25 pointsby Logans_Run4 hours ago4 comments
  • SunshineTheCat3 hours ago
    Ok, I thought I was going insane. The last two larger coding tasks I gave Claude Code it left about 35% of my request completely undone or done sloppily.

    I because of this, the next task I gave it on the larger side, I ran its work through Codex which identified 7 glaring unfinished parts of the task.

    The trend was starting the part of the task but then leaving a "skeleton" of what I has requested without any of the actual working parts.

    The way I would describe it is a kid cramming his 3 month project into a Sunday evening for Monday's due date.

  • e3df3 hours ago
    Lol OAI and AMD did a deal together so whatever.

    In reality as they scale up, the models lose nuance and become noisier. The boosters do not want to admit this.

    We need highly-specialised models/interfaces. Not one thing and trying to force-fit it.

    • andrekandre16 minutes ago

        > Not one thing and trying to force-fit it.
      
      agree, but then they become glorified ide plugins and can't justify the huge valuations that a magic box that does and knows everything can justify...
  • ratg133 hours ago
    Boris from the Claude Code team explained this on HN 2 days ago

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47664442

    • nhinck22 hours ago
      And as the person who raised the issue said

      > The frustrating part is that it's not a workflow _or_ model issue, but a silently-introduced limitation of the subscription plan. They switched thinking to be variable by load, redacted the thinking so no one could notice, and then have been running it at ~1/10th the thinking depth nearly 24/7 for a month. That's with max effort on, adaptive thinking disabled, high max thinking tokens, etc etc.

      So Boris' explanation isn't really an explanation.

  • trustfixsecan hour ago
    [dead]