No, and that's also not necessary. We are reliant on our systems. The correct response is to harden our systems, not to foster some illusion of independence.

We can of course do that privately, for just the heck of it, but it's not the right response for anything at societal level. We simply need to work harder for more of these 9s

What's wrong with failover? I don't use anything from Anthropic except their API. So when Claude is having issues, I switch to GLM 5.3 or something, doesn't take more than a few seconds.

I realise people on the monthly plans can't do it as easily. But I would say that as far as possible, having a plan B is the foundation of resilience.

You’re not wrong, but some companies swing real hard at the biggest players assuming they won’t all be down at the same time. My work has hard dependencies on 365 and Cloud Entra and only allows Claude company wide. Today is going to be a snow day since we couldn’t get into anything yesterday but we could at least get projects done using connections Claude had into various platforms that cached the data in 365.

One part of hardening our (company, economic) system is not collapsing when our (technological) system isn't working right.

Did scheduled jobs failed loudly or stalled? My sessions just stalled and I did not know the outage until I send the followups.

Reading the site guidelines, so I can be Claude-like and properly adjust my answer:

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

You are also a system. And, if you, as a system, don't run with Claude, you're not sufficiently hardened. People have made all sorts of helpful suggestions, like de-risking with multiple providers or just getting yourself a better Mac to run a local model.

The idea that: "No, no, we must have Claude, b/c it's the same as having a pen and paper!" is woefully naive. It's hard to attack the supply chain of pen and paper if you have a few extra reams and a few extra sticks. It's pretty easy for our geopolitical enemies to attack computers located far away from you, especially those systems are designed like fragile Rube Goldberg machines; furthermore, if we build an entire society (a system) to be productive only when we have LLMs, our issue isn't "insufficient-hardening". It's that the design is wrong.

There is always something that you can do that isn’t gated by the api. It isn’t critical path for literally everything. Go organize your expense reports or something.

Learned helplessness on full display here

>harden our systems, not to foster some illusion of independence.

Let me know when the tech industry workers stop doing this and gains some solidarity, and I'll join you in that sentiment.

Until then, I pretty much need to bolster myself on the idea that one day I will need to switch frameworks, IDE's, and even OS's themselves. I'm the ones guiding the tools, not vice versa.

>We simply need to work harder for more of these 9s

The only 100% thing I will guarantee is that these tools will align to the incentives of their leadership over time, not the customers using it. add 10 9's if you want, that just guarantees that humanity is the weakest link.

>No, and that's also not necessary. We are reliant on our systems. The correct response is to harden our systems, not to foster some illusion of independence.

I'm not sure if this is your intent, but this paragraph reads like satire given current real world events.

The systems you mention in your second sentence are failing at the "right response" you mention in your third, which dictates that contrary to your first sentence alternative action is necessary.

You cannot harden systems you have no control over. Societal level assurances require law and goverment regulation and enforcement. It is juvenile to pretend otherwise. If we were talking about government services, then as a taxpayer you would have some avenue to enact change.

Your only option when dealing with private companies is to try and become anti-fragile as much as possible at a personal level or at the level of your own company.