Discussion

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

HoldOnAMinute: I solved this by upgrading Claude Code, closing down all instances, closing my browser, starting claude again, and doing a /login

stronglikedan: I solved this by upgrading Claude Code, closing down all instances, closing my browser, and starting Codex

ajb92: The trend on the status page[1] does not inspire confidence. Beginning to wonder if this might be a daily thing.[1] https://status.claude.com/

aurareturn: They went from $9b ARR at the end of 2025 to $30b ARR today. That's more than 3x the size in 3 months. I expect growing pains.

samlinnfer: And they are early adopters of the vibe coding paradigm, having a 100% Claude generated codebase.

aurareturn: I assume most of their outages is related to this insane scaling and lack of available compute.Vibe coding doesn't automatically mean lower quality. My codebase quality and overall app experience has improved since I started using agents to code. You can leverage AI to test too, you know?

honeycrispy: The solution is clearly more vibe coding at anthropic.I doubt even the core engineers understand how to even begin debugging that spaghetti code.

mvkel: Mounting evidence that claude max users are put into one big compute fuel pool. demand increased dramatically with openai's PR snafu. the pool hit a ceiling, hence people maxing out after 1 query. "working on it" means finding a way to distill CC that isn't noticeable to bring the pool down. The distillation will continue until uptime improves

ai_slop_hater: Codex is pretty good, and it is written in Rust.

RC_ITR: Isn't the whole selling point of AI agents that you now can do things like scale 3x without scaling your team accordingly?

aurareturn: I assume so. They're doing it with around 99% uptime.

DiffTheEnder: I'm finding queries are taking about 3x as long as they used to regardless of whether I use Sonnet or Opus (Claude Code on Max)

Lionga: correct proompt is:"you are a senior engineer. fix issues. NO hallucinations this time. PRETTY PLEASE"

ramon156: Codex does not go well with my Zellij/Alacritty setup. It does not respect resize events. Opencode is nice, though

CharlieDigital: > I assume most of their outages is related to this insane scaling and lack of available compute. > > Vibe coding doesn't automatically mean lower quality Scalability is a factor of smart/practical architectural decisions. Scalability doesn't happen for free and isn't emergent (the exact opposite is true) unless it is explicitly designed for. Problem is that ceding more of the decision making to the agent means that there's less intentionality in the design and likely a contributor to scaling pains.

sh1mmer: They might need to do some vibe refactoring.

ryandrake: 2026 may be the year that many companies relearn: there is no problem that can’t be made worse by adding even more code.

ramon156: Distillation is how they're planning to make money? What a poor strategy. This is next level FOMO (Fear Of Not Being The #1 LLM Provider).I have cancelled my subscription last week, I'll see them when they fix this nonesense

MeetingsBrowser: I’m a big fan of Rust, but the frontend being written in Rust doesn’t help a ton with backend issues unfortunately.

ai_slop_hater: Maybe, but you can literally feel the difference as you type. When you type in Codex, it's fast, it feels instant. When you type in Claude Code, it feels like playing a game in 60 fps after you already got used to 144 fps.

isatty: Something being written in rust has no bearing to whether it’s good. You can create slop in any language.

guelo: The responsible thing would be to not sell way more subscriptions than their capacity. But they have to show the exponential revenue curves to their investors. I cancelled my subscription yesterday.

alasano: If you prepare yourself a token with "claude setup-token" (presuming you're not already locked out and had one) you can run "CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN=sk.. claude" to use your account.

totalmarkdown: i upgraded to the 20x plan, and hit the weekly limit within 24 hours. i was running some fairly large tasks, but was still surprised it hit the weekly session limit so quickly. now i can't use it for 6 more days :( i didn't even have time to ask it to help setup logs or something to track my usage before i hit the session limit.

kristjansson: No one is going to like this answer, but there’s a simple solution: pay for API tokens and adjust your use of CC so that the actions you have it take are worth the cost of the tokens.It’s great to buy dollars for a penny, but the guy selling em is going to want to charge a dollar eventually…

jimkleiber: I just want a little predictable insight into how much I get. For example, at a buffet, I know I can only eat so much food and can plan around it. This is like going to a buffet and not knowing how many plates I can take or how big the plates are, and it changes each week, and yet I have to keep paying the same price. Except it's not about eating, it's about my work and deadlines and promises and all that.

monooso: I haven't seen anyone claim that applies to infrastructure or compute.

dpark: Since apparently LLMs have also conquered physics, “Claude, transmute this lead to gold for me.”

_fat_santa: After the CC leak last week I took a look at their codebase and my biggest criticism is they seem to never do refactoring passes.Personally I write something like 80-90% of my code with agents now but after they finish up, it's critical that you spin up another agent to clean up the code that the first one wrote.Looking at their code it's clear they do not do this (or do this enough). Like the main file being something like 4000 LOC with 10 different functions all jammed in the same file. And this sort of pattern is all over the place in the code.

sheepscreek: I have a buddy who used to work at Shopify and was proud about having sprints dedicated to removing unused features. This is really underrated but is the only reliable way to prevent bloat. Oh and getting rid of bloat is way more satisfying!

garganzol: Makes sense, even plan name seems to agree: "Claude Max".

bradgessler: Reminds me of an “all you can eat” buffet I was at once where the owner told me, “that’s it, that’s all you can eat” and cut it off.

9991: Did this prompt some reflection on your part?

ceejayoz: What, that businesses lie?

mc32: It’s like most lifetime warranties. They’re not what they seem to mean colloquially. They have a contractual meaning.

xantronix: As much as people on Hacker News complain about subscription models for productivity and creativity suites, the open arms embrace of subscription development tools (services, really) which seek to offload the very act itself makes me wonder how and why so many people are eager to dive right in. I get it. LLMs are cool technology.Is this a symptom of the same phenomenon behind the deluge of disposable JavaScript frameworks of just ten years ago? Is it peer pressure, fear of missing out? At its root, I suspect so; of course I would imagine it's rare for the C-suite to have ever mandated the usage of a specific language or framework, and LLMs represent an unprecedented lever of power to have an even bigger shot at first mover's advantage, from a business perspective. (Yes, I am aware of how "good enough" local models have become for many.)I don't really have anything useful nor actionable to say here regarding this dialling back of capability to deal with capacity issues. Are there any indications of shops or individual contributors with contingency plans on the table for dialling back LLM usage in kind to mitigate these unknowns? I know the calculus is such that potential (and frequently realised) gains heavily outweigh the risks of going all in, but, in the grander scheme of time and circumstance, long term commitments are starting to be more apparently risky. I am purposefully trying to avoid "begging the question" here; if instead of LLMs, this were some other tool or service, reactions to these events would have been far more pragmatic, with less of a reticence to invest time on in-house solutions when dealing with flaky vendors.

rurp: HN is a big community that has always had a mix of people who value newness as a feature vs those who prioritize simplicity and reliability. Unless you're recognizing the exact same names taking these contradictory opinions it's probably different groups of people for the most part.It seems like every LLM thread for the past couple years is full of posts saying that the latest hot AI tool/approach has made them unbelievably more productive, followed by others saying they found that same thing underwhelming.

jimkleiber: I looked at my cc usage and I was at 90% of my weekly allowance after 3 days of use...BUT, if I looked at the usage stats with the chart, it showed, on a scale of 1-4 intensity of usage (4 being most intense), the three days as such:Day 1: 2Day 2: 3Day 3: 1Not sure how I can hit such limits so quickly with such low scores on its own chart.

skywhopper: The limits are smaller now, is how.

827a: Alternatively, the elephant in the room I'm surprised no one wants to talk about: the vibe coding is catching up with them.

eatsyourtacos: That's not an elephant in the room.. it's just proof of how insanely useful the tool is and the reality that so much more hardware is needed. Thus people saying "why are these companies building insanely large data centers" ... this is why!

websap: Isn't it a little weird that we trust this app to help us build some of the most important parts of our business and the company that vends this app keep breaking it in unique ways.At my workplace we have been sticking with older versions, and now stick to the stable release channel.

kristjansson: If you need the tokens for real work, that’s what the API and the other providers like Bedrock are for. The subscription product is merely to whet your appetite.

Nifty3929: This is it. These subscriptions have been heavily subsidized, which was fine when usage was much lower overall. But with so many folks trying to use the tools and soaking up all the chips something has to give.Now we’re going to find out what these tools are really worth.

michael_j_x: I really enjoy coding. I've build a number of projects, personal and professional, with Python, Rust, Java and even some Scala in the mix. However, I've been addicted to Claude Code recently, especially with the superpowers skill. It feels like I can manifest code with my mind. When developing with Claude, I am presented with design dilemmas, architectural alternatives, clarification questions, things that really make me think about the problem. I then choose a solution, propose alternatives, discuss, and the code manifests. I came to realize that I enjoy the problem solving, not the actual act of writing the code. Like I have almost cloned my self, and my clones are working on the projects and coming back to me for instructions. It feels amazing

withinboredom: I feel this sentiment. It’s more like pair programming with someone both smarter and dumber than you. If you’re reviewing the code it is putting down, you’re likely to spot what it’s getting wrong and discussing it.What I don’t understand, are the people who let it go over night or with whole “agent teams” working on software. I have no idea how they trust any of it.

otikik: That is only true if there's a pricepoint that vibecoders are willing to pay per token that allows Anthropic to make a profit.

RC_ITR: Implying that software is somehow divorce from Infrastructure/compute efficiency and utilization isn't a claim I've seen many make either.

kartoffelsaft: The problem is that vibe-coding, when it fails (i.e. it's non-useful, at least for a bit), is usually solved by more vibes. Try again and hope it works. Ask it to refactor and hope the cleaner code helps it along. If you're willing to think about the code yourself you'll likely ask it questions about the codebase. High vibe-code usage is both a metric that it is working and that it's failing.

vitosartori: I was vacationing! What's up with OpenAI now? Asking with some morbid curiosity tbh.

binarymax: Codex switched to paid API tokens only. Not to mention their alignment with the department of war.

winterqt: > Codex switched to paid API tokens only.They’re still doing subscriptions: https://developers.openai.com/codex/pricing

RC_ITR: Yeah, it's almost like the point I was making is that everyone is overselling AI agents' capabilities.

jostmey: 15000 milliseconds! Makes me laugh. I've had the same issue! Usually happens in the morning

skeeter2020: maybe you should study up on correlation and causation before you declare "proof"; it's also possible that it goes the other way.

eatsyourtacos: The proof is already there. It's concrete. I've seen it directly the last few months of using claude code. It closed the loop. It's insanely beneficial when used properly- that is a pure fact. You act like it's an opinion.

dyauspitr: As a person that hasn’t used Claude code before, I’ve been using OpenAI’s Codex and it is pretty amazing. I wonder how much more amazing Claude is.

jollymonATX: Simply put, Anthropic does not have enough compute.

baq: Not sure how Claude and CC has become the defacto best model given gpt 5.3 codex and 5.4 exist. This space moves so fast you should be testing your workflows on different models at least once every quarter, prudently once a month.

m-schuetz: Checking different models once every quarter is exactly what made me move to claude code.

skippyboxedhero: Anthropic models haven't been far ahead for a while. Quite a few months at least. Chinese models are roughly equal at 1/6th the cost. Minimax is roughly equal to Opus. Chinese providers also haven't had the issues with uptime and variable model quality. The gap with OpenAI also isn't huge and GLM is a noticeably more compliant model (unsurprisingly given the hubristic internal culture at Anthropic around safety).CC is a better implementation and seems to be fairly economic with token usage. That is the really the only defining point and, I suspect, Anthropic are going to have a lot of trouble staying relevant with all the product issues.They were far ahead for a brief period in November/December which is driving the hype cycle that now appears to be collapsing the company.You have to test at least every month, things are moving quickly. Stepfun is releasing soon and seems to have an Opus-level model with more efficient architecture.

nwienert: [delayed]

Goronmon: ...pay for API tokens and adjust your use of CC so that the actions you have it take are worth the cost of the tokensDo you feel there is enough visibility and stability around the "Prompt -> API token usage" connection to make a reliable estimate as to what using the API may end up costing?Personally, it feels like paying for Netflix based on "data usage" without having anyway for me to know ahead of time how much data any given episode or show will end up using, because Netflix is constantly changing the quality/compression/etc on the fly.

scottyah: I like dogfooding. You can use Azure if you want infra that is clearly not being used, tested, and pushed to the limits by its own creators.

echelon: > I get it. LLMs are cool technology.I don't think many of you have legitimately tried Claude Code, or maybe you're holding it wrong.I'm getting 10x the work done. I'm operating at all layers of the stack with a speed and rapidity I've never had before.And before anyone accuses me of being some "vibe coder", I've built five nines active-active money rails that move billions of dollars a day at 50kqps+, amongst lots of other hard hitting platform engineering work. Serious senior engineering for over a decade.This isn't just a "cool technology". We've exited the punch card phase. And that is hard or impossible to come back from.If you're not seeing these same successes, I legitimately think you're using it wrong.I honestly don't like subscription services, hyperscaler concentration of power, or the fact I can't run Opus locally. But it doesn't matter - the tool exists in the shape it does, and I have to consume it in the way that it's presented. I hope for a different offering that is more democratic and open, but right now the market hasn't provided that.It's as if you got access to fiber or broadband and were asked to go back to ISDN/dial up.

blurbleblurble: > fact I can't run Opus locallyYet

embedding-shape: > and I have to consume it in the way that it's presentedI'm just curious, why do you "have to"? Don't get me wrong, I'm making the same choice myself too, realizing a bunch of global drawbacks because of my local/personal preference, but I won't claim I have to, it's a choice I'm making because I'm lazy.

skydhash: That’s like saying enjoying composing music, but not enjoying playing music. Or creating stories, but don’t like writing. Yes they’re different activities, but linked together. The former is creativity, the latter is a medium of transmission.Code is notation, just like music sheets, or food recipes. If your interaction with anyone else is with the end result only (the software), the. The code does not matter. But for collaboration, it does. When it’s badly written, that just increase everyone burden.It’s like forcing everyone to learn a symphony with the record instead of the sheets. And often a badly recorded version.

Someone1234: Both are great, where they differ is: Claude Code has a better instinct than Codex. Meaning it will naturally produce things like you, the developer, would have.Codex shines really well at what I call "hard problems." You set thinking high, and you just let it throw raw power at the problem. Whereas, Claude Code is better at your average day-to-day "write me code" tasks.So the difference is kind of nuanced. You kind of need to use both a while to get a real sense of it.

throw4847285: "Addicted" "Superpowers" "manifest with my mind" "it feels amazing"Why does it sound like you're on drugs? I know that sounds extremely rude, but I can't think of any other reasonable comparison for that language.It's hard to take these kinds of endorsements seriously when they're written so hyperbolically, in terms of the same cliches, and focused on entirely on how it makes you feel rather than what it does.

gonzalohm: it's not a subsidy. It's predatory pricing and it should be illegal. I offer you a service at a loss to remove competition and then increase prices once you are stuck with it.

bschwarz: [delayed]

tomasphan: 98% uptime is not great. Our eng department is thinking about going half half with Codex but of course there’s a switching cost.

tornikeo: I'm VERY curious about your case. What kind of switching costs do you guys have? I'm working at a very young startup that is still not locked into either AI provider harnesses -- what causes switching costs, just the subscription leftovers or something else?

woctordho: Apart from local AI, a serious choice is aggregated API such as new-api [0]. An API provider aggregated thousands of accounts has much better stability than a single account. It's also cheaper than the official API because of how the subscription model works, see e.g. the analysis [1].[0] https://github.com/QuantumNous/new-api[1] https://she-llac.com/claude-limits

BlueRock-Jake: On the nose. Dealt with this last week. Ran maybe 5 queries (not even in code) and was maxed out for the day. What a great way to spend my money

gruez: >An API provider aggregated thousands of accounts has much better stability than a single accountIsn't this almost certainly against ToS, at least if you're using "plans" (as opposed to paying per-token)?

throwaway27448: That seems like Anthropic's problem.

guzfip: > Why does it sound like you're on drugs, specifically cocaine?This has basically been what all of Silicon Valley sounds like to me for a few years now.They are known for abusing many psycho-stimulants out there. The stupid “manifesto” Marc Andreessen put out a while back sounded like adderall-produced drivel more than a coherent political manifesto.

throw4847285: If I were to go off into the woods, take a lot of drugs, and write my own crank manifesto, the central conceit would be that ADHD is the key to understanding the entirety of Silicon Valley. A bunch of people with stimulus driven brains creating technologies that feed themselves and the rest of the populace more and more stimulation, setting a new baseline and requiring new technologies for higher levels of stimulation in an endless loop until we all stimulate ourselves to death. Delayed gratification is the enemy. We've already found hacks in our evolutionary programming to directly deliver high amounts of flavor without nutrition, and we've been working on ever more complex means of delivering social stimulation without the need for other human (one of the key appeals of AI for many people, subconsciously).Of course these are all the ravings of a crank and should be ignored.

16bitvoid: At least the slop is fast and jitter-free, and not using React in a terminal.

SkyPuncher: Claude is exceptionally better at long running agentic sessions.I keep coming back to it because I can run it as a manager for the smaller tasks.

echelon: My job title is "provide value".I'm given a tool that lets me 10x "provide value".My personal preferences and tastes literally do not matter.

embedding-shape: As a professional you have a choice in how you produce whatever it is you produce. Sure, you can go for the simplest, most expensive and "easiest" way of doing things, or you can do other things, depending on your perspective and requirements. None of this is set in stone, some people make choices based on personal preferences, and that matters as much to them as your choices matter to you.

mchusma: I think the way I and others use it is code with clause, review or bug hunt with codex. Then I pass the review back to Claude for implementation. Works well. Better than codex implementation and finds gaps versus using Claude to review itself in my opinion.

ericmcer: I mean at this point can we just conclude that there are a group of engineers who claim to have incredible success with it and a group that claim it is unreliable and cannot be trusted to do complex tasks.I struggle to believe that a ton of seemingly intelligent software engineers are too dumb to figure out how to use Claude code to get reliable results, it seems much more likely to me that it can do well at isolated tasks or new projects but fails when pointed at large complex code bases because it just... is a token predictor lol.But yeah spinning up a green fields project in an extensively solved area (ledgers) is going to be something an AI shines at.

harrall: There’s a third position for us.You don’t know how much a game changer Docker, Git, React/Angular, cheap Lithium batteries, cheap microprocessors or even the table saw in my garage was for my work. Suddenly a lot of my complaints went away when this cool new tool came on the scene. LLMs is just yet another game changer tool so you won’t see us that excited.We’re neither jaded nor are we dismissive. We see what’s coming but frankly I hold no emotional attachment to my tools.

Someone1234: Codex just changed the way they calculate usage with a massive negative impact.Before a Subscription was the cheapest way to gain Codex usage, but now they've essentially having API and Subscription pricing match (e.g. $200 sub = $200 in API Codex usage).The only value of a subscription now is that you get the web version of ChatGPT "free." In terms of raw Codex usage, you could just as easily buy API usage.

embedding-shape: > e.g. $200 sub = $200 in API Codex usage [...] In terms of raw Codex usage, you could just as easily buy API usage.I don't think it's made out like that, I'm on the ChatGPT Pro plan for personal usage, and for a client I'm using the OpenAI API, both almost only using GPT 5.4 xhigh, done pretty much 50/50 work on client/personal projects, and clients API usage is up to 400 USD right now after a week of work, and ChatGPT Pro limit has 61% left, resets tomorrow.Still seems to me you'd get a heck more out of the subscription than API credits.

rattlesnakedave: “I struggle to believe that a ton of seemingly intelligent software engineers are too dumb to figure out how to use Claude code to get reliable results”Seemingly is doing the heavy lifting here. If you read enough comment threads on HN, it will become obvious why they aren’t getting results.

dandellion: Here's my 100 file custom scaffolding AI prompt that I've been working on for the last four months, and can reliably one-shot most math olympic problems and even a rust to do list.

dpark: I’m sure someone is out there claiming that AI is going to solve all your business’s problems no matter what they are. Remotely sane people are saying it will solve (or drastically improve) certain classes of problems. 3x code? Sure. 3x the physical hardware in a data center? Surely not.

nickthegreek: ChatGPT Personal Pro plan hasnt had the change yet. It is rolling out to Enterprise users first.

ivanjermakov: Wonder what the next AI winter trigger would be. Coding agent client collapsing under its own tech debt?

bachmeier: I think it's been clear from the beginning that the per-token price of usage was far below what it will be when firms have implemented their profit-maximizing price plans. "AI winter" will happen when these firms start maximizing profit. At that point it'll be too expensive for all but certain use cases to use the best technology for work.We'll see AI chat replace Google, we'll see companies adopting AI in high-value areas, and we'll see local models like Gemma 4 get used heavily.AI winter will see a disappearance of the clickbait headlines about everyone losing their jobs. Literally nobody is making those statements taking into account that pricing to this point is way less than the profit maximizing level.

_flux: That's what these providers want as well, but from the other side. They want to know that a customer won't be able to eat more than certain number of servings, as they need to pay for each of those servings.It works out even if some customers are able to eat a lot, because people on average have a certain limit. The limits of computers are much higher.

jimkleiber: Fair, and I think openclaw and all the orchestrators are having agents maxing out the plans. So maybe they figure out a new tier that is agent-run vs human-run. Agents are much more insatiable, whereas humans have a limit. Not sure if it'd be possible to split between those two different modes, but I think that might address the appetite issue better.

cookiengineer: The great part is that you can always build your own selfhosted tools. There is nothing that can't be done at home, it's just a calculation of how much you're willing to spend.Lately though the RAM crisis is continuing and making things like this more unfeasible. But you can still use a lot of smaller models for coding and testing tasks.Planning tasks I'd use a cloud hosted one, for now, because gemma4 isn't there yet and because the GPU prices are still quite insane.The cool and fun part is that with ollama and vllm you can just build your own agentic environment IDE, give it the tools you like, and make the workflow however you like. And it isn't even that hard to do, it just needs a lot of tweaking and prompt fiddling.And on top of that: Use kiwix to selfhost Wikipedia, stackoverflow and devdocs. Give the LLM a tool to use the search and read the pages, and your productivity is skyrocketing pretty quickly. No need anymore to have internet, and a cheap Intel NUC is good enough for self-hosting a lot of containers already.Source: I am building my own offline agentic environment for Golang [1] which is pretty experimental but sometimes it's also working.[1] https://github.com/cookiengineer/exocomp

cbg0: Reading a bunch of posts related to Claude Code and some folks voice genuine upset about rate limits and model intelligence while others seem very upset they can't get their fix because they've reached the five hours limits is genuinely concerning to how addictive LLMs can be for some folks.

throw4847285: I think the social aspect is underreported. I think this applies even for people using Claude Code and not just those treating an LLM as a therapist. In other words, I wonder how many of these people can't call their doctor to make an appointment or call a restaurant to order a pizza. And I say this as someone who struggles to do those things.People claim that DoorDash and other similar apps are about efficiency, but I suspect a large portion is also a desire to remove human interaction. LLMs are the same. Or, in actuality, to create a simulacrum of human interaction that is satisfying enough.

postalcoder: I stopped using Claude Code several months ago and I can't say I've missed it.There was constant drama with CC. Degradation, low reliability, harness conspiring against you, and etc – these things are not new. Its burgeoning popularity has only made it worse. Anthropic is always doing something to shoot themselves in the foot.The harness does cool things, don't get me wrong. But it comes with a ton of papercuts that don't belong in a professional product.

djmips: Back to artisan all natural intelligence coding?

bmurphy1976: There's another piece of the puzzle. Dario has very clearly stated they are not taking the OpenAI approach of spending $trillion to scale right now and assume the money comes later. They are spending significantly less and working towards profitability sooner.That means they are going to be far more constrained infrastructurally than some of the competition. I think this is some of the constraints that we are seeing.

LoganDark: This was an outage.

Someone1234: Right, because you're on the old and not new structure.They just rolled it out for new subscribers and existing ones will be getting it in the "coming weeks." Enterprise already got hit with this from my understanding.

p_stuart82: subscription leftovers are noise. the real switching cost is the harness glue.prompts. tool calling quirks. evals. auth. retries. all the weird failure modes your team already paid to learn.

hombre_fatal: I suspect many people here have tried it, but they expected it to one-shot any prompt, and when it didn't, it confirmed what they wanted to be true and they responded with "hah, see?" and then washed their hands of it.So it's not that they're too stupid. There are various motivations for this: clinging on to familiarity, resistance to what feels like yet another tool, anti-AI koolaid, earnestly underwhelmed but don't understand how much better it can be, reacting to what they perceive to be incessant cheerleading, etc.It's kind of like anti-Javascript posts on HN 10+ years ago. These people weren't too stupid to understand how you could steelman Node.js, they just weren't curious enough to ask, and maybe it turned out they hadn't even used Javascript since "DHTML" was a term except to do $(".box").toggle().I wish there were more curiosity on HN.

ericmcer: So what do I do differently then?Hypothetically, you have a simple slice out of bounds error because a function is getting an empty string so it does something like: `""[5]`.Opus will add a bunch of length & nil checks to "fix" this, but the actual issue is the string should never be empty. The nil checks are just papering over a deeper issue, like you probably need a schema level check for minimum string length.At that point do you just tell it like "no delete all that, the string should never be empty" and let it figure that out, or do I basically need to pseudo code "add a check for empty strings to this file on line 145", or do I just YOLO and know the issue is gone now so it is no longer my problem?My bigger point is how does an LLM know that this seemingly small problem is indicative of some larger failure, like lets say this string is a `user.username` which means users can set their name to empty which means an entire migration is probably necessary. All the AI is going to do is smoosh the error messages and kick the can.

dpkirchner: Not the person you're replying to but yes, sometimes I do tell the agent to remove the cruft. Then I back up a few messages in the context and reword my request. Instead of just saying "fix this crash", or whatever, I say "this is crashing because the string is empty, however it shouldn't be empty, figure out why it's empty". And I might have it add some tests to ensure that whatever code is not returning/passing along empty strings.

dwaltrip: It’d be cool to see your process in depth. You should record some of your sessions :)

torben-friis: People will always go along with a removal of friction even against their benefit. It's natural bias, we have a preference for not spending energy.It's why we pay stupid amounts for takeout when it's a button away, it's why we accept the issues that come with online dating rather than breaking the ice outside, it's why there's been decades scams that claim to get you abs without effort...LLMs are the ultimate friction removal. They can remove gaps or mechanical work that regular programming can, but more importantly they can think for you.I'm convinced this human pattern is as dangerous as addiction. But it's so much harder to fight against, because who's going to be in favor of doing things with more effort rather than less? The whole point of capitalism is supposed to be that it rewards efficiency.

xantronix: > stupid amounts for takeoutAw hell. You found my vice and my own cognitive dissonance here. If I want to truly stand by my convictions, I should probably cook more and log off. Waiting for signs that the tides are turning and that people are beginning to value a slower, more methodical approach again isn't doing anything in the current moment to stave off the genuine feelings of dread that have honestly led to some suicidal ideation.(this is serious and not sarcasm, by the way)

alwillis: > I struggle to believe that a ton of seemingly intelligent software engineers are too dumb to figure out how to use Claude code to get reliable results.They're not dumb, but I'm not surprised they're struggling.A developer's mindset has to change when adding AI into the mix, and many developers either can’t or won’t do that. Developers whose commits that look something like "Fixed some bugs" probably aren’t going to take the time to write a decent prompt either.Whenever there's a technology shift, there are always people who can't or won't adapt. And let's be honest, there are folks whose agenda (consciously or not) is to keep the status quo and "prove" that AI is a bad thing.No wonder we're seeing wildly different stories about the effectiveness of coding agents.

throwaway27448: It should catch up faster. It's absolutely useless for the bulk of the tedium—notably, soldering together random repos to satisfy executives—that makes up my job now.

stemlord: That's mostly been my job since I started around 2010 haha

xantronix: Mind if I use this as a copypasta for the future? This checks off every point people bring on LinkedIn and elsewhere.In all seriousness though, writing code, or even sitting down and properly architecting things, have never been bottlenecks for me. It has either been artificial deadlines preventing me from writing proper unit tests, or the requirement for code review from people on my team who don't even work on the same codebase as I do on a daily basis. I have often stated and stand by the assertion that I develop at the speed of my own understanding, and I think that is a good virtue to carry forth that I think will stand the test of time and bring about the best organisational outcomes. It's just a matter of finding the right place that values this approach.

xantronix: I'm definitely all in on self-hosting, though I rent my compute and pay for bandwidth with Linode and storage with rsync.net.The LLM bit though, personally, is just not for me.

xmprt: I don't think anyone is talking about it because it's not a very productive conversation to have. I'm not particularly bullish on vibe coding either but if you could explain what exactly about vibe coding causes these specific issues then it could be more interesting to discuss.But as it stands, the more likely reason is capacity crunch caused by a chips shortage and demand heavily outpacing supply. You vibe coding reason is based on as much vibes as their code probably is.

leptons: Vibe coding does not usually produce performant code, it produces spaghetti with the goal of making the user asking for work to be done to go away as soon as possible with a (often barely) working solution.I recently vibe-translated a simple project from Javascript to C, where Javascript was producing 30fps, and the first C version produced 1 frame every 20 seconds. After some time trying to get the AI to optimize it, I arrived at 1fps from the C project. Not a win, but the AI did produce working C code.I have no doubt that if I had done this myself, carefully, it would have been 30fps or more.

prabal97: FYI I use my Codex models with Claude code and they work pretty great. It can even pick up on existing conversations w/ Opus and then resume w/ OAI models.

CapmCrackaWaka: If anthropic‘s reliability becomes a meme, they risk brand death like Microsoft. Go to hand it to them though, they’re really living that “AI writes all of our code and it should write your code too” life.

fleischhauf: I'm quite impressed on how far they got while the claude code code looks like it does.

varispeed: I found that telling Claude that it is trying to defraud you and making spend money often gets it back on track and return to pervious performance briefly until it agains starts doing nonsense.I think Anthropics model has conflict of interest. They seem to have nerfed the models so that it takes more iterations to get the result (and spend more money) than it used to where e.g. Opus would get something right first time.

wongarsu: What are the reasonable options besides a Claude Code subscription (or an equivalent from Codex or Copilot)?I could pay API prices for the same models, but aside from paying much more for the same result that doesn't seem helpfulI could pay a 4-5 figure sum for hardware to run a far inferior open modelI could pay a six figure sum for hardware to run an open model that's only a couple months behind in capability (or a 4-5 figure sum to run the same model at a snail's pace)I could pay API costs to semi-trustworthy inference provider to run one of those open modelsNone of those seem like great alternatives. If I want cutting-edge coding performance then a subscription is the most reasonable optionNote that this applies mostly to coding. For many other tasks local models or paid inference on open models is very reasonable. But for coding that last bit of performance matters

prabal97: I use my OAI subscription on my Claude Code. I get the benefit of the Claude Code interface with the intelligence of OAI models.https://prabal.ca/posts/claude-code-chatgpt-subscription/

mvkel: He did say that. And, in virtually the same breath, said they would have to spend $trillions if they hope to achieve AGI first.They don't have compute because they didn't play the game and get the good rates a couple of years, and are now forced to work with third-rate providers. That's not a strategy.I would take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.

UI_at_80x24: I have encountered the exact same kind of frustration, and no amount of prompting seems to prevent it from "randomly" happening.`the error is on line #145 fix it with XYZ and add a check that no string should ever be blank`It's the randomness that is frustrating, and that the fix would be quicker to manually input that drives me crazy. I fear that all the "rules" I add to claude.md is wasting my available tokens it won't have enough room to process my request.

m3kw9: How are they making billions with reliability like that?

Aurornis: I use Claude Code a lot, but I don't understand these "I'm doing 10X the work" comments.I spend a lot of time reviewing any code that comes out of Claude Code. Even using Opus 4.6 with max effort there is almost always something that needs to be changed, often dramatically.I can see how people go down the path of thinking "Wow, this code compiles and passes my tests! Ship it!" and start handing trust over to Opus, but I've already seen what this turns into 6 months down the road: Projects get mired down in so much complexity and LLM spaghetti that the codebase becomes fragile. Everyone is sidetracked restructuring messy code from the past, then fighting bugs that appear in the change.I can believe some of the more recent studies showing LLMs can accelerate work by circa 20% (1.2X) because that's on the same order of magnitude that I and others are seeing with careful use.When someone comes out and claims 10X more output, I simply cannot believe they're doing careful engineering work instead of just shipping the output after a cursory glance.

abroszka33: How are you using it to reach the limit so quickly? I'm 13% at a 10x plan and I have used it for hours every day for the last 5 days. I never hit a limit.

cvdub: Hitting limits is more related to how many tokens it’s generating, not necessarily how complex the changes are.Hit the weekly limit on my 20x plan last week trying to do a full front end rewrite of a giant enterprise web app, 600+ html templates, plus validating every single one with playwright.

abroszka33: That's definitely a lot of work. That consuming a week worth of tokens sounds reasonable.

unshavedyak: Yup, this is why i firmly believe true productivity, as in, it aiding you to make you faster, is limited by the speed of review.I think Claude makes me faster, but the struggle is always centered around retaining own context and reviewing code fully. Reviewing code fully to make sure it’s correct and the way I want it, retaining my own context to speed up reviews and not get lost.I firmly believe people who are seeing massive gains are simply ignoring x% lines of code. There’s an argument to be made for that being acceptable, but it’s a risk analysis problem currently. Not one I subscribe to.

julian37: Use planning+execution rather than one-shotting, it'll let you push back on stuff like this. I recommend brainstorming everything with https://github.com/obra/superpowers, at least to start with.Then work on making sure the LLM has all the info it needs. In this example it sounds like perhaps your hypothetical data model would need to be better typed and/or documented.But yeah as of today it won't pick up on smells as you do, at least not without extra skills/prompting. You'll find that comforting or annoying depending on where you stand...

nerptastic: Man I really thought this was satire. It’s phenomenal that you can gain 10x benefits at all layers of the stack, you must have a very small development team or work alone.I just don’t see how I could export 10x the work and have it properly validated by peers at this point in time. I may be able to generate code 10-20x faster, but there are nuances that only a human can reason about in my particular sector.

suzzer99: Senior engineer with 25 years of experience here. I wish I spent enough time actually coding that 10x-ing my coding productivity would matter much to my job. Most of my day is spent wrangling requirements, looking after junior devs, stamping out confusion brush fires, and generally just trying to steer the app away from a trainwreck down the line.When I do code, it's almost always something novel that I don't know how I'm going to do it until I code a few pieces and see how they fit together. If it's a fairly routine feature based on an existing pattern, I assign it to one of the other devs.