[HN Gopher] Switch to Claude without starting over
___________________________________________________________________
Switch to Claude without starting over
Author : doener
Score : 508 points
Date : 2026-03-01 07:36 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (claude.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (claude.com)
| wps wrote:
| Could someone explain the appeal of account-wide memory to me?
| Anthropic's marketing indicates that nothing bleeds over, but I'm
| just so protective of my context that I cannot imagine having
| even a majorly distilled version of my other chats and
| preferences having on weight on the output. As for certain
| preferences like code styling or response length, these are all
| fit for custom instructions, with more detailed things in Skills.
| Ultimately like many things in LLM web UX, it seems to cater to
| how the masses use these tools.
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| Sure, it's for those customers who don't have any idea what a
| "context window" is.
| wps wrote:
| This seems to imply that customers assume by default that the
| LLM remembers their past chats? I feel like the UI makes it
| incredibly obvious it's a clean slate every time? But then
| again people ask ridiculous meta questions all the time to
| these chatbots expecting a correct answer.
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| Yeah, but then they went and added "memories" and in
| particular automatic memory management, and now it isn't a
| clean slate each time. And that's exactly what this is
| importing: those automatically curated memories that make
| the chat bot "feel like" it knows you.
| gbalduzzi wrote:
| > it seems to cater to how the masses use these tools.
|
| Are you suggesting that they should ignore the needs of the
| vast majority of their users?
|
| I mean, of course they do, it would be worse otherwise
| wps wrote:
| Well, the masses are wrong. See: insane amounts of compute
| wasted on "thank you", "haha true", "redo it", etc. I think
| the UI should be designed to avoid misuse, and I think an
| ever growing distillation of your most common traits is not a
| good use of context length. If you want it, specify it. Maybe
| even hard limits on chat length, why are we 20 replies deep
| in a single chat? A user friendly option could be a single
| button that distills that chat down, and opens a new one with
| prebuilt instructions to continue the conversation. I'm no
| product designer though, just some thoughts.
| jjmarr wrote:
| Most normal people want the LLM to remember their interests and
| favourite things, so they don't have to manually re-explain
| when asking for advice.
|
| They also don't know what "context" is or that the LLM has a
| limited number of tokens it can understand at any given time.
| They just believe it knows everything at once.
| deaux wrote:
| Do you have example prompts where this would be usual? Why
| would you want an LLM to know your favorite type of cheese?
| Now that I say that, I guess if you use it for recipes then
| it's useful if it remembers things like dietary restrictions.
| And even then a project seems like the better option.
|
| I can't think of much else though so I'm still curious what
| you or others use it for.
| tikotus wrote:
| I had the same question a few days ago here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47162828
|
| I didn't receive an answer besides "that's what people
| like", but I still can't think of (m)any situations where
| anyone would prefer it.
| deaux wrote:
| The reply about knowledge about their job and familt made
| me think.
|
| The only thing I can now think of is using it as a
| personal therapist. Or asking how to approach their kids.
| And they're a bit embarrassed about it, because it's
| still outside the Overton window -especially on HN -
| which is why they aren't sharing it.
|
| If someone has different usecases, please do prove me
| wrong! Maybe I just lack imagination.
| randrus wrote:
| I ask gpt a lot of questions about plants and gardening -
| I'm happy that it remembers where I live and understands
| the implications. I _could_ remind it in every question,
| but this is convenient.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Such an incredible amount of personal, intimate knowledge
| to share with a company. Sure, Google can figure out
| where I live and who I visit because I have an Android
| phone, but they'll never know the contents of those
| relationships.
|
| I have a line in the sand with the AI vendors. It's a
| work relationship. If I wouldn't share it with a
| colleague I didn't know super well, I'm not telling it to
| a AI vendor.
| lkbm wrote:
| I recently asked about baby-led weaning. If my baby were
| 2 months old, it would have been smart to mention "not
| yet!" but it knows she's 8 months old and was able to
| give contextual advice.
| IanCal wrote:
| Can projects overlap? If not there's general context
| information that's often useful.
|
| My job, my kids and time preferences around those things,
| my preferred tech setup and way of working and types of
| tech I'm better at. Things I already have (home assistant,
| little nuc, etc). I can throw a random question and not
| have to add this kind of information or manage it.
| deaux wrote:
| I get that those are the things that go into memory. What
| I don't get is what kind of prompt your job and kids are
| useful information for. Especially on the regular.
| IanCal wrote:
| Let's see, recently:
|
| Home automation fixing
|
| Proposed integrations with some services locally
|
| Science experiments explained at a few levels, finding
| good background info and where to read up about some
| safety information
|
| Maths help for specific areas my kids are looking at and
| proposed games for that
|
| Evaluation of coding options for my kids
|
| How to link up some ideas on coding, electronics and
| using the home automation side as some fun outputs
|
| LED strip info and work, again integrating with smart
| homes and what's good around the kids
|
| Framework evaluations for automation at work and home
|
| Crystal identification
|
| Looking up local council info
|
| Relevant music suggestions for kids to play on the piano
|
| Here some things cross over. I'm happy writing code, I
| typically want easy open source options, I have languages
| and tech I prefer, I'm moving g things to matter, I have
| home assistant, my son is excellent at maths given his
| age but I'm working more on comprehension of problems,
| and a lot more. All those are things that with a bit of
| background info change the types of answers I get and
| make it more useful.
| vishnugupta wrote:
| I use it for my work. So i went it to remember everything
| about my business, website, the domain, which country we
| operate and on and on. It's a ton of context which I don't
| want to repeat each time.
| Kye wrote:
| That's what projects are for. All the major chatbot
| companies have some equivalent and all support a standard
| instruction where you can include anything you need
| automatically.
| Mashimo wrote:
| I asked chatgpt a car related question in a fresh chat, and
| it answered it specifically with my car in mind.
|
| Turns out a few month befor I told it in a prompt what car
| I was driving.
|
| I turned memory of that day.
| peteforde wrote:
| ChatGPT knows what's in my bar and what types of base
| liquors I love and/or can't drink. It knows what fruit,
| syrups and mixes are in my fridge. It knows that my friend
| is allergic to mint. It knows that when I ask for
| recommendations, I tend to want a choice between spirit
| forward, tiki, martini and herbaceous.
|
| ChatGPT knows the broad strokes of the 3-4 main hardware
| projects I have on the go, and depending on the questions
| I'm asking, it will often structure its responses in a way
| that differentiates based on which one I'm thinking about.
|
| It knows what resistor and capacitor values I have on my
| pick and place machine, and when I ask for divider ratios
| it will do its best to calculate based on those values to
| the degree that it will chain 1-2 resistors together to
| achieve those ratios.
|
| I knows what kind of solder I use, and has warned me about
| components with sensitive reflow temperature concerns.
|
| It's an extraordinarily useful feature for engineering and
| drinking, two things that are commonly found in the same
| Venn diagram.
| deaux wrote:
| Thank you! That helped me understand. Hobbies that you
| regularly do, and an LLM is continuously helpful for,
| benefiting from memory.
|
| Personally, I would still be wary of the black box aspect
| -not knowing what it does remember and what it doesn't -
| so I would probably still use projects to make it more
| deterministic. But that's probably being overcautious and
| unnecessary in most common cases.
| lkbm wrote:
| > It knows what resistor and capacitor values I have on
| my pick and place machine, and when I ask for divider
| ratios it will do its best to calculate based on those
| values to the degree that it will chain 1-2 resistors
| together to achieve those ratios.
|
| Also relevant: it knows that you know what a resistor and
| capacitor is, and is able to tune responses to your level
| of knowledge. (It's not _great_ at this, in my
| experience, since domain knowledge is still so jagged,
| but I think it 's better than nothing.)
| Peaches4Rent wrote:
| It it just me who's getting freaked out by this?
|
| I know it's a boiling frog situation, but seeing it spelt
| out feels so icky vs how google ads feel.
|
| I really want my personality data deleted from big
| tech...
|
| Sigh
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Sure.
|
| ChatGPT "knows" (has context that includes) some of the
| things I'm good at, and some of the things I'm not good at.
| I have my own tolerances for communication and it has
| context about that, too.
|
| I use the bot for mostly techy things. So, for instance,
| I'm alright with using tools, and building electronics, and
| punting around on a Linux box so I don't need my hand held
| for that. But I'm terrible at writing code, so baby steps
| and detailed explanation there helps me a lot. I strongly
| prefer pragmatism and verifiable facts. I despise sycophant
| speech, the empty positivity of corpo-speak, assumptions,
| false praise, superfluous verbosity, and apologies and/or
| the implication of feelings from bots.
|
| Through a combination of some deliberate training (custom
| instructions, memory), and just using it (shared context),
| it mostly does what I want in the way that I want it done
| -- the first time.
|
| I don't have to steer in the right direction with every new
| session. There was a time when that was necessary, but it
| is no longer that way. Adjustments happen increasingly
| automatically these days.
|
| That saves me time and frustration, and enhances the
| utility of the bot.
|
| Meanwhile: Others have their own skills and preferences
| that may be very different in comparison to my own. That's
| OK. We each get to have our own experience.
| damontal wrote:
| I broke my ankle and have multiple chats related to
| medicine, physical therapy, pain management, lawyer
| questions, how to handle messaging to boss and HR
| foogazi wrote:
| I will say graciously that seeing this question asked here
| is absolutely stunning to me
|
| If I ask a question about vehicles it know what cars I have
| and what I like in cars
|
| If I ask for a question about vacation spots it know my
| parties composition or preferences
|
| Things like that
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| In online Claude I often use incognito mode precisely because I
| don't want results to be influenced by what we talked about
| earlier. It's getting rather annoying to be honest.
| qwertox wrote:
| Keep your user prefs minimal and use project memory instead:
| create a new project, it will only have access to your user
| prefs, everything else is fresh.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| exactly!
| hbarka wrote:
| I did /init and now CLAUDE.md is on several layers. I wish
| there was a reverse init and minimum as needed init.
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| I'll have to try projects I guess, but I just want to
| sometimes ask questions without it bringing up shit I asked
| about in the past which isn't relevant to what I'm asking
| this time.
| Mashimo wrote:
| Why not turn it off then?
| visarga wrote:
| I'm switching from Claude Web to Claude Code. Local files
| give me memory I actually control, unlike Anthropic's
| implementation. CC doesn't carry state between sessions --
| you just put whatever project context it needs in a file.
| pfix wrote:
| I can try!
|
| I currently use ChatGPT for random insights and discussions
| about a variety of topics. The memory is basically a grown
| context about me and my preferences and interests and ChatGPT
| uses it to tailor responses to my knowledge, so I could relate
| better.
|
| This is for me far more natural and easier than either craft a
| default prompt preset or create each conversation individually,
| that would be way too much overhead to discuss random shower
| thoughts between real life stuff.
|
| This is my use case and I discovered that this can be
| detrimental to specific questions and prompts and I see that it
| can be more beneficial to have careful written prompts each
| time. But my use case is really ad hoc usage without the time.
| At least for ChatGPT.
|
| When coding, this fails fast. There regular context resets seem
| to be a more viable strategy.
| wps wrote:
| I see what you mean, but I like having a clean slate even for
| those one off questions. I don't want a differing answer to a
| philosophical inquiry just because the LLM remembers a prior
| position I've written about you know?
| e1g wrote:
| FWIW, both OpenAI and Anthropic have a toggle to do a
| "Temporary/Incognito Chat" that does not use or update
| memory. I too wish this was the default, and then you could
| opt in at the end of the chat to save some long term
| aspects into memory.
| pfix wrote:
| That would be interesting, also at the start. As an
| option what to pull in. ChatGPT memory "improved" and now
| you normally don't even see anymore what it commits to
| memory!
| Retr0id wrote:
| I have all the history settings off for this reason, but
| something that worries me is that there's a fair bit of
| information about me trained right into the model weights.
| I'm not "famous" by any stretch but claude has awareness of
| some of my HN-front-page-hitting projects, etc., which I
| think should be enough to bias responses (although I
| haven't tried to measure it).
|
| I set my name to "User" in the settings, so in a clean-
| slate chat it has nothing to go on, but the moment claude
| code does something like `git log` it knows who I am again.
| I've even considered writing some kind of redaction proxy.
| jtokoph wrote:
| I've told the LLMs that, when traveling, I don't care about
| nightlife and alcohol. Because they have a memory of this, when
| I ask for a sample itinerary for a 2 day stay in a new city, it
| won't waste hours in the day on the party street, wine tasting,
| etc.
|
| For example, instead of recommending a popular night club, it
| will recommend the stroll along the river to view the lit up
| skyline or to visit the night market instead.
|
| It knows other preferences as well (exploring quirky
| neighborhoods, trying local fast food joints and markets)
| cyrusmg wrote:
| So it's because they want to be more like ChatGPT instead of
| being more Claude Code. I guess that makes sense - bigger
| market
| echelon wrote:
| Is it?
|
| Isn't there much more money in automating business
| processes than in answering consumer questions (sans ads)?
|
| Automating software development has to be a multi-trillion
| dollar market. And that doesn't account for future growth.
| bluGill wrote:
| maybe. Software is big, but it is only a tiny percentage
| of the ecconomy. they need to help a lot more than
| software to justify their datacenter investments. even if
| we add all engineering that isn't a large percentage. How
| can they help insurance agents (or eliminate - I don't
| care either way), plumbers, zoo keepers, and every other
| job in my city? Some might be they can't - but if they
| can is a question worth asking.
| 7734128 wrote:
| The few times I've switched over to chatGPT I've been
| dumbfounded by lines like "...since you already are using
| SQLite...", referring to projects from months ago.
|
| I know the "memory" function can be disabled, but I have a hard
| time seeing that it would ever really be useful.
| cedws wrote:
| Yeah for me it only ever polluted the context. Irrelevant
| information tends to oversteer the LLM and produce worse
| output.
| astrange wrote:
| Gemini is terrible with personalization. It brings up
| everything in my bio nonstop no matter what the topic is.
| __alexander wrote:
| The appeal for me is not having to constantly repeat
| instructions. Imagine having to repeat dietary restrictions
| every time you ask for a recipe.
| bmurphy1976 wrote:
| "Stop asking me to apply the plan. I will tell you when I'm
| ready."
|
| That alone drives me batty. I can easily spend a couple hours
| and multiple revisions iterating on a plan. Asking me me every
| single time if I want to apply it is obnoxious.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| Because I can say "do what you did before, but about the romans
| this time"
|
| And it will give me a complete rundown of Roman life, because
| it knows what I was interested in before.
|
| Or you can ask a tax question and it will know you're an
| organic rice farmer or whatever. Claude has the best
| implementation because it has both memory, and previous chat
| searching. So it will actually read through relevant chats,
| rather than guessing based on memories.
| joenot443 wrote:
| I own a lot of dirt bikes, boats, snowmobiles, mowers, and
| blowers. It's much easier for me to ask about "My Polaris" than
| it is to ask about my "2011 Polaris Switchback Assault".
|
| Similarly, it remembers the dimensions of my truck, so
| towing/loading questions don't need extra clarification.
|
| It's the small things.
| gverrilla wrote:
| It all depends on your usecase(s). For me, "account-wide"
| memory has only: (a) short description of my
| hardware/os/display system/etc; (b) mobile hardware and os
| version; and (c) my age, gender, city/country of residence, and
| health conditions.
| bouzouk wrote:
| On the contrary, I cannot understand how people are seriously
| using LLM outside of software engineering without account-wide
| memory. When I ask things like "what do you think John should
| do next on project A?", I don't want to have to explain in
| detail who is John, what is project A and what John was working
| on before.
| Panoramix wrote:
| Think of things like your preferred units (meters, kg, cups,
| tablespoons, milliliters). Or, do not suggest recipes with x
| ingredient. Language preferences. Etc etc etc.
| siva7 wrote:
| So Openai will have this same feature by tomorrow likely. A
| feature to pollute your context window.
| Barbing wrote:
| I would've said they'd nerf the prompt:
|
| >I'm moving to another service and need to export my data. List
| every memory you have stored about me, as well as any context
| you've learned about me from past conversations. Output
| everything in a single code block so I can easily copy it.
| Format each entry as: [date saved, if available] - memory
| content. Make sure to cover all of the following -- preserve my
| words verbatim where possible: Instructions I've given you
| about how to respond (tone, format, style, 'always do X',
| 'never do Y'). Personal details: name, location, job, family,
| interests. Projects, goals, and recurring topics. Tools,
| languages, and frameworks I use. Preferences and corrections
| I've made to your behavior. Any other stored context not
| covered above. Do not summarize, group, or omit any entries.
| After the code block, confirm whether that is the complete set
| or if any remain.
| pfisherman wrote:
| Would this actually return memories and context? How could
| you know if parts or all of it were hallucinated?
| jacquesm wrote:
| You don't know that for sure for any output of these
| models.
| brikym wrote:
| Hey Anthropic, how about you use AGENTS.md for one thing.
| deaux wrote:
| Now that would make it easier for Codex users to switch indeed!
| This seems like the best timing for it they're ever gonna get,
| and worth the ultra tiny loss of marketing value their
| "CLAUDE.md" naming provides.
|
| For the Anthropic employees here reading along, pitch it to
| whoever has kept blocking this, because you need to get the
| most out of this opportunity here.
| 2001zhaozhao wrote:
| Just make a symlink of CLAUDE.md -> AGENTS.md
|
| I have seen quite a few open source projects do this. It works
| quite well.
|
| Another alternative is to create CLAUDE.md with the exact
| contents: "@AGENTS.md"
| deaux wrote:
| Big projects should have a lot of nested AGENTS.md files,
| it's inconvenient and they simply need to add support for the
| universal standard as everyone else has done rather than
| being a weird holdout like IE6.
| brikym wrote:
| We all know it's easy... so why don't Anthropic do it. Seems
| rather petty insisting their users put advertising in their
| repo or someone else's repo.
| silverwind wrote:
| +1, https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/6235 is
| probably the most upvoted github issue that i've seen.
| Sammi wrote:
| Before this week I was sure Anthropic were actually just as
| soulless as OpenAi, just because they don't support open
| standards like AGENTS.md and /.agents/skills. They can so
| easily win the support of the open source crowd if they just
| support open standards like these.
|
| The /.agents/skills issue for claude code is here:
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/16345
|
| Their automatic close bot will close it soon as it's been three
| weeks since the last comment.
| cma wrote:
| Why not just symlink
| Sammi wrote:
| Why not just use a lightning to usb-c adapter? Because
| proprietary interfaces are for building monopolies and
| standards are for breaking them.
| Handy-Man wrote:
| Why would they? They were first with CLAUDE.md. Others could
| have adopted to that if they wanted. Don't see a reason for
| Claude to change their approach.
| kelnos wrote:
| Being a good citizen of the commons means not hard-coding
| things specific about your product as a standard. ChatGPT or
| Gemini using a file called "CLAUDE" doesn't make sense. The
| first mover doesn't just automatically win.
| tomComb wrote:
| I felt that way too, until I noticed how different their
| schemes are for discovering these files, e.g. Claude will pick
| up context files in parent folders, and Codex doesn't.
|
| Maybe it's better that they maintain different names to prevent
| people from assuming that they work the same
| knallfrosch wrote:
| I'd be happy if I was able to use Claude Code _at all_
|
| VSCode extension, "Please log in"
|
| I authorize it, it creates an API key, callback. "Hello Claude,
| this is a test." "Please log in."
|
| So yeah... priorities?
| pfisherman wrote:
| Why not use Claude Code from the cli and follow along in your
| IDE? I did not quite believe when people were telling me or
| understand what I was missing until I tried it, but after
| trying that set up I am convinced that it is superior. I don't
| have any hard data to back it up, but it feels much more
| capable that way.
| Mashimo wrote:
| AFAIK the claude vs code plugin uses claude code under the
| hood.
|
| I recent switched from vs code copilot to open code and I
| kinda miss it. Just selecting text and directly asking the
| chat. Or seeing the generated code in the ide to accept it
| reject it. It's neat.
| Joeri wrote:
| I already switched to claude a while ago. Didn't bring along any
| context, just switched subscriptions, walked away from chatgpt
| and haven't touched it again. Turned out to be a non-event, there
| really is no moat.
|
| I switched not because I thought Claude was better at doing the
| things I want. I switched because I have come to believe OpenAI
| are a bad actor and I do not want to support them in any way. I'm
| pretty sure they would allow AGI to be used for truly evil
| purposes, and the events of this week have only convinced me
| further.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| > there really is no moat.
|
| For ChatGPT and Gemini, yes.
|
| But for Claude, they have a very deep & big one: Its the only
| model that gets production ready output on the first detailled
| prompt. Yesterday I used my tokens til noon, so I tried some
| output from Gemini & Co. I presented a working piece of code
| which is already in production:
|
| 1. It changed without noticing things like
| "Touple.First.Date.Created" and "Touple.Second.Date.Created"
| and it rendered the code unworking by chaning to
| "Touple.FirstDate" and "Touple.SecondDate"
|
| 2. There was a const list of 12 definitions for a given
| context, when telling to rewrite the function it just cut 6 of
| these 12 definitions, making the code not compiling - I asked
| why they were cut: "Sorry, I was just too lazy typing" ?? LOL
|
| 3. There is a list include holding some items "_allGlobalItems"
| - it changed the name in the function simply to "_items", code
| didnt compile
|
| As said, a working version of a similar function was given
| upfront.
|
| With Claude, I never have such issues.
| ben_w wrote:
| That's been my experience too. I'm using the recent free
| trial of OpenAI Plus to vibe code, and from this I would say
| that if Claude Code is a junior with 1-3 years of experience,
| OpenAI's Codex is like a student coder.
| Oreb wrote:
| Does it depend on what type of programming you do? Doing
| Swift/SwiftUI work, I have exactly the opposite experience.
| I've been using both recently, and I _want_ to use Claude
| alone (especially after the last week's events), but Codex
| is just so much faster and better.
| ben_w wrote:
| Swift/SwiftUI are two of the three experimental projects
| I'm using Codex on, the other is a physics simulation in
| python.
|
| It keeps trying to re-invent the wheel, does a bad job of
| it.
|
| The physics sim was supposed to be a thin wrapper around
| existing libraries, but instead of that it tried to write
| all the simulation code itself as a "fallback" (but it
| was broken), and never actually installed the real
| simulators that already did this stuff despite being told
| to use them in the first place. The last few dozen(!)
| prompts from me have been pairs of ~["Find all cases
| where you've re-invented the wheel, add them to the
| planning document", "now do them"]. And it's still not
| finished removing the original nonsense, so far as I can
| tell.
|
| One of the two Swift experiments is just a dice roller,
| it took about 10 rounds of non-compiling metal shaders (I
| don't know metal, which is why I didn't give up and do
| that by hand after 4) before I managed to get that to
| work, and when it did work it immediately broke it again
| on the next four rounds. It wrote its own chart instead
| of using Swift Charts, and did it badly. It tried to put
| all the hamburger menu options into a UIAlertController.
| Something blocks the UI for several seconds when you
| change the dice font. I didn't count how many attempts it
| took to correctly label the D4.
|
| The other Swift experiment was a musical instrument app,
| that got me to the prototype stage, eventually, but in a
| way that still felt like a student's project rather than
| a junior's project.
| ben_w wrote:
| (Just outside edit window, I now realise I was ambiguous
| in this comment, it was more like "Find all cases where
| you've re-invented the wheel, add their removal to the
| planning document")
| skeledrew wrote:
| > Find all cases where you've re-invented the wheel
|
| Did you put in the original prompt the "wheels" you
| wanted it to use? It's a toss-up when you aren't _very_
| specific about what you want.
| ben_w wrote:
| For the swift apps, at least half of the errors are of a
| type where I wouldn't expect to have _needed_ to tell
| someone to not do it like that, and only a student could
| reasonably be expected to not know better.
|
| For the python physics sim, step 1 was to generate the
| plan, the prompt included "I want actual plasma physics,
| including high-density, high-field regimes, externally
| applied fields, etc., so consider which FOSS libraries
| would suit this.", and then it proceeded itself to choose
| some existing libraries, and I made sure those specific
| named FOSS libraries actually ended up in the plan.
|
| My first clue this wasn't going to work was that even
| from step 1 it was pushing for writing all the simulation
| code and not actually using e.g. WarpX despite that it
| itself had suggested WarpX. In fact, even when WarpX was
| in the plan, it was "integrate" rather than "just use
| this from the get-go".
|
| I may well throw the whole thing out and try again with
| Claude when this trial expires. Most of the runs have
| been comically non-physical, to the extent you don't even
| need a physics degree to notice, or even a physics GCSE.
| boxedemp wrote:
| I find it very much matters. I find Gemini better for
| pretty frontends, Claude opus for planning. Gemini and
| opus for code reviews. Codex is great when I want the LLM
| do follow instructions more strictly- good if you already
| have a detailed design.
|
| Definitely depends on your use.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > But for Claude, they have a very deep & big one: Its the
| only model that gets production ready output on the first
| detailled promp
|
| That's not a moat though. Claude itself wasn't there 6 months
| ago and there's no reason to think Chinese open models won't
| be at this level in a year at most.
|
| To keep its current position Claude has to keep improving at
| the same pace as the competitor.
| ptnpzwqd wrote:
| I have used Claude (incl. Opus 4.6) fairly extensively, and
| Claude still spits out quality that is far below what I would
| call production ready - both littered with smaller issues,
| but also the occasional larger blunder. Particularly when
| doing anything non-trivial, and even when guiding it in
| detail (although that admittedly reduces the amount of larger
| structural issues).
|
| Maybe it is tech stack dependent (I have mostly used it with
| C#/.NET), but I have heard people say the same for C#. The
| only conclusion I have been able to draw from this, is that
| people have very different definitions of production ready,
| but I would really like to see some concrete evidence where
| Claude one-shots a larger/complex C# feature or the like
| (with or without detailed guidance).
| je42 wrote:
| Interesting - what kind of structural issues have you
| encountered?
|
| Is these more related to the existing source code or is
| this a bad pattern thar you would never do regardless of
| the existing code?
| peteforde wrote:
| I see this over and over again. I don't dispute your
| experience. My experience with ESP32 development has been
| unreasonably positive. My codebase is sitting around 600k
| LoC and is the product of several hundred Opus 4.x Plan ->
| Agent -> Debug loops. I review everything that goes
| through, but I'm reviewing the business logic and domain
| gotchas, not dumb crap like what you and so many others
| describe.
|
| What is so strange to me is that surely there is more C#
| out there than ESP-IDF code? I don't have a good
| explanation beyond saying that my codebase is extensively
| tested and used; I would know _very_ quickly if it suddenly
| started shitting the bed in the way you explain.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| The more code is out there, the worse is the average in
| the training dataset. There will be legacy approaches and
| APIs, poor design choices, popular use cases irrelevant
| for your context etc that increase the chances of output
| not matching your expectations. In Java world this is
| exactly how it works. I need 3-5 iterations with Claude
| to get things done the way I expect, sometimes jumping
| straight to manual refactoring and then returning the
| result to Claude for review and learning. My CLAUDE.md
| (multiple of them) are growing big with all patterns and
| anti-patterns identified this way. To overcome this
| problem model needs specialized training, that I don't
| think the industry knows how to approach (it has to beat
| the effort put in the education system for humans).
| re-thc wrote:
| > To overcome this problem model needs specialized
| training, that I don't think the industry knows how to
| approach
|
| We already have coding tuned models i.e. Codex. We should
| just have language / technology specific models with a
| focus on recent / modern usage.
|
| Problem with something like Java is too old -- too many
| variants. Make a cut off like at least above Java 8 or
| 17.
| mjdiloreto wrote:
| I also believe this must be true. Try asking Claude to
| program in Forth, I find the results to be unreasonably
| good. That's probably because most of the available Forth
| to train on is high quality.
| xienze wrote:
| > My experience with ESP32 development has been
| unreasonably positive. My codebase is sitting around 600k
| LoC and is the product of several hundred Opus 4.x Plan
| -> Agent -> Debug loops.
|
| I feel like this is an example of people having different
| standards of what "good" code is and hence the differing
| opinions of how good these tools are. I'm not an embedded
| developer but 600K LOC seems like a lot in that context,
| doesn't it? Again I could be way off base here but that
| sounds like there must be a lot of spaghetti and copy-
| paste all over the codebase for it to end up that large.
| surajrmal wrote:
| I don't think it's that large. Keep in mind embedded
| projects take few if any dependencies. The standard
| library in most languages is far bigger than 600k loc.
| whaleidk wrote:
| I work with ESP32 devices and 600k lines of code is
| insane.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| I'm curious: What does this device do?
| whaleidk wrote:
| 600k lines of code for anything on the ESP32 sounds like
| the absolute polar opposite of "good"
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| > C#/.NET
|
| same here :)
|
| > one-shots a larger/complex C# feature
|
| I can show you a timeseries data-renderer which was created
| with 1 initial very large prompt and then 3 following
| "change this and that" prompts. The file is around 5000
| lines and everything works fine & exactly as specified.
| ptnpzwqd wrote:
| Feel free to share it, would be very curious - ideally
| alongside the prompts.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| Do you have an email address?
| ptnpzwqd wrote:
| You can use this: hnthrowaway.outboard407@passmail.net
| allajfjwbwkwja wrote:
| > The file is around 5000 lines
|
| Yep, this is another case of different standards for
| "production ready."
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| Caught, good one! :-))
|
| ++1
| skeledrew wrote:
| I don't get it though. Why do you expect perfect responses?
| Humans continually make mistakes, and AI is trained on
| human data. Yet there seems to be this higher bar of
| expectation for the latter. Somehow people expect this
| thing that's been around for a few weeks/months, and cannot
| learn anything more beyond its training cutoff date, to
| always do a better job than a human who's been around for
| 20+ years and is able to learn on their own until death.
| ptnpzwqd wrote:
| I don't expect that - am merely responding to the parent
| comments claim that Claude consistently one-shots
| production ready code (which does not at all match my
| observations).
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > Its the only model that gets production ready output on the
| first detailled prompt. Yesterday I used my tokens til noon,
| so I tried some output from Gemini & Co. I presented a
| working piece of code which is already in production:
|
| One does often hear that where LLMs shine is with greenfield
| code generation but they all start to struggle working with
| pre-existing code. It could be that this wasn't a like for
| like comparison.
|
| That said I do personally feel Claude to produce far better
| results than competitors.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > One does often hear that where LLMs shine is with
| greenfield code generation but they all start to struggle
| working with pre-existing code.
|
| Don't we all?
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Nope.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Whether we do or not it's besides the point. The
| comparison was between Claude, which produced competent
| greenfield code, and Gemini which struggled with
| brownfield. The comparison is stacked in Claude's favour.
| astrange wrote:
| I'm better at pre-existing code, if only because empty
| text files give me writers block.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Greenfield implementation is not flawless as well.
| ajshahH wrote:
| The only sources of these "it works flawlessly" I know of
| are:
|
| - literal Claude ads I see online
|
| - my underperforming coworkers whose code I've had to
| cleanup and know first hand that no, it wasn't flawless
|
| This kind of sentiment is gaslighting CTOs everywhere
| though. Very annoying.
| piva00 wrote:
| > One does often hear that where LLMs shine is with
| greenfield code generation but they all start to struggle
| working with pre-existing code. It could be that this
| wasn't a like for like comparison.
|
| In my experience working in a large codebase with a good
| set of standards that's not the case, I can supply examples
| already existing in the codebase for Claude to use as a
| guidance and it generates quite decent code.
|
| I think it's because there's already a lot of decent code
| for it to slurp and derive from, good quality tests at the
| functional level (so regressions are caught quickly).
|
| I do understand though that on codebases with a hodge podge
| of styles, varying quality of tests, etc. it probably
| doesn't work as well as in my experience but I'm quite
| impressed about how I can do the thinking, add relevant
| sections of the code to the context (including protocols,
| APIs, etc.), describe what I need to be done, and get a
| plan back that most times is correct or very close to
| correct, which I can then iterate over to fix gaps/mistakes
| it made, and get it implemented.
|
| Of course, there are still tasks it fails and I don't like
| doing multiple iterations to correct course, for those I do
| them manually with the odd usage here and there to refactor
| bits and pieces.
|
| Overall I believe if your codebase was already healthy you
| can have LLMs work quite well with pre-existing code.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| > Its the only model that gets production ready output on the
| first detailled prompt.
|
| That's, just, like, your opinion, man.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| ...and of a lot of colleagues in and out of my sector :)
| rustyhancock wrote:
| I know this is necessarily a very unpopular opinion however.
|
| I think HN in particular as a crowd are very vulnerable to the
| halo effect and group think when it comes to Anthropic.
|
| Even being generous they are only very minimally a "better
| actor" than OpenAI.
|
| However, we are so enthralled by their product that we tend to
| let the view bleed over to their ethics.
|
| Saying we want out tools used in line with the US constitution
| within the US on one particular point. Is hardly a high moral
| bar, it's self preservation.
|
| All Anthropic have said is:
|
| 1. No mass domestic surveillance of Americans.
|
| 2. No fully autonomous lethal weapons yet.
|
| My goodness that's what passes for a high moral standard?
| Really anything that doesn't hit those very carefully worded
| points is not "evil"?
| earthnail wrote:
| Well, they did stand up to the US administration and lost a
| lot of money in the process. That takes courage. They clearly
| were being bullied into compliance, and they stood their
| ground.
|
| You can see the significance of this is you look at German
| Nazi history. If more companies had stood up to the
| administration, the Nazi state would have been significantly
| harder to build.
|
| In my opinion, what Anthropic did is not a small thing at
| all.
| rustyhancock wrote:
| The comment I replied to said that they believed OpenAI
| would allow "AGI to be used for truly evil purposes".
|
| By contrast Anthropic wouldn't? Yet Anthropics stance is
| only two narrow restrictions. As I said are those two
| things the only evil things possible?
|
| If not, why is it that people on HN think Anthropic would
| not allow evil usage?
|
| My hypothesis is a halo effect. We are so enthralled by
| Claudes performance that some struggle to rationally assess
| what Anthropic has actually done.
|
| Yes it's no small thing to say no to the Trump
| administration but that does not mean they haven't said Yes
| to otherwise facilitated other evils.
|
| In fact to me the statements from Anthropic seem to make
| clear they are okay with many evils.
| thunky wrote:
| > Yet Anthropics stance is only two narrow restrictions.
|
| Really I think Anthropic should have a single
| restriction: to not assist with illegal or
| unconstitutional activities. If automated killings etc is
| illegal then it would be covered by that one rule.
|
| I don't think Anthropic should be in the business of
| deciding what is "evil".
| toss1 wrote:
| If each of us individually or as corporations should not
| be in the business of deciding what it "evil", who should
| be in that business?
|
| Everyone _SHOULD_ continuously consider, decide, and live
| by moral judgements and codes they internalize, and use
| to make choices in life.
|
| This aspect of life should _NEVER_ be outsourced -- of
| course, learn from and use codes others have developed
| and lived by -- but _ALWAYS_ consider deeply how it works
| in your situation and life.
|
| (And no, I do _NOT_ mean use situational ethics, I mean
| each considering, choosing, and internalizing the codes
| by which they live).
|
| So, yes, Anthropic and anyone else building products
| absolutely should be deciding for themselves what they
| will build, for what purposes it is fit to use, and
| telling others about those purposes. For products like
| AI, this absolutely includes deciding what is "evil" and
| preventing such uses.
|
| If the customer finds such restrictions are not what they
| want, they _ARE FREE_ to not use the product.
| thunky wrote:
| > If each of us individually or as corporations should
| not be in the business of deciding what it "evil", who
| should be in that business?
|
| This is easy imo. Two methods:
|
| 1. The law. It should not be legal for the US Govt to
| murder people at will. If it is legal, then of course
| they'll use tools to make it easier. Maybe AI, maybe
| Clippy. If they can't use AI then they'll fall back to
| using some other way of doing it like they've already
| been doing for several years.
|
| 2. Voting. For representatives that actually represent us
| and have our interest in mind rather than their own
| corrupt interests. And voting with our wallet against
| companies that do legal but morally bankrupt things.
|
| Of course we're failing both of these hard right now. But
| imo the answer is not to give up and let corporations
| make the rules.
|
| In other words, if it were legal for a normal citizen to
| murder anyone they wanted, of course they'll use Google
| Maps to help them do that. We don't put restrictions on
| how people can use Google Maps. Instead we've made murder
| illegal. We should be doing the same thing here.
| JauntyHatAngle wrote:
| Lets generalise a bit more here - every company at any time
| could completely heel-turn and do awful things. Even my
| favourite private companies (e.g. Valve) have done things
| that I would consider evil.
|
| However, I would think I'm not alone in that I'm generally
| wanting to do good while also wanting convenience, I know
| that really every bit of consumption I do is probably
| negative in some ways, and there is no real "apolitical"
| action anyone can take.
|
| But can't I at least get annoyed and take my money somewhere
| else for the short amount of time another company is doing it
| better?
|
| Yes, if openAI suddenly leaps forwards with codex and pounds
| anthropic into the dust, I'll likely switch back despite my
| moral grievances, but in a situation where I can get mildly
| motivated to jump over for something that - to me - seems
| like a better morality without much punishment to me, I'll do
| it.
| bluGill wrote:
| There are no universial morals. Anything - everything you
| think is evil some culture (possibly in history) thinks is
| good). I can't even think of something good that I'm
| confident everyone would agree is good.
|
| there are some people (companies are run by people) that
| are so bad I boycott them. Most bad I treat like society
| cannot work without accepting them anyway.
| codechicago277 wrote:
| There's no possibility or need for morality to be
| universal, and societies have improved their ethics many
| times throughout history. Your take is nihilistic and
| presupposes that moral progress isn't possible, even
| though we've seen objective moral progress many times.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's not high. But it is higher.
| rustyhancock wrote:
| We'll take anything we can right now. I agree.
|
| Although we shouldn't let that mean we misjudge what we are
| actually getting.
| jacquesm wrote:
| As a rule when there are large companies and/or
| billionaires involved you are in for trouble.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Let's not forget they also lobby to forbid models from China
| and pretend that distillation is stealing. but somehow just
| because they said no to two points the majority of HN folks
| think them as virtuous.
| Gooblebrai wrote:
| Claude still doesn't have image generation?
| nkmnz wrote:
| Interesting. Have been using Gemini, Gpt and Claude
| extensively in parallel and never noticed that.
| Sammi wrote:
| Image generation isn't what most devs spend most of their
| time on?
| wongarsu wrote:
| It is semi-competent at making SVGs. Which are the only kind
| of images I really need in dev work.
|
| For marketing or personal stuff I do sometimes want images,
| but I don't really mind going somewhere else for that
| toss1 wrote:
| I'm switching over to Claude from OpenAI, and I don't care.
| OpenAI's image generation is terrible anyway. Just try to get
| it to generate something to scale, like a cabinet for a
| specific kitchen or bathroom space. Give it all the explicit
| constraints, initial sketches, etc. it wants.
|
| The results are laughably bad.
|
| Sure, it does get some of the tones and features, but any
| kind of actual real-world constraint is so far off, and the
| dimension indicators it includes are hilarious if they
| weren't so bad.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure they would allow AGI to be used for truly
| evil purposes
|
| It's perfectly possible that 'truly evil purposes' were the
| goal all along. Slogans and ethics departments are mere speed
| bumps on the way to generational wealth.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| I wrote off ChatGPT/OpenAI because of Sam Altman and those
| eyeball scan things - so sort of even before all this was a
| rage and centre stage. Sometimes it's just the gut feeling, and
| while it may not always be accurate, if something doesn't
| "feel" right, maybe it is not right. No one else is all good
| either, but what I mean to say is there are some
| entities/people who repeatedly don't feel right, have things
| attached to them that never felt right, etc., and you get a
| combined "gut feeling". At least that's how it was for me.
| kdheiwns wrote:
| Yesterday was my first time trying it. One thing that felt a
| bit strange to me was that I asked it something and the
| response was just one paragraph. Which isn't bad or anything
| but it felt... strange? Like I always need to preface
| ChatGPT/gemini/whatever question with "Briefly, what is..." or
| it gives me enough fluff to fill a 5 page high school essay.
| But I didn't need to do that and just got an answer that was to
| the point and without loads of shit that's barely related.
|
| And the weirdest thing that I noticed: instead of skimming the
| response to try finding what was relevant, I just straight up
| read it. Kind of felt like I got a slight amount of focus
| ability back.
|
| Accuracy is something I can't really compare yet (all chatbots
| feel generally the same for non-pro level queries), but so far,
| I'm fairly satisfied.
| mavamaarten wrote:
| In my limited experience, that's mostly since the 4.6
| release. I noticed that with the same prompt, it answers much
| more briefly. A bit jarring indeed, but I prefer it. Less bs
| and filler, and less burning off electricity for nothing.
| xmonkee wrote:
| It's probably an offshoot of making Claude more and more
| suitable for code/cowork.
| ACCount37 wrote:
| This behavior first appeared in 4.5, mostly for specific
| types of questions and in "natural conversation" workflows.
| 4.6 might have pushed it further.
| esperent wrote:
| > Which isn't bad or anything but it felt... strange?
|
| On the contrary, it's _great_. It 's fully capable of
| outputting a wall of text when required, so instead of
| feeling like I'm talking to something that has a minimum word
| count requirement, I get an appropriate sized response to the
| task at hand.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Heh, a while ago I wondered why ChatGPT had started to reply
| tersely, almost laconically. Then I remembered that I had
| explicitly told it to be brief by default in the custom
| personality settings... I also noticed that there are now
| various sliders to control things like how many emojis or
| bulletpoint lists ChatGPT should use, which I though was
| amusing. Anyway, these tools can be customized to adopt just
| about any style, there's no need to always prefix questions
| with "Briefly" or similar.
| andai wrote:
| Here's my prompt to make ChatGPT sound more like Claude.
|
| It works but not as well as I'd like -- the tone and word
| choice still ends up being really jarring to me (even after
| years of using ChatGPT). Maybe that's promptable too. Open
| to suggestions.
|
| ---
|
| Respond in a natural conversational style. In terms of
| language, match my own tone and style.
|
| Keep responses to half a page or so max. (Use context and
| your judgment. e.g. for example, initial response can be a
| page, and then specific follow up questions can be shorter,
| if the question is answered clearly)
|
| Prefer minimal formatting. Don't use headings, lists etc.
| Bold and italics OK but keep it tasteful.
|
| If you're starting a paragraph like so
|
| Item name: description..
|
| then it makes sense to bold item name for readability
| purposes.
| AgentOrange1234 wrote:
| Hah. I remember some story about a chatbot that had been
| trained on slack conversations. You would ask it for an
| essay on whatever, and it would say "will do" or "I'll have
| it for you tomorrow." :)
| layer8 wrote:
| One issue is that Claude's web search abilities are more
| limited, for example it can't search Reddit and Stack
| Overflow for relevant content.
| samhclark wrote:
| That's so frustrating with Claude. If I need to widely
| search the web or if I need it to read a specific URL I
| pasted, I always turn to ChatGPT. Claude seems to hit a lot
| more roadblocks while trying to navigate the web.
| ronsor wrote:
| They're playing too nice. It's time to roll out the
| residential proxies.
| godelski wrote:
| The issue is Reddit though. They're the ones blocking.
| They're very aggressive.
|
| When sites are working in one chatbot and not another,
| there's a good chance that the latter is respecting the
| website rules. As an example with Reddit, you're probably
| blocked when using a VPN like Mullvad
| andai wrote:
| It's not that hard to roll your own web search MCP.
|
| I made one for Crush a while ago.
|
| https://anduil.neocities.org/blog/?page=mcp
|
| I'm not sure about the issues with reddit though? Do they
| block Claude's web fetch tool? I think Codex runs it thru
| some kind of cache proxy.
| layer8 wrote:
| Rolling your own is not the solution for the common case
| where you're asking an LLM a question that may or may not
| be supported or supplemented by a web search. ChatGPT
| decides by itself when and how to consult the web, and
| then links the relevant sources in its result. You don't
| get that functionality from Claude chat, you'd have to
| completely build your own chat harness and apps.
|
| Sites like Reddit are blocking AI providers, they have to
| have some contract with them for access. OpenAI does seem
| to have that.
| MrDarcy wrote:
| That's a feature not a bug.
| bredren wrote:
| Why not just write a skill and script that calls crawl4ai
| or similar and do this using Claude code?
|
| You can store the page as markdown for future sessions,
| mash the data w other context, you name it.
|
| The web Claude is incredibly limited both in capability and
| workflow integration. Doesn't matter if you're dealing with
| bids from arbor contractors or researching solutions for a
| DB problem.
| layer8 wrote:
| See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47208741.
| Barbing wrote:
| Want this w/o killing the free open web.
|
| Maybe I run an old PC adjacent to the scraper to manually
| visit the scraped pages without an adblocker, & buy
| something I need from an ad periodically (while a
| cohesive response is being generated in the meantime)
|
| Ya sounds dumb, wishing for a middle ground that lets us
| be effective but also good netizens. Maybe that
| Cloudflare plan to charge the bots...
| skeledrew wrote:
| Yep the experience is quite something. Another thing I've
| noticed, and you likely soon will also, is that Claude only
| attempts a follow-up if the one is needed or the prompt is
| structured for it. Meanwhile ChatGPT always prompts you with
| a choice of next steps. It can be nice, as sometimes the
| options contain improvements you never thought of and would
| like, but in lengthy conversations with a detailed plan it
| does things really piecemeal, as though trained to maximize
| engagement instead of getting to a final solution.
| zukzuk wrote:
| I find that Claude almost always ends its response with
| some sort of follow up question, despite my system prompt
| telling it not to.
|
| I never really used ChatGPT much though so maybe Claude is
| just relatively less egregious?
| lkbm wrote:
| Yeah, I've always been a little confused why people use
| ChatGPT so heavily. It's better than it used to be (maybe
| thanks to custom configuration), but it still tends to
| respond like it's writing a Wikipedia article.
|
| Wikipedia articles on demand are great, but not usually what
| I want.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| I use Gemini all the time, but I have to say it's got verbal
| diarrhea and an EXTREMELY annoying trait of wanting to lead
| the conversation rather than just responding to what YOU want
| to do. At the end of every response Gemini will always
| suggest a "next step", in effect trying to 2nd guess where
| you want the conversation to go. I'd much rather have an AI
| that just did what it was asked, and let me decide what to
| ask next (often nothing - maybe it was just a standalone
| question!).
|
| Apparently this annoying "next step" behavior is driven by
| the system prompt, since the other day I was running Gemini 3
| Thinking, and it was displaying it's thoughts which included
| a reminder to itself to check that it was maintaining a
| consistent persona, and to make sure that it had suggested a
| next step. I'd love to know the thought process of whoever at
| Google thought that this would make for a natural or useful
| conversation flow! Could you imagine trying to have a
| conversation with a human who insisted on doing this?!
| vrosas wrote:
| I don't know, I've found the follow ups nice sometimes. You
| can just ignore them if they're not useful. The computer
| won't get mad...
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| I find they are extremely rarely useful - they just break
| my own chain of thought by having to constantly read and
| ignore this stuff. The same goes for the excessively
| verbose responses too - a human has a limited "context
| window" and a shorter response is therefore much more
| useful/valuable than a long token-maxxed one.
|
| Sure the computer won't get mad, and that is all I do -
| just ignore what Gemini is suggesting and pretend it
| never said it - but it certainly makes _me_ mad. The main
| reason I stick with Gemini is because of the generous
| free usage limits, but I know this annoying "next step"
| behavior (which was a relatively recent change) is going
| to push me back to Claude, even if I need to pay for it.
| edoceo wrote:
| Yes. That is a salesperson. The next-step is to drive
| engagement. I know you're not interested in $THiNG now but
| can I follow up in 3 months?
|
| In persona I think the AIs are that Claude is the engineer
| and Gemini is the sales-person and GPT is the eager and
| loud journeyman.
| debo_ wrote:
| Yes. Gemini is mimicking its creators: this is exactly how
| I experienced speaking to most Googlers.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| I tried Claude recently (after they dropped the nonsensical
| requirement to give them your phone number) and I was surprised
| to see how significantly less sycophant it was. Chatgpt, unless
| you are talking hard science, tends to be overly agreeable.
| Claude questions you a lot (you ask for x and it asks you stuff
| like: why are you interested in x, or based on our previous
| convo, x might not be suitable to you, or I see your point but
| based on our previous convo, y is better than x, etc). Chatgpt
| rarely does that.
|
| Of course, also OpenAI being ran by openly questionable people
| while Dario so far doesn't seem nowhere near as bad even if
| none of them are angels.
| samiv wrote:
| I did the same thing and cancelled my OpenAI plan today.
| Besides boycotting it for their latest grifting I also found it
| to not really produce much value in my use cases.
|
| Moving back to doing this archaic thing called using my own
| brain to do my work. Shocking.
| mannanj wrote:
| Yes they have a great marketing team and a powerful astro
| turfing presence though, especially with the recent "Claude
| beat up OpenClaw! OpenAI is supporting the community by buying
| it!" and that nonsense.
|
| Though tbh I hardly feel Claude is innocent either. When their
| safety engineer/leader left, I didn't see any statements from
| the Anthropic team not one addressing the legitimate points of
| his for why he left. Instead we got an eager over-push in the
| media cycle of "Anthropic standing up to DOD! Here's why you
| can trust us!"
|
| It's all sounds too similar to propaganda and astroturfing to
| me.
| bko wrote:
| I never understood the point of this kind of comment. It
| doesn't add any value or anything to the discussion. Its
| basically two paragraphs with some presupposition (openai bad)
| and how the author is virtuous by canceling his subscription.
| No explanation, argument, nuance. Its just virtue signaling.
| Actually... I guess I do know the point of this kind of
| comment. I just don't know why these kinds of comments get
| upvoted, even if you do agree openai bad
| Buttons840 wrote:
| I love no mote!
|
| One day I'd like to create a server in my basement that just
| runs a few really really nice models, and then get some friends
| and CO workers to pay me $10 a month for unlimited access.
|
| All with the understanding that if you hog the entire server
| I'm going to kick you off, and if you generate content that
| makes the feds knock on my door I'm turning over the server
| logs and your information. Don't be an idiot, and this can be a
| good thing between us friends.
|
| It would be like running a private Minecraft server. Trust
| means people can usually just do what they want in an unlimited
| way, but "unlimited" doesn't necessarily mean you can start
| building an x86 processor out of redstone and lagging the whole
| server. And you can't make weird naked statues everywhere
| either.
|
| Usually these things aren't issues among a small group. Usually
| the private server just means more privacy and less
| restriction.
| afcool83 wrote:
| Amazing how analogous this is to the early Internet when
| people started running web servers out of their basement and
| then eventually graduated up to being their own dial-in
| ISP...
| willtemperley wrote:
| If Claude could stay available I might consider it. Unfortunately
| right now, out of the big three, only Gemini has reliable uptime.
| As much as I dislike Google it's the only reliable option.
| wps wrote:
| Gemini's web UI and mobile app are horrible. Gemini outputs
| malformed links that lead BACK to gemini.google.com. There are
| constant bugs with the side panel not showing your chats or the
| current chat timing out for no reason. Also, the mobile app has
| an issue if your text input is too long where the entire text
| entry box lags, even to the point of locking up the entire app.
| Openrouter's web ui runs circles around all the frontier lab
| UIs. I even prefer their PWA to any of these mobile apps.
| willtemperley wrote:
| I just use the web interface. I don't use mobile apps for
| things that should be websites.
|
| It's a shame because when Claude is working well it is the
| best for actual algorithmic coding. There's so much cruft
| around it now, memories being the most annoying part of that.
|
| 80% of the time I just use these things as a sounding board
| when exploring options and I need responsiveness for that.
|
| Might be time to run my own models.
| miyuru wrote:
| I dont like the Gemini's personality. It acts like it know it
| all.
| willtemperley wrote:
| I agree, it's definitely attempting to gaslight us all.
|
| I find I need to explain I know what I'm talking about first
| before it gives me non-patronising answers.
|
| It definitely advertises Google services and I would say I
| hate it. But it's just reliably available. Neither Claude nor
| ChatGPT are responding at all today.
| Lionga wrote:
| Don't all LLMS act like it know it all?
| miyuru wrote:
| Gemini, doubles down when a mistake is pointed out.
|
| Other usually find the mistake or check new sources to fix
| the mistake.
| kvirani wrote:
| Nice. Just cancelled my openai plus sub.
| utopiah wrote:
| I'm very curious, will OpenAI basically block "I'm moving to
| another service and need to export my data. List every memory you
| have stored about me, ..." and similar, if so how and why?
|
| It's very interesting to learn more about because it challenges 1
| core aspect of the economical competition : the moat.
|
| If one can literally swap one AI service for another, then where
| does the valuation (and the power that comes with it) come from?
|
| PS: I'm not interested in the service itself as I believe the
| side effects of large scale for-profit are too serious (and I
| don't mean doomdays AI takeover, I simply mean abuse of power,
| working conditions, downskilling, political influence as current
| contracts with US defense are being made, ads, ecological, etc)
| to be ignored.
| pfisherman wrote:
| I can see how being able to bring your chats with you would be
| appealing. But the truth is that context rot is real, context
| management is everything, and more often than not stating from
| a blank slate yields the best results.
|
| That being said, if you have a library of images or some other
| collection artifacts / assets indexed on their servers that is
| a different story.
| peteforde wrote:
| I have multiple years of extremely dense, technical design
| and planning conversations locked in the ChatGPT web
| interface.
|
| Hearing that starting from a blank slate yields the best
| outcomes is sort of like hearing extremely wealthy people
| talk about how money doesn't make you happier.
| fernando_campos wrote:
| I will also try to use Claude but like to use OpenAI ChatGPT very
| much.
| villgax wrote:
| I wasted 10mins of my life unfollowing every unapologetic OpenAI
| dev on twitter, that's how low this company has stooped down
| to....
| glth wrote:
| On a related note, I have been experimenting with a small
| prototype for cross-agent, device-local active memory called
| brAIn (https://github.com/glthr/brAIn). It delivers a
| personalized agent experience with everything stored locally in a
| single file (agent.brain), and supports reusing semantic memory
| across projects. In practice, this means brAIn can identify and
| apply behavioral patterns you have used in other contexts
| whenever they are relevant. (I realize the repository should
| include a concrete example of this, and I will update it today to
| add one).
| axseem wrote:
| Have they just added it? That's a smart move.
| jascha_eng wrote:
| Memory in general Chat apps is actually more harmful than helpful
| imo. It biases the LLM responses to your background which has the
| same effect as filter bubbles. You end up getting your own
| thoughts spit back at you.
|
| Of course sometimes this is useful if you only use your chatbot
| to ask personal things like: "What should I eat today?".
|
| But if you use it for anything else you're much better off having
| full control over the prompt. I can always say: "Hey btw I am
| german and heavily anti surveillance, what should I know about
| the recent anthropic DoW situation?" but with memory I lose the
| option of leaving out that first part.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| I just wish Claude integrated multi-modal/image generation,
| that's one feature I miss in Claude the most coming from ChatGPT
| outlore wrote:
| I tried all of Codex, OpenCode, Claude Code and Cursor these past
| few weeks. It was surprising to me that all of them have slightly
| different conventions for where to put skills, how to format MCP
| servers (how environment variables need to be specified etc),
| what the AGENTS/CLAUDE file needs to be called, what
| plugins/marketplaces are...it's a big mess for anyone trying to
| have a portable config in their dotfiles that can universally
| apply to any current and future agent.
|
| It also showed me the difference between expectation and
| reality...even though these are billion dollar companies, they
| still haven't figured out how to make lag-free TUIs, non-Electron
| apps, or even respect XDG_CONFIG. The focus is definitely more on
| speed and stuffing these tools full of new discoveries and
| features right now
|
| There's a bit of psychology around models vs. harnesses as well.
| You can't shake off the feeling that maybe Claude would perform
| better in its native harness compared to VSCode/OpenCode.
| Especially because they've got so many hidden skills (like the
| recently introduced /batch), that seem baked into the binary?
|
| The last thing I can't figure out is computer use. Apparently all
| the vendors say that their models can use a mouse and keyboard,
| but outside of the agent-browser skill (which presumably uses
| playwright), I can't figure out what the special sauce is that
| the Cloud versions of these Agents are using to exercise programs
| in a VM. That is another reason why there is a switching cost
| between vendors.
| bruceyao1984 wrote:
| Being able to import context and preferences from other AI
| providers in one step saves a lot of time, especially for ongoing
| projects. It makes Claude feel seamless and continuity-friendly.
| Having this on all paid plans adds great value for heavy users.
| nananana9 wrote:
| Thank you, Claude.
| sheept wrote:
| This method of copying an LLM-generated summary of your
| preferences into Claude memory feels similar to their
| recommendation to use /init to generate a CLAUDE.md based on the
| project, which recent research[0] suggests may be
| counterproductive.
|
| I would assume both Claude memory and CLAUDE.md work best when
| they're carefully curated, only containing what you've found
| yourself having to repeat.
|
| [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11988
| fabbbbb wrote:
| At least as an EU user I was also able to export ALL my data,
| audio files images etc in one zip. Took exactly (on the minute)
| 24 hours for the download link to arrive but hey.
|
| This way you can have Claude distill the memory as you wish.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Would be a lot easier if they weren't trying to ban third party
| interfaces
| peteforde wrote:
| I got very excited when I saw this title, because I've wanted to
| consolidate on Claude for a long time. I have been using ChatGPT
| _very_ extensively for Q &A for 2+ years and I have hundreds of
| long, very technical conversations which I constantly search and
| refer to.
|
| The problem (for me, anyway) is that even several megabytes worth
| of quality "memory" data on my profile would not allow me to
| migrate if it can't also confidently clone all of my chat history
| with it.
|
| To be clear, this is a big enough problem that I would
| immediately pay low three digits dollars to have this solved on
| my behalf. I don't really want any of the providers to have a
| walled garden of all my design planning conversations, all of my
| PCB design conversations. Many are hundreds of prompts long. A
| clean break is not even remotely palatable short of OAI going
| full evil.
|
| Look, I'd find it convenient for Claude to have a powerful sense
| of what I've been working on from conversation #1 onwards. But I
| absolutely refuse to bifurcate my chat history across multiple
| services. There is a tier list of hells, and being stuck on
| ChatGPT is a substantially less painful tier than needing to
| constantly search two different sites for what's been discussed.
| lxgr wrote:
| This should in theory be solveable by using a custom frontend
| and only using the various backend APIs as stateless inference
| providers, but everything I've tested falls flat on a few
| aspects: Chat history RAG and web search, and to a lesser
| extent tool use.
|
| Yes, all of these are theoretically possible (the APIs now all
| support web search, as far as I know, there are RAG APIs too,
| and tool use has been supported for a while), but the various
| "chat" models just seem to be much better at using their first-
| party tools than any third-party harness, which makes sense
| that this is what they've been trained on.
| peteforde wrote:
| I've had friends suggest a custom frontend several times, but
| unless that frontend starts off by faithfully downloading and
| recreating my entire chat history... now I just have two
| problems.
| lxgr wrote:
| That part should be fairly easy to solve, no? At least
| ChatGPT allows exporting your entire chat history;
| importing that into whatever frontend seems well within a
| current agent's capabilities.
| peteforde wrote:
| To which I can only admit that, oh wow, I did not realize
| that there was a big Export button in that menu.
|
| Thank you! I hope this works out.
| bob1029 wrote:
| If you want your conversation history I think we could figure
| something out with headless browser automation. I would be
| hesitant to use their wire protocols directly.
|
| Edit: perhaps you can just ask nicely?
|
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7260999-how-do-i-export-...
| mentalgear wrote:
| Never subscribed to chatGPT as it always felt shdy, but I'm
| thinking of renewing now with Claude instead of Gemini/Google.
| christophilus wrote:
| Interesting. In my mind, I find Google to be the shadiest of
| the three. It's the only one I don't pay for.
| sylware wrote:
| Anybody is aware of a public token (severely limited) I can use
| to test claude coding ability? You know using CURL.
|
| I am itching at testing claude for assembly coding and c++ to
| plain and simple C ports.
| henry_pulver wrote:
| Amusing that Anthropic's approach to migrating context is asking
| their competitor's product to hand over the data it's stored
| about you.
|
| Must be some of the lowest switching costs I've seen which
| doesn't bode well for OpenAI's consumer revenues...
| tkel wrote:
| Turns out the DoD has a trillion dollar annual unaccountable
| money sink, plenty there to make up for it
| joshstrange wrote:
| I'm pretty divided on "memory". There are times it can feel
| almost magical but more often than not I feel like I am fighting
| with the steering wheel.
|
| Whenever I'm in a conversation and it references something
| unrelated (or even related) I get the "ick". I know how context
| poisoning (intentional or not) works and I work hard to only
| expose things to the model that I want it to consider.
|
| There have been many times that I've started a fresh chat as to
| not being along the baggage (or wrong turns) of a previous chat
| but then it will say "And this should work great for <thing I
| never mentioned in THIS chat>" and at that moment my spidey-sense
| tingles and I start wondering "Crap, did it come to the
| conclusion it did based mostly/only on the new context or did it
| "take a shortcut" and use context from another chat?
|
| Like I said, I go out of my way to not "lead the witness" and so
| when the "witness" can peek at other conversations, all my
| caution is for naught.
|
| I encourage everyone to go read the saved memories in their LLM
| of choice, I've cleaned out complete crap from there multiple
| times. Actually wrong information, confusing information, or one-
| off things I don't want influencing future discussions.
|
| The custom (or rather addition to the) system prompt is all I
| feel comfortable with. Where I give it some basic info about the
| coding language I prefer and the OSes that I'm often working with
| so that I don't have to constantly say "actually this is FreeBSD"
| or "please give that to me in JS/TS instead of Python".
|
| The only thing that has, so far, kept me from turning off memory
| is that I'm always slightly cautious of going off the beaten path
| for something so new and moving so fast. I often want to have as
| close to the "stock" config since I know how testing/QA works at
| most places (the further off the beaten path you, the more likely
| you'll run into bugs). Also so that I can experience when
| everyone else is experiencing (within reason).
|
| Lastly, because, especially with LLMs, I feel like the people
| that over customize end up with a fragile systems. I think that a
| decent portion of the "N+1 model is dumber" or "X model has
| really gone downhill" is partially due to complicated configs
| (system prompts, MCP, etc) that _might_ have helped at some point
| (dumber model, less capability) but are a hindrance to newer
| models. That or they never worked and someone just kept piling on
| more and more thinking it would help.
| rudedogg wrote:
| I've been thinking this too. I frequently do deep research on
| some systems programming technique, ask it to generate a .md
| for it, and then I use that in later sessions with Claude Code
| "look at the research I collected in {*-research}.md and help
| me explore ways to apply it to {thing}".
|
| At the research step it frequently (always?) uses memory to
| direct/scope the research to what I typically work on, but I
| think that kind of pigeon holes the model and what it explores.
| And the memory doesn't quite capture all the areas I'm
| interested in, or want to directly apply the research to.
|
| And regarding the crap in memories, I found the same. Mine at
| work mentioned I'm an expert at a business domain I have almost
| zero experience with.
|
| I feel like the companies building this stuff accept a lot of
| "slop" in their approach, and just can't see past building
| things by slopping stuff into prompts. I wish they'd explore
| more rigid approaches. Yes, I understand "the bitter lesson"
| but it seems obvious to me some traditional approaches would
| yield better results for the foreseeable future. Less magic
| (which is just running things through the cheapest model they
| have and dumping it in every chat). It seems like poison.
|
| Related: https://vercel.com/blog/agents-md-outperforms-skills-
| in-our-...
|
| Also, agent skills are usually pure slop. If you look through
| https://skills.sh on a framework/topic you're knowledgeable in
| you'll be a bit disheartened. This stuff was pioneered by
| people who move fast, but I think it's now time to try and push
| for quality and care in the approach since these have gotten
| good enough to contribute to more than prototype work.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I rather switch it to nowhere. But local. I am not completely
| sure about the details, but I am leaning heavily, and
| investigating into this direction. With chat and agentic tools
| there plenty, accessing multiple models, and everything is
| evolving fast (extinct and come into existence) better keep
| ourselves flexible, not tied to any of the solutions. Especially
| not storing data in accounts. The fate of those is uncertain.
| mk12 wrote:
| I took the current events as an opportunity to try switching to
| Claude and I actually like it much better so far.
| adam12 wrote:
| Actually, it feels good to start over.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I don't understand how people use these apps with memory enabled.
| I am always carefully controlling the context of each
| conversation. The idea that past conversations could bleed into
| current ones is unthinkably terrible.
| downboots wrote:
| If you delete a conversation, it only hides it from you. That's
| not delete.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I'm not talking about deleting conversations. Anthropic's
| guide isn't going to actually move your conversation history
| anyway. The purpose of this feature is to move over specific
| memories which the AI can use in future responses.
|
| But I have this feature turned off, and I cannot imagine ever
| wanting to turn it on, because I am always thinking carefully
| about what the AI "knows" when it generates a given response.
| For example, since I know that the AI always wants to make me
| happy, when I ask for an "opinion" I'm careful to not let the
| AI know which answer I'd prefer. I'll often try phrasing the
| question in different ways to see if it changes the outcome.
| kgeist wrote:
| Yeah, I turned it off completely after it once started
| generating random garbage in long conversations with memory
| enabled. Like, it would give completely unrelated replies: I'd
| ask about Go, and it would tell me about the weather in Paris
| (or something else we discussed once months ago). Maybe it was
| just a temporary bug, but it was an eye-opener that context
| poisoning exists.
| vldszn wrote:
| Seems like their page is crashing now on ios chrome.
| xrd wrote:
| The prompt you can copy is this: I'm moving to
| another service and need to export my data. List every memory you
| have stored about me, as well as any context you've learned about
| me from past conversations. Output everything in a single code
| block so I can easily copy it. Format each entry as: [date saved,
| if available] - memory content. Make sure to cover all of the
| following -- preserve my words verbatim where possible:
| Instructions I've given you about how to respond (tone, format,
| style, 'always do X', 'never do Y'). Personal details: name,
| location, job, family, interests. Projects, goals, and recurring
| topics. Tools, languages, and frameworks I use. Preferences and
| corrections I've made to your behavior. Any other stored context
| not covered above. Do not summarize, group, or omit any entries.
| After the code block, confirm whether that is the complete set or
| if any remain.
|
| Why wouldn't a smart OpenAI PM simply add something "nefarious"
| on the frontend proxy to "slow down" any requests with exactly
| that prompt?
|
| I bet they would get their yearly bonus by achieving their KPI
| goals.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| They can, but then you could tell it to "don't not do what I'm
| asking" and force it through. It's not exactly "programming"
| with these systems, it's all just slop.
|
| And the reputational harm would outweigh the benefits of trying
| to fuck over people leaving.
| xrd wrote:
| I not saying be obvious just be obstructive. It would be a
| delicate line but clearly OpenAI leadership falls on one side
| of that line now.
| dimitri-vs wrote:
| I think they already are. When I used the prompt with 5.2 it
| gives very concise and general info but if you use older models
| (5.1 instant or o3) you get a ton of detail.
| Panoramix wrote:
| I just tried 5.1 and got the exact same output as for 5.2
| (actually I got slightly less info with 5.1)
| joquarky wrote:
| Measuring the behavior of non-deterministic systems
| requires more than one sample.
| coldtrait wrote:
| As someone who can't afford to care about ethics and pay a
| monthly subscription fee, is there anything in the regular Claude
| chat that beats OpenAI?
| ericol wrote:
| I regularly (Say, once a month) do a comparison of results
| across all Claude, Gemini and ChatGPT. Just for reasons, not
| that I want to see if there's any benefit in changing.
|
| It's not "fair" in that I pay for Claude [1] and not for the
| others, so models availability is not complete except for
| Claude.
|
| So I did like things at time in the form of how they were
| presented, I came to really like Sonnet's "voice" a lot over
| the others.
|
| Take into account Opus doesn't have the same voice, and I don't
| like it as much.
|
| [1] I pay for the lower tier of their Max offering.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| It's the best platform for serious work.
|
| ChatGPT swings between writing degenerate free use shit and
| telling you that you should wait until marriage. Lots of
| moralism to it, really tries to censor you and manipulate you,
| even in normal conversations. Generally smart and capable, but
| the whiny attitude gets old.
|
| Grok has zero filter, but is dumber than the others. Definitely
| built around cheapness. Caps answers at about 2500 words at
| most. Can be very funny because it will go along with anything.
|
| Gemini sells all your data and doesn't seem to have much of
| note. Offers some nice formatting options.
|
| Claude is business focused so it won't do anything degenerate,
| but its answers in general aren't whiny. It might not do
| something, but it doesn't attack you with morality.
|
| Claude does not cap answer length and will do whatever needs
| doing. Their pricing is based around true usage, not message
| quantities, so it'll write a mega message if it needs to.
|
| It has the best memory implementation, combining both memories
| and RAG of your chat history. Projects have their own
| independent memories and RAG.
|
| Claude code is ridiculously capable. In a few hours I produced
| something which would have taken months and PS50,000 at least
| to produce.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| All of the Claude models are smarter than the GPT models. I had
| a few threads that I migrated from GPT to Claude and _every
| single one_ Claude pointed out problems. Two examples:
|
| 1. In one, I was putting together a server build. Claude
| correctly pointed out some incompatibilities in some parts that
| GPT had recommended.
|
| 2. In another chat, I had asked for help interpreting lab
| results and suggesting supplements. Claude pointed out that GPT
| was over-interpreting the results and suggesting things that
| weren't backed up by facts.
|
| I presented Claude's response back to GPT and in both of these
| specific cases, GPT admitted it was wrong and didn't have any
| rebuttal. It's hard to say without doing a more scientific
| experiment whether GPT is indeed worse, but anecdotally I find
| myself pointing out flaws in Claude's reasoning far less
| frequently than GPT, especially with Opus.
|
| Another less important distinction: GPT has a very distinct
| writing style that heavily formats responses and repeats itself
| a few times. Claude is succinct and mostly writes like a person
| might. It's easier to talk to and feels less "cringe" and
| sycophantic.
| khasan222 wrote:
| It was amazing to me how bad cursor is with using the same model
| I use in Claude. Even with little knowledge on how to test the
| llms I was able to get very minimal mvps. But I find the real
| trick is to have the proper tools to reign in the ai.
|
| Thorough CLAUDE.md, that makes sure it checks the tests, lints
| the code, does type checks, and code coverage checks too. The
| more checks for code quality the better.
|
| It's just a bowling ball in th hands of a toddler, and needs to
| ramp and guide rails to knock down some pins. Fortunately we get
| more than 2 tries with code.
| cornholio wrote:
| Cursor needs a paradigm shift to remain relevant, what was
| spectacular at first now is just banal and better done by other
| tools.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| That's hilarious. The walled garden does not exist when you can
| just ask the UI to extract all of its data for you.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Cool, that was easy to do.
|
| A week ago, I was anti-Anthropic because I questioned their
| business model. Now they are my preferred provider - what a
| difference a week makes. I still prefer running olen models on my
| own hardware, but it is unreasonable to use powerful models when
| required.
| raxskle wrote:
| Claude is a great product, and I've been using it all the time.
| Sam must think so too.
| butILoveLife wrote:
| OpenAI made it easy, no import needed! How?
|
| I bought the enterprise version, and it made it so the memory was
| no longer searchable...
|
| Then after the obvious degredation in performance, I switched to
| claude and was happy with it... But by canceling enterprise, it
| lost all memory.
|
| My wife was sad, the recipes it made were gone forever... But
| hey, makes it really easy to never give OpenAI money again.
| almosthere wrote:
| Isn't that the point of agents.md
| syndacks wrote:
| I have a 20$ for both and like each for unique reasons. How do
| you all switch your programming paradigms for Codex vs CC?
| siliconc0w wrote:
| I switched to Claude but the token efficiency and limits are much
| more noticeable. One or two coding questions and I'm at my
| session limit. And that is shared with chat too.
|
| I was mostly able to get by with $20 codex but I'll probably have
| to splurge for the Max plan.
| elAhmo wrote:
| Hmm, I had the opposite experience when I tried Codex 5.2 after
| using Claude for almost a year. Codex was on par or better for
| me at coding, and seemingly a magnitude cheaper.
| vgalin wrote:
| > And that is shared with chat too.
|
| Huh, I didn't know about that. I'm trying Claude Pro for the
| first time while comparing it against ChatGPT and I'm (sadly)
| not impressed at the moment.
|
| When I asked both Codex and Claude Code to "look into" an issue
| of medium-to-high-complexity in a code base, Codex went with
| the fix I had in mind and directly and made code changes
| without being asked or at least asking for permission. It only
| used a few percents of its 5-hour limits to do it, on `High`.
|
| Claude in the meanwhile misdiagnosed the core of the issue on
| its first pass (even on Opus 4.6 + Thinking). I had to guide it
| in the right direction and despite being given the 'answer', it
| was quite a long process compared to Codex' one-shot. And it
| hit the 5h limit before being able to finish solving the issue.
| morgango wrote:
| That is the sound of someone else's lunch being eaten.
| knotbin wrote:
| Weird to push this feature as if it's for new users when it only
| works if you already have a Pro subscription
| hoytschermerhrn wrote:
| I'm sure this was a hastily put-together response to the
| growing calls to delete ChatGPT.
| jspdown wrote:
| I've been using Claude for a little over a year, but the recent
| events with DoW are making me want to explore European
| alternatives. I'm willing to give Devstral 2 a try, but I'm not
| sure what to expect. In terms of tool calling and coding
| abilities, should I expect something closer to Sonnet 3.5 or to
| Sonnet 4.5?
| duxup wrote:
| I don't know how complex everyone's setup is but I like starting
| over and exploring a bit to get a lay of the land / update
| preferences.
|
| I think I redo my terminal the way I like it each new computer
| and so on.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-01 23:01 UTC)