They don't test CC updates before release. The testing is done by their own team using the product or public feedback.

The model doing it one shot does not mean they only attempted it once though. They could have tried and retried a ‘one-shot’ answer hundreds of times before it produced a workable result

1. Figma (in progress)

2. Most entry level jobs for current graduates in white collar fields. (See hiring rates for these positions)

3. Thousands of layoffs (mostly attributed to AI use, while not 100%, the Anthropic's specific marketing push has a huge influence on this - unlike OAI and other labs)

4. All low-code products/startups

5. Web agencies who did small websites for local businesses

While AI industry push is there for all of the above, Anthropic's specific marketing/PR is specifically directed towards forced adoption of AI and burning tokens, unlike from other labs.

> 1. Figma (in progress)

Hmmm… maybe. I think not. It really depends on your other claims below, with which I mostly disagree.

2. Most entry level jobs for current graduates in white collar fields. (See hiring rates for these positions)

Maybe a small amount. Entry level white collar jobs have a low hiring rate for other reasons, imho.

3. Thousands of layoffs (mostly attributed to AI use, while not 100%, the Anthropic's specific marketing push has a huge influence on this - unlike OAI and other labs)

What they say and what the actual reasons are not the same, imho. Correcting for over hiring is the actual main reason.

4. All low-code products/startups

Low-code and no-code products in the hands of someone who doesn’t have a developer’s mind and/or experience usually ends up as a mess, and quickly becomes an unusable mess.

I know of exactly two people who have done successfully used AI to make a low-code/no-code product. One is just highly motivated and wicked smart. The other did a minor in CS a long time ago (works in a different field). Everyone else shows me a pile of garbage and asks me how to fix it (answer: throw it away and start from scratch).

5. Web agencies who did small websites for local businesses

As with 4 above, the only site a local business can make for themselves is one that functions as a business card… at best. Usually it looks more like a business card that a kindergartner made. They simply don’t understand what makes a website good for their business, therefore they cannot direct AI to make it for them.

There’s a lot to criticize about AI, imho, but these aren’t on the list.

I personally know several digital marketing people who were "tech savvy" but had no programming experience who have launched websites that would have cost them thousands of dollars to build.

So much of what you'd previously pay a "real" freelance developer or web "agency" to build is no less "garbage" than what engineers would call the average vibe-coded web app.

Claude in particular is today really surprisingly good at taking examples and a layperson's description of a website and building something that looks good and is functional.

For obvious reasons, I think many developers/engineers don't want to accept this. They'd prefer to believe that there's something special about their craft that means something produced by AI isn't good enough. But the honest will acknowledge that spaghetti code and crap pre-dated AI.

> They'd prefer to believe that there's something special about their craft that means something produced by AI isn't good enough.

I know I can code and get better results than most people can with an LLM but I've came to realize that it doesn't matter and people just want to see results (even if they are kind of wrong).

In other words, with the website example, I've realized that even if the agency can do something 10x better, most people will choose to "buy" the AI website just because it's free or super cheap, and that makes me sad

Just like most industries, masses are looking for the cheapest solution with ok-ish perceived quality.

If you are looking for purpose, find a niche or do something else. If you want a job, embrace the slop.

> digital marketing people who were "tech savvy" but had no programming experience who have launched websites that would have cost them thousands of dollars to build.

Static Websites have been commoditizatized for decades now. We had :

- one-click deploy Open-Source CMS

- single page places like Geocities providing own domain

- design templates where you just add your own logo, tagline, etc

This is just yet another way to do that but the ability to have that result was there for "digital marketing people" since the early 2000s, if not earlier. In fact since the Internet existed there have been tools and resources for non developer to make Websites.

PS: it's roughly the same for mobile Apps, namely having a basic App like a ToDo list had had scaffolding for years, including countless dedicated to non-developers.

I'm not talking about static websites. I'm talking about tech-savvy non-engineers who have been able to build fully-functional dynamic websites (with user registration, dashboards, integrations with third-party services, etc.) using AI.

I think way too many engineers underestimate the ability of tech-savvy non-engineers to use AI to build quite sophisticated applications today.

Would these scale to millions of users? Are they totally secure? Surely no. But if we're being honest, most freelancers and agencies haven't been producing highly-scalable, highly-secure work product either.

> dynamic websites (with user registration, dashboards, integrations with third-party services, etc.)

What do you think a CMS is?

I'm not trying to get into a semantic argument. By one definition, almost any web application can be considered a CMS.

I'll reiterate my point: tech-savvy non-engineers are using AI to build the kind of dynamic web applications that many engineers don't want to believe can be built by non-engineers using AI.

One marketer I know built a sales-related application for a niche industry with Claude Code and and has been able to attract a handful of paying subscribers in just a few months.

I'm sure an experienced US or Europe-based freelance developer would have charged tens of thousands of dollars to build something similar, and an "agency/shop" double that. And I'm not sure anything they would have built would have been significantly "better".

I'll reiterate my point too then: yes, and that's not new. There are always engineers selling to tech-savvy non-engineers tools transforming a service based on expertise to a product.

If you think what AI is enabling, and how it's actually being used by tech-savvy non-engineers, is "not new", carry on.

The AI "hype" is the perfect example of how people see what they want to see, on both sides.

It's so funny to read these things. Thanks to AI people can do so many things.

I mean they could do them also in the 90s with microsoft access and a bit of clicking and copy pasting. But now it costs 10000x more so it's better.

Right? It's like suddenly people discovered that tools can embody expertise. That's literally what we've been doing for ... our entire existence as a species.

The question wasn't about the quality of the work done or a criticism of AI in general. But those were areas where people were employed and got paid to do a job. The output may not have been acceptable from Silicon Valley standards - but they were still employed and paid taxes.

It's about whole industries/sectors getting destroyed by a single company. 'Overhiring' is a result of changed business situations. Companies don't overhire hundreds and thousands of people intentionally to let them go. They hired to fill a need. Market conditions changed, competition changed.

Entry level hiring is mostly destroyed mainly because of Anthropic's messaging. Other labs don't push that hard on every vertical because they created a skill with some .md files - and pretend is a highly skilled AI.

I'm not against Anthropic doing it, I'm just saying what they're doing at the moment. Given enough time, Anthropic will be coming after every job that can be done by a computer - including yours and mine.

> Anthropic will be coming after every job that can be done by a computer - including yours and mine

It’s not something I worry about.

What I, and many of my peers, excel at is taking vague inputs from end users and putting them into actionable specs. Often times this requires considerable education of the end user.

AI might be able to suggest best practices, but getting someone from malformed ideas into an actionable path forward is a very human thing.

Sure, tech-savvy lucid thinking clients with time on their hands might not need my services any more at some point, but… yeah… that’s not my client base.

I get paid to solve business problems. Everything I’ve done in the past could have theoretically been done by my customers, but it wasn’t. AI removes a small amount of the friction for a small portion of the market, but that’s just not a market-wide phenomenon.

“Super smart, super savvy, highly-motivated, and prefer to spend time instead of money” does not describe most business owners.

That’s just my 2 cents…

Figma just reported 45% revenue growth last quarter and is up ~20%...

Revenue growth from an existing customer base doesn't necessarily mean the company is healthy for the long term. Look at Salesforce and Figma revenue reporting vs their stock futures.

These seems to be healthy desctructions, if the market rejects them eventually for a better product

But it’s not a better product, it’s just cheaper.

That’s one person’s opinion, yours, and not the market’s.

Fair, of course price is a factor in whether one product is better than another, and yes it’s my opinion that things becoming more affordable/junkier, is not always a net increase in quality of life.

Please explain how Figma is in progress of being destroyed?

This is not destroying. This is success.

> This is success

For who?

The company looking to solve these problems

What problems?

Manually having to do these things while taking 10x longer to do them.

There's a lot of deception going on with job numbers. Everyone knows there was a hiring spree during the pandemic and companies have been gradually shedding off excess weight since then. AI of course is just another excuse to shed more numbers.

I'd prefer it if people looking at hiring numbers would compare it with the pre-pandemic levels.

I think it's about time we need to move past this 'pandemic overhiring' story. Pandemic ended years ago.

Long tail effects of major events cannot be wished away

Anthropics New Playbook:

`/loop 2days /create-new-{insert-industry}-md-files`

This is only for PR. No one checks what's in those docs, or if these are real, valid or ethical. The goal here is for all news outlets to pick them up. You're not the audience.

Given the amount of free PR they can get from some AI-generated .md files, I'd probably do the same if I was on their boat.

Right now, I don't think any other AI company generates as much as slop as Anthropic does.

Fake verticals created for no other purpose than to pad out a page in the IPO prospectus. That is literally their purpose, there is no technical or business content here worth discussing, but HackerNews is so pilled it can't help but discuss. Maybe after the 100th "Claude for dog walkers" announcement we'll catch on.

It's like that short animation of a Kiwi bird getting high[1].

Each cycle gets shorter and shorter to sustain the high.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo

There's going to be a "Claude for wiping my ass" at this rate.

I’m working on ways to evaluate and give feedback on surgical techniques. But you just helped me find a new pivot. Thanks! And yes I’m on the toilet.

Wasn’t this the concept behind the toilet in the Your Friends and Neighbors series on Apple TV?

You jest, but combination of robotics and AI is likely the only constructive way to deal with the population getting older.

Can someone who has done this, simplify and say what specs we need on a `local computer` to run and test this, with a reasonable speed?

Excluding MBP M5 128GB.

It is slow but usable via opencode on a mbp m3 max 48 gb. So I guess hosted is still the better option for most people.

The local models are considerably better relative to the hosted ones compared to 6 months ago. Bench maxing or not - stuff is happening in this area for sure.

I've got the unsloth q4_K_XL 35b running in llama.cpp on an i9/64G/4090 machine doing double-digit tokens per second with a 90k+ token context window available. The model's completely in VRAM.

The replies in the Issue from the maintainers were clear. At some point in the future, they will probably accept PR submissions from LLMs, but the current policy is the way it is because of the reasons stated.

Honestly, they recognized the gravity of this first bot collision with their policy and they handled it well.

What policy are you referring to? Is there a document?

Bot is not a person.

Someone, who is a person, has decided to run an unsolicited experiment on other people's repos.

OR

Someone just pretends to do that for attention.

In either case a ban is justied.

Yep, there's nothing wrong about walled gardens. They might risk to become walled museums, but it's their choice.

Moderation is needed exactly because it's not a walled garden, but an open community. We need rules to protect communities.

Humans are no longer the only entities that produce code. If you want to build community, fine.

Generated code is not a new thing. It's the first time we are expected (by some) to treat code generators as humans though.

Imagine if you built a bot that would crawl github, run a linter and create PRs on random repos for the changes proposed by a linter - you'd be banned pretty soon on most of them and maybe on Github itself. That's the same thing in my opinion.

Many open source contributions are unsolicited, which makes a clear contribution policy and code of conduct all the more important.

And given that, I think "must not use LLM assistance" will age significantly worse than an actually useful description of desirable and undesirable behavior (which might very reasonably include things like "must not make your bot's slop our core contributor's problem").

There is a common agreement in the open source community that unsolicited contributions from humans are expected and desireable if made in good faith. Letting your agent loose on github is neither good faith nor LLM assisted programming, it's just an experiment with other people's code which we have also seen (and banned) before the age of LLMs.

I think some things are just obviously wrong and don't need to be written down. I also think having common rules for bots and people is not a good idea, because, point one, bots are not people and we shouldn't pretend they are

It doesn't address the maintainer's argument which is that the issue exists to attract new human contributors. It's not clear that attracting an OpenClawd instance as contributor would be as valuable. It might just be shut down in a few months.

> The bot (allegedly) did a better performance improvement than the maintainer.

But on a different issue. That comparison seems odd

The ends almost never justify the means. The issue was intended for a human.

Do the means justify the ends?

You missed the rest of it.

> “So you keep pushing on making it constitutional. I’m totally supportive of that,” Karp said.

Which in context means, you keep pushing to make the military be sure they are operating within the bounds of the constitution.

When he says "push to make it constitutional" what he means is push to make them comply with complex rules.