that in the long run this looks ugly.

So much faith and money in this idea, and seeing how fragile it is, does not look good.

Been to an Anthropic event in Paris last summer.

They served caviar. It probably had good ROI.

for me personally it's two reasons:

1) Brockman ($25M) and Altman ($1M) both personally donated to Trump/MAGA.

2) Anthropic pushed back against DOD's demand for unrestricted use of AI to kill people while OpenAI eagerly said "please use ours!".

> Couldn’t tell.

I can tell. It's night and day.

Last year I used a bunch of models to try to generate Rust code. They all sucked.

This February I tried again and used Claude to generate Rust code. I have never been more stunned in my life. It's just as good as I am, and 30x faster. No fluff, the code is verbatim just as I would have written.

I then tried other models. Total disappointment.

I've continued to repeat this experiment. Opus is the only model that can write Rust reasonably.

Codex produces junk to this day. It passes variables that aren't needed, it abuses pointers, it creates overly verbose monstrosities...

I don't want any single company to win. I want OpenAI to be competitive. I want open source models to win. But right now, Claude Code and Opus are it.

Claude has an "End Conversation" tool that it can trigger on it's own, forcing your interaction to a close based on it's own feelings towards the conversation.

I have no idea how this wasn't the end of Anthropic's positive public perception.