I don't doubt that there are people using it for legitimate stuff, but I'd wager the vast majority just set it up for the hype and to feel in the "in crowd".

I set it up, and had it do a few things, then decided its too risky after seeing some of the drastic failures it had caused some people.

Sure I understand you can sandbox it and all, but even then I couldn't think of much stuff I wouldn't want to do myself just nor justify the cost to run it.

But should this extend to anything that could end up in Claudes context? Should we be using xml even in skills for instance, or commands, custom subagents etc.

And then do we end up over indexing on Claude and maybe this ends up hurting other models for those using multiple tools.

I just dislike how much of AI is people saying "do this thing for better results" with no definitive proof but alas it comes with the non determinism.

At least this one has the stamp of approval by Claude codes team itself.

I would put bets on the issue probably being that it was pointed out that Anthropic's models were used to assist the raid in Venezuela, Anthropic then aggressively doubled down on their rules/principles and the DOD didn't like being called out on that so they lashed out, hard.

If theres anything this admin doesn't like, its being postured against or called out by literally anyone, especially in public.

I don't even think Anthropic balked at being used to assist, as long as a human has the final say.

I didn't realize incel rhetoric had spread to hackernews. God we're doomed.

Isn't reddit infested by people complaining about "incels"?

This is the most uncharitable take and common of the people who try to play the middle or wave away their decision to vote for Trump.

The decision was quite literally between a known criminal and already even at the time known to be likely pedophile (and now it's basically a fact) and someone who is none of that.

In my case it is a charitable take of someone who appreciates that painting his political opponents as evil incarnate is not going to bring about a political change. There is nuance in how people form their ideological priorities and how they end up making the final decision on who to vote for. Recognizing that is very important if we want to, you know, win any more elections. Trump would be approximately dead last for my vote if you gave me an arbitrarily long list of terrible candidates.

The dems consistently push everyone even a little bit impure from their coalition, which is why they have had difficulties winning slam-dunk elections. And instead of calling everyone who voted from Trump evil or stupid, they refuse to look in the mirror and see if there is anything they could change about their own pitch that would make it more appealing.

Sorry but if you claim to be from the party of law and order and vote in a criminal, I have no issues calling those people stupid and evil.

It wasn't like Trump just had some petty past crime on his hands and had turned a new leaf.

Claude Code. They mention they are using claude codes CLI in the benchmark, and claude code changes constantly.

I wouldn't be surprised if the thing this is actually testing is benchmarking just claude codes constant system prompt changes.

I wouldn't really trust this to be able to benchmark opus itself.

Theres a reason 99% of actions taken by democrats are just "strongly worded letters" and how they consistently come up with the exact small number of Democrats needed to push legislation and bills that the party proposes to be against.

Most Democratic politicians are in on the game too. Its all just political theater and their in-group rotates out who gets to be the bad guys.

Yes Democrats clean-up by not breaking norms, but as mentioned they never go far enough because they legitimately do not want to go too far due to corporate interests and the elite.

I am left leaning but do not align with the majority of the Democratic party because they are in on this too. They have the tools to be much more antagonistic to the GOP but they purposely don't use them

I think this take is on the cynical side. A more charitable interpretation would be what they say (but maybe I'm being naive): that they don't want to break the rules to fix what someone else broke by breaking the rules.

I'm not sure what you mean by "they consistently come up with the exact small number of Democrats needed to push legislation and bills that the party proposes to be against" -- if you mean the Republicans manage to get some Democrats to "switch sides" -- it's important to remember that this is how everything used to get done. Check the old votes: party-line was less common back in the day. And even now, Democrats tolerate members with differing opinions far more than the GOP does, and it shows in their voting patterns.

You're not just being naive, you're ignoring the blatant reality. 2016 DNC is enough evidence that yes, the core of the party is very much in on it.

Can you expand on this, because I'm not understanding what your grief with the 2016 DNC is. I'll help speed the process saying: 1. I voted for Bernie in the primary 2. I fully recognize -- and we all should -- that the DNC is not beholden to us to run the primary in a particular way. Until some point in the 20th century nominees were literally decided in backroom deals without primaries influencing anything. So the idea that they "robbed" us of the Bernie candidacy doesn't hold sway with me (if that's what you're arguing) even though I supported him myself.

The issue isn't not choosing Bernie, it's knowingly picking the only candidate who could possibly lose. Because as GP said, they're in on the game. The goal wasn't to pick who they sincerely believed to be the best candidate for the country, including both fitness and likelihood of winning. So it's theatre, as they pretend to put the populace first, but clearly they don't.

Or perhaps, the base and establishment of the Democratic Party (ie. moderate black people) rejected Bernie because they felt he was a bad choice.

This Bernie trutherism is really getting old, it's been disproven so many times.

You're reading things that aren't there. There was an endless supply of other options, not just Bernie. Projecting things onto others is getting old.

There really wasn't.

Wait, so your theory is that the Dems:

   1. Knew that Hilary Clinton would lose to Trump
   2. Engineered the primary to select her as their nominee *because* of (1)?

That would require an enormous conspiracy, and as many have demonstrated, a conspiracy of that scale cannot operate in secret.

No, I didn't imply that anywhere. Not sure how you read that. They knew she was a very poor pick in terms of "good for the whole populace" and "maximizing the chances of winning", yet chose her despite that, not because of it. The theater is the pretending that they have the best for the populace in mind, which directly contradicts this.

This is exactly why I think Waymo will win.

My wife and I went to a couple cities where Waymo operated and when we tried it were pleasantly surprised. Talked to a few people and did some research and it's clear women feel much safer and will pay the premium to have their type of experience vs basically a random gamble as to the type of person who will pick you up in an Uber.

Not to mention lately it seems like Ubers standards for the cars picking you up have gone way down the drain. That or maybe people are just lying or gaming the system about the state of their vehicles.

And on top of that there are plenty of drivers who probably shouldn't even have a license. As a man there have been plenty of rides where I've felt unsafe simply due to erratic driving.

What were you surprised about though? My expectation was always that it would be better, for various reasons.

See, I'm not sure I would feel safer that way. You can stop a Waymo with a couple traffic cones and then rob the occupants. I think busses and trains are way safer. They have transit police and drivers that are able to handle situations like assault. Also, in my experience, people tend to help out when someone is being a POS and you are less likely to be robbed on a bus than in a car.

I think the traffic cone robbery threat model also exists for non-Waymos (e.g. car jacking).

For an Uber, you have more people in the car. Also, the driver can avoid a robbery better than a robot. More people is safer in general.

This is... just not my experience at all. Passengers and transit workers alike ignore assaults. Even cops sometimes.

Anecdotally, I've had the opposite experience. However, the raw data shows the difference. Scientific American did a great article on the data released by the DOT in the USA.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-public-transit...

Sloppy seconds seems to be his thing.

I can't imagine being somebody who voted for him and thinking this is what an "alpha" man does, bitch and moan about prizes and recognition instead of actually doing things of value.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a large cohort of people who never admit they voted for Trump in the future out of embarrassment.

I try to talk to Trump voters to understand. I suggest you try as well if you're curious about this stuff. N = a dozen or so, but ones I've talked to care more about his actual political stances, like his white nationalist policies above all else. They see this stuff as entertainment and laugh with Trump as he makes these long established institutions bend to his will.

I honestly think the racist stuff is the primary reason.

They can’t be impressed with his business acumen considering that he’s an objectively terrible businessman. They can’t be impressed with his academic record considering he doesn’t really have one. He has no military history, the only thing people know him from was a terrible reality TV show and his constant need to embellish everything he does.

Well, that, and the fact that he started saying a bunch of really racist shit in 2015 about how Mexico’s “not sending their best”, and how he’s not going to get a fair trial for Trump University because his judge has a Mexican-sounding last name.

I think a lot of his voters are cowards who are deeply unhappy and are too afraid to say that they believe that immigrants and DEI are the sole reason that their lives are terrible.

I find it funny because the reasons their lives are terrible are both more complicated but also simpler than DEI and immigrants. As far as I can tell, nearly all their problems boil down to self-interested sociopaths who have inserted themselves into power, and these sociopaths are completely ambivalent to the consequences of their decisions, so long as it doesn’t directly affect them.

To be clear, this is beyond “capitalism” or anything like that. Sociopaths controlling the world has been a thing for millennia, probably as long we’ve had any concept of “society”.

I don’t think we have to wait for the future. Part of the problem with the polling data in 2016 was that people lied because they were embarrassed about voting for him.

Never releasing the benchmarks or being openly benched unlike literally every other model provider always irked me.

I think they know they're on the backfoot at the moment. Cursor was hot news for a long time but now it seems terminal based agents are the hot commodity and I rarely see cursor mentioned. Sure they already have enterprise contracts signed but even at my company we're about to swap from a contract with cursor to Claude code because everyone wants to use that instead now - especially since it doesn't tie you to one editor.

So I think they're really trying to get "something" out there that sticks and puts them in the limelight. Long context/sessions are one of the hot things especially with Ralph being the hot topic so this lines up with that.

Also I know cursor has its own cli but I rarely see mention of it.