So you wouldn't, for example, after doing a complete ground-up rewrite, perhaps spend a few months dogfooding it to work out the worst bugs before unleashing it upon the public, thus maximizing your initial velocity by minimizing the blast radius and support requests and triage during this phase?

▲

realo a day ago | parent | next [-]

It's Anthropic. I am pretty sure they spent time dogfooding it to Mythos or an even more advanced model.

That might even be the reason why they switched to rust.

Don't worry too much.

▲

afavour a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> before unleashing it upon the public

…but they have? Claude users are public, no? If they were dogfooding internally I’d agree with you.

▲

kstenerud a day ago | parent [-]

Yeah. One single project that they control. Not thousands of other people's projects breaking, I'm sure with a ton of HN outcry over releasing "this pile of vibe coded slop" upon the poor populace.

You just can't win.

▲

afavour a day ago | parent [-]

> you just can’t win

You could! You could not release a “pile of vibe coded slop” onto people’s machines. There don’t even appear to be any particular advantages to Claude upgrading early. If there are no one has been made aware of it.

▲

ithkuil a day ago | parent | next [-]

The irony. A company building models and tooling to automatically produce code being attacked for using automatically produced code in the very tools that allow people to automatically produce code, presumably by somebody who wants to use their tools to automatically produce code, possibly because they believe that their approach at ensuring that automatically produced code is properly reviewed by a responsible human has to be more thorough than whatever that company does because of course they were going too fast and thus it can't be good

▲

kstenerud a day ago | parent | prev [-]

How do you know it's vibe coded slop? Have you seen the source code?

▲

ethbr1 a day ago | parent [-]

> How do you know it's vibe coded slop? Have you seen the source code?

I believe you've just made your opponent's point for them.

▲

kstenerud a day ago | parent [-]

Have I? I believe I've merely chased them around their moving goalposts. When it's closed source, that's nefarious because "they're not sharing" and that's against the whole spirit of open source. When it's dogfooding with a reduced audience, it's "shoving vibe coded slop on people" (this information gleaned through magical knowledge). When that unfounded assertion is called, lo and behold: It's closed source, so bad bad bad! It's called a logical fallacy for a reason.

But more to your point: Do you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"? Do you believe that they're doing bad things with the bun code, and you can't be convinced otherwise in your judgment of them until they release the code?

	▲	ethbr1 a day ago \| parent [-]
		More to the point, because you've been chasing them around goalposts, you've both accepted that the question at hand is unknowable precisely because the source isn't available. > Do you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"? Do you believe that they're doing bad things with the bun code, and you can't be convinced otherwise in your judgment of them until they release the code? Hell yes, and anyone who trusts one of the AI labs for anything important is insane. Whether it's their initial mass piracy and then lying about it, dealmaking with the US government, or continually shifting opt-out lines on what they are and aren't training on, they haven't earned the trust to skip the "but verify" step. Their economic incentives are too transparently aligned with ends at any costs.