6 ms·

Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

110 points by 01-_- 1y ago

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> If you want things to be done safely and responsibly, you do it in the open AFAICT this is a complete article of faith. Or insofar as it's true, it's true because doing it in the open allows other stakeholders to criticize and shape its direction – which seems precisely the dialogue that Jensen seems allergic to (makes sense given his incentives, of course)
imperialdrive 1y ago
Finally gave Claude a go after trying OpenAI a while and feeling pretty _meh_ about the coding ability... Wow, it's a whole other level or two ahead, at least for my daily flavor which is PowerShell. No way a double-digit amount of jobs aren't at stake. This stuff feels like it is really starting to take off. Incredible time to be in tech, but you gotta be clever and work hard every day to stay on the ride. Many folks got comfortable and/or lazy. AI may be a kick in the pants. It is for me anyway.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- WXLCKNO 1y ago
  I've been trying every flavor of AI powered development and after trying Claude Code for two days with an API key, I upgraded to the full Max 20x plan. Cursor, Windsurf, Roo Code / Cline, they're fine but nothing feels as thorough and useful to me as Claude Code. The Codex CLI from OpenAI is not bad either, there's just something satisfying about the LLM straight up using the CLI
  - solumunus 1y ago
    It really is night and day. Most of them feel like cool toys, Claude Code is a genuine work horse. It immediately became completely integral to my workflow. I own a small business and I can say with absolute confidence this will reduce the amount of devs I need to hire going forward.
    - hollowturtle 1y ago
      I don't get claims like that, if AI let me do more and be more productive with less people I could also grow and scale more, that means that I can also hire more and again multiply growth because each dev will bring more and more... I'm skeptic because I don't see it happening, actually the contrary more people doing more things maybe, but the not 10x nor 100x otherwise we would see products built in 5 years coming out in literally 15 days
      - davnicwil 1y ago
        It might be that the value more software can add is already at its limit in any given business - or at least returns will be diminishing. Meaning in those particular businesses the appetite to hire devs might stay flat (or even shrink!) as AI makes existing devs more efficient. The more interesting question is whether this is true across the economy as a whole. In my view the answer is clearly no. Are we already operating at the limit of more software to add value at the margin? No. So though any particular existing business might stop hiring or even cut staff, it won't matter if more businesses are created to do yet more things in the world with software. We might even end up in a place where across the economy, more dev jobs exist as a result of more people doing more with software in a kind of snowball effect. More conservatively, though, you'd at least expect us to just reach equilibrium with current jobs if indeed there is new demand for software to soak up.
      - solumunus 1y ago
        It’s not my goal to scale infinitely. I want to run a small, tight business which is highly profitable but also pleasant to operate long term. I’m not looking for some huge exit.
  - wellthisisgreat 1y ago
    hey can you explain the appeal of Claude Code vs Cursor? I know the context window part and Cursor RAG-ing it, but isn't IDE integration a a true force multiplier? Or does Claude Code do something similar with "send to chat" / smart (Cursor's TAB feature) autocomplete etc.? I fired it up but it seemed like just Claude in terminal with a lot more manual copy-pasting expected? I tried all the usual suspects in AI-assisted programming, and Cursor's TAB is too good to give up vs Roo / Cline. I do agree Claude's the best for programming so would love to use it full-featured version.
    - cybrjoe 1y ago
      i rewrote a code base that i’ve been tinkering on for the last 2 years or so this weekend. a complete replatform, new tech stack, ui, infra, the whole nine yards. the rewrite took exactly 3 days, referenced the old code base, online documentation, github issues all without (mostly) ever leaving claude. it completely blew my mind. i wrote maybe 10 lines of code manually. it’s going to eliminate jobs.
      - lazystar 1y ago
        > it’s going to eliminate jobs. that's the part i'm not sold on yet. it's a tool that allows you to do a year's work in a week - but every dev in every company will be able to use that tool, thus it will increase the productivity of each engineer by an equal amount. that means each company's products will get much better much faster - and it means that any company that cuts head count will be at risk of falling behind it's competitors. i could see it getting rid of some of the infosec analysts, i guess. since itll be easier to keep a codebase up to date, the folks that run a nessus scan and cut tickets asking teams to upgrade their codebase will have less work available.
        bluefirebrand 1y ago
        > it's a tool that allows you to do a year's work in a week Exaggerations like this really don't help your credibility
  - dandaka 1y ago
    Claude Code works surprisingly well and is also cheaper, compared to Windsurf and Cline + Sonnet 4. The rate of errors dropped dramatically for my side projects, from "I have to check most changes" to "I have not written a line".
- unshavedyak 1y ago
  I purchased Max a week ago and have been using it a lot. Few experiences so far: - It generates slop in high volume if not carefully managed. It's still working, tested code, but easily illogical. This tool scares me if put in the hands of someone who "just wants it to work". - It has proven to be a great mental block remover for me. A tactic i've often had in my career is just to build the most obvious, worst implementation i can if i'm stuck, because i find it easier to find flaw in something and iterate than it is to build a perfect impl right away. Claude makes it easy to straw man a build and iterate it. - All the low stakes projects i want to work on but i'm too tired to after real work have gotten new life. It's updated library usage (Bevy updates were always a slog for me), cleaned up tooling and system configs, etc. - It seems incapable of seeing the larger picture on why classes of bugs happen. Eg on a project i'm Claude Code "vibing" on, it's made a handful of design issues that started to cause bugs. It will happily try and fix individual issues all day rather than re-architect to make a less error prone API. Despite being capable to actually fix the API woes if prompted to. I'm still toying with the memory though, so perhaps i can get it to reconsider this behavior. - Robust linting, formatting and testing tools for the language seem necessary. My pet peeve is how many spaces the LLM will add in. Thankfully cargo-fmt clears up most LLM gunk there.
- GardenLetter27 1y ago
  I find it's good if you can get a really clean context, but on IRL problems with 100k+ lines of code that's extremely hard to manage. It absolutely aced an old take-home test I had though - https://jamesmcm.github.io/blog/claude-data-engineer/ https://jamesmcm.github.io/blog/claude-data-engineer/ But note the problems it got wrong are troubling, especially the off-by-one error the first time as that's the sort of thing a human might not be able to validate easily.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > Finally gave Claude a go after trying OpenAI a while and feeling pretty _meh_ about the coding ability... Wow, it's a whole other level or two ahead, I’ve been avoiding LLM-coding conversations on popular websites because so many people tried it a little bit 3-6 months ago, spot something that doesn’t work right, and then write it off completely. Everyone who uses LLM tools knows they’re not perfect, they hallucinate some times, their solutions will be laughably bad to some problems, and all the other things that come with LLMs. The difference is some people learn the limits and how to apply them effectively in their development loop. Other people go in looking for the first couple failures and then declare victory over the LLM. There are also a lot of people frustrated with coworkers using LLMs to produce and submit junk, or angry about the vibe coding glorification they see on LinkedIn, or just feel that their careers are threatened. Taking the contrarian position that LLMs are entirely useless provides some comfort. Then in the middle, there are those of us who realize their limits and use them to help here and there, but are neither vibe coding nor going full anti-LLM. I suspect that’s where most people will end up, but until then the public conversations on LLMs are rife with people either projecting doomsday scenarios or claiming LLMs are useless hype.
- neilfrndes 1y ago
  Yup, Claude Code is the real deal. It's a massive force multiplier for me. I run a small SaaS startup. I've gotten more done in the last month than the previous 3 months or more combined. Not just code, but also emails, proposals, planning, legal etc. I feel like working in slo-mo when Claude is down (which unfortunately happens every couple of days). I believe that tools like Claude code will help smaller companies disproportionately.
  - finlayson_point 1y ago
    how are you using claude code for emails? with a MCP connection or just taking the output from the terminal
    - neilfrndes 1y ago
      I just copy the terminal output, no MCP. The context relevant to most emails is in a CLAUDE.md file.
leetrout 1y ago
Anthropic warns unemployment is a serious risk. Nvidia has an inflated stock and knows how to play the game so of course they deny any such thing with a view not much past the next quarterly earnings call. No surprises here.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  Unemployment will be a serious risk indeed once the current AI bubble bursts and we enter a new economic downturn. As it is, AI-generated unemployment is just FUD.
  - seadan83 1y ago
    When that bubble bursts, perhaps non-AI tech companies will start receiving VC funds again.
artemsokolov 1y ago
Strange to see such unfounded criticism directed at Anthropic and Dario. So far, they seem to be the most transparent and responsible in the AI race.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Because this has nothing to do with wanting more transparency or responsibility – just doesn't want a chilling of demand, export controls, or other regulation on chips.
- qoez 1y ago
  Definitely responsible but transparent definitely not. Anyway he's probably just saying this because it's beneficial for nvidias bottom line if it's open.
- jjfoooo4 1y ago
  Anthropic's marketing has been successful at position them as the responsible alternative to OpenAI, but what concretely do they actually do differently than any other model provider? It feels very akin to the Uber vs Lyft situation, two companies with very different perceptions pursuing identical business models
dsign 1y ago
Why look at five years and say "everything is gonna be fine in five years, thus, everything is gonna be fine and we should keep this AI thing going"? It's early days and nobody knows how things will go, but to me it looks that in the next century or so humans are going the way of the horse, at least when it comes to jobs. And if our society doesn't change radically, let's remember that the only way most people have of eating and clothing is to sell their labor. I'm an AI pessimist-pragmatist. If the thing with AI gets really bad for wage slaves like me, I would prefer to have enough savings to put AIs to work in some profitable business of mine, or to do my healthcare when disease strikes.
- quonn 1y ago
  > It's early days and nobody knows how things will go, but to me it looks that in the next century or so How is it early days? AI has been talked about since at least the 50s, neural networks have been a thing since the 80s. If you are worried about how technology will be in a century, why stop right here? Why not take the state of computers in the 60s and stop there? Chances are, if the current wave does not achieve strong AI the there will be another AI winter and what people will research in 30 or 40 or 100 years is not something that our current choices can affect. Therefore the interesting question is what happens short-term not what happens long-term.
  - dsign 1y ago
    I said that one hundred years from now humans would have likely gone the way of the horse. It will be a finished business, not a thing starting. We may take it with some chill, depending on how we value our species and our descendants and the long human history and our legacy. It's a very individual thing. I'm not chill. There's no comparing the AI we have today with what we had 5 years ago. There's a huge qualitative difference: the AI we had five years ago was reliable but uncreative. The one we have now is quite a bit unreliable but creative at a level comparable with a person. To me, it's just a matter of time before we finish putting the two things together--and we have already started. Another AI winter of the sort we had before seems to me highly unlikely.
rectang 1y ago
The Anthropic CEO wants companies to lay off workers and pay Anthropic to do the work instead. Is Anthropic capable enough to replace those workers, and will it actually happen? Such pronouncements should be treated with the skepticism you'd apply to any sales pitch.
levocardia 1y ago
Nvidia is also very mad about Anthropic's advocacy for chip export controls, which is not mentioned in this article. Dario has an entire blog post explaining why preventing China from getting Nvidia's top of the line chips is a critical national security issue, and Jensen is, at least by his public statements, furious about the export controls. As it currently stands, Anthropic is winning in terms of what the actual US policy is, but it may not stay that way.
- KerrAvon 1y ago
  Jensen is right, though. If we force China to develop their own technology they’ll do that! We don’t have a monopoly on talent or resources. The US can have a stake at the table or nothing at all. The time when we, the US, could do protectionism without shooting ourselves in the foot is well and truly over. The most we can do is inconvenience China in the short term.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Should we also give them the plans for all of our military equipment then, by the same logic? Neither side is obviously right.
  - orangecat 1y ago
    The most we can do is inconvenience China in the short term. If scaling holds up enough to make AGI possible in the next 5-10 years, slowing down China by even a few years is extremely valuable.
    - cedws 1y ago
      Nothing says we’re the good guys like “we’ll do whatever it takes to sandbag our competitors.” Of course, we’re the benevolent ones who will only use this tool for wealth and prosperity.
      - DaSHacka 1y ago
        Nothing says intelligent geopolitical strategy like conceding your advantage to foreign adversaries for short-term private gains.
scuol 1y ago
Just this morning, I had Claude come up with a C++ solution that would have undefined behavior that even a mid-level C++ dev could have easily caught (assuming iterator stability in a vector that was being modified) just by reading the code. These AI solutions are great, but I have yet to see any solution that makes me fear for my career. It just seems pretty clear that no LLM actually has a "mental model" of how things work that can avoid the obvious pitfalls amongst the reams of buggy C++ code. Maybe this is different for JS and Python code?
- ddaud 1y ago
  I agree. That mental model is precisely why I don’t use LLMs for programming.
- mistrial9 1y ago
  a difference emerges when an agent can run code and examine the results. Most platforms are very cautious about this extension. Recent MCP does define toolsets and can enable these feedback loops in a way that can be adopted by markets and software ecosystems.
- jsrozner 1y ago
  This is exactly right. LLMs do not build appropriate world models. And no...python and JS have similar failure cases. Still, sometimes it can solve a problem like magic. But since it does not have a world model it is very unreliable, and you need to be able to fall back to real intelligence (i.e., yourself).
- pepinator 1y ago
  This is where one can notice that LLM are, after all, just stochastic parrots. If we don't have a reliable way to systematically test their outputs, I don't see many jobs being replaced by AI either.
  - mistrial9 1y ago
    > just stochastic parrots this is flatly false for two reasons -- one is that all LLMs are not equal. The models and capacities are quite different, by design. Secondly a large number of standardized LLM testing, tests for sequence of logic or other "reasoning" capacity. Stating the fallacy of stochastic parrots is basically proof of not looking at the battery of standardized tests that are common in LLM development.
kbos87 1y ago
Companies like Nvidia and OpenAI base their answers to any questions on economic risk on their own best interests and a pretty short view of history. They are fighting like hell to make sure they are among a small set of winners while waving away the risk or claiming that there's some better future for the majority of people on the other side of all this. To claim that all of the benefit isn't going to naturally accrue to a thin layer of people at the top isn't a speculation at this point - it's a bold faced lie. When AI finally does cause massive disruption to white collar work, what happens then? Do we really think that most of the American economy is just going to downshift into living off a meager universal basic income allotment (assuming we could ever muster the political will to create a social safety net?) Who gets the nice car and the vacation home? Once people are robbed of what remaining opportunities they have to exercise agency and improve their life, it isn't hard to imagine that we see some form of swift and punitive backlash, politically or otherwise.
- brookst 1y ago
  I’m very skeptical of claims that all things will always do this and never do that, etc. IMO Jensen and others don’t know where AI is going any more than the rest of us. Your imaginary dystopia is certainly possible, but I would warn against having complete conviction it is the only possible outcome.
  - kbos87 1y ago
    Fair point and I absolutely acknowledge that the future AI will usher in is still very much an unknown. I do think it's worth recognizing that there is one part of the story that is very predictable because it's happened over and over again - the part where some sort of innovation creates new efficiencies and advantages. I think it's fair to debate the extent to which AI will completely disrupt the white collar working class, but to whatever extent it does, I don't think there's much argument about where the benefit will accrue under our current economic system.
    - autobodie 1y ago
      [flagged]
jjfoooo4 1y ago
The AI executives predicting AI doomsday trend has been pretty tiresome, and I'm glad it's getting push back. It's impossible to take it seriously given an Anthropic's CEO's incentives: to thrill investors and to shape regulation of competitors. The biggest long term competitor to Anthropic isn't OpenAI, or Google... it's open source. That's the real target of Amodei's call for regulation.
Spivak 1y ago
Hey now, let's not criticize the Anthropic CEO just yet. He made a totally not just pulling a number out of his ass prediction, but a prediction that's nonetheless falsifiable. > that 50% of all entry-level white-collar jobs could be wiped out by artificial intelligence, causing unemployment to jump to 20% within the next five years I'm not a betting woman but I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet.
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  The other end is that we continue a roughly 3% unemployment over the next 5 years. I am curious to hear why you think that?
  - seadan83 1y ago
    False dichotomy, we don't have to continue at 3% for the 20% prediction to be wrong. So far, I've seen jobs lost to tariffs. I've yet to see a job lost to AI. Observations are not evidence, but so far there is no evidence I see that shows AI to be a stronger macro economic force than say recessions, tariffs (trade wars) or actual wars.
    - tossandthrow 1y ago
      > for the 20% prediction to be wrong. The was also not the bet. > I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet. I interpret that as full employment, which we are practically at now. It would be amazing if we can stick on to full employment without serious inflation over the next 5 years, and it sounds unreasonable in my ears.
      - seadan83 1y ago
        >> I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet. > I interpret that as full employment, which we are practically at now. Yeah, no, the other end of the bet is that the 20% unemployment outcome will not happen (and it is implied that anything close to that would count, like say 15% or 17%, and of course anything over 20% would qualify too). 20% unemployment is massive depression level of unemployment; so the other end of the bet is that there won't be a massive depression. That is why I stated you present a false dichotomy that the bet is either "depression" or "full employment", the other end of the bet is "not depression"
croes 1y ago
What people like Nvidia‘s CEO (deliberately) don’t understand is that lost jobs are lost jobs but job opportunities aren’t necessarily real new jobs. The same happened with blue collar jobs.
syspec 1y ago
I use Claud Opus 4, and it's pretty good at writing code. For very common languages. It makes a lot of mistakes in its own code, trivial ones, like creating functions and calling them with the arguments reversed. The idea that it's going to blackmail me somehow by showing me what /looks/ like an email, sounds laughable.
jasonsb 1y ago
So far they're both wrong. Jensen says AI technologies will open more career opportunities in the future with zero evidence to support his claim. Dario says unemployment will skyrocket, but we're not seeing a spike in unemployment yet. If Dario's claims were indeed valid, we should already be observing at least a slight spike in the unemployment data.
ninetyninenine 1y ago
This theory that if AI becomes sufficiently advanced and cheap, company productivity will go up and they will in fact need to hire more people because of it is completely false. If AI becomes sufficiently advanced and cheap productivity will go up and companies will as a result need to hire more AI. Let’s be clear. If an AI is developed that is equal to a human in intelligence and cheaper than a human to employ capitalism in general is impacted in a major way. If that happens just pray that robotics doesn’t become sufficiently advanced such that jobs requiring crafting or manual work doesn’t get replaced. Also to be clear I’m not advocating or saying whether or not any of these things will happen. I am simply saying that hypothetically if AI progresses in a certain way then the following consequence is inevitable.
theptip 1y ago
Anthropic is the most open of the major labs; RSP, actual model cards, and they publish their red teaming results. C.f. openAI who released o3 and didn’t publish any model card or safety eval at all, their justification being “it’s not GA, only the top paid subscription can use it”. That’s not how safety works.
Tepix 1y ago
The reason that AI companies are valuated so highly is the inherent promise of replacing humans in the labor force.
- akomtu 1y ago
  In the Big Short movie there is a scene where the old trader scolds two newbies: "why are you so happy? don't you understand that if your bet is right, it means the american economy is going to crash, that millions will lose their jobs?" Right now we're betting on sp500 going up, which is mostly backed by the belief that machines are going to replace us soon.
hollowturtle 1y ago
Am I a skeptic/fool if I think every claim made these CEOs is just bs and they're just over exaggerating to let their product/self image look like real game changer? Like I still don't see any white collar job lost except for companies pretending AI will do the work as an execuse to do massive lay offs. Plus over the history every game changer technology enabled more jobs than before, I don't get the fomo they're injecting into society causing all this anciety just for selfish returns. IMO We should keep Amodei accountable in five years if no jobs are lost but more are created
swalsh 1y ago
Sonnet 4 changed my mind on AI safety. It can do ALOT of work unattended, real work like configuring servers. If you give it a goal, and a set of tools, it will get the job done. But I got freaked out the first time I used it, since I didn't realize just how good it was at pursuing it's goal. I gave it a custom MCP server with limited bash commands. But one of the commands was python (I assumed Anthropic would have trained it not to be so relentless... i was wrong), with that it just gladly used python to build and execute any command I didn't give direct access to. Sonnet 4 is scary smart and efficient. The only hesitation i have is that it's messy. For example, since it does not have a memory (i'm using claude desktop) i've seen it duplicate installations/configurations of containers if it failed to find the origional installation. The solution is to add language to the prompt instructing it to drop documentation, and to read documentation on everything it does.
waltercool 1y ago
[dead]
tonyhart7 1y ago
I don't care if AI eliminates job or not tbh, maybe its like internet that jobs would created but maybe not the only thing that I certain is I would take advantage of this "AI revolution" so called, maybe just maybe Human would get replace with Human + AI tools for now at least
NetRunnerSu 1y ago
The debate between Jensen and Amodei misses the fundamental point. It's not about whether AI creates or destroys jobs. It's about whether it creates or destroys agency. The historical parallel isn't the industrial revolution, where human labor was augmented by machines. The real parallel is the invention of agriculture, which created a surplus but also gave rise to a non-producing ruling class and a system of taxation on existence itself. In the coming AI economy, the most valuable commodity won't be labor, but *verifiable, sovereign consciousness*. The "job" of the future might simply be to be a human—a source of novel data, unpredictable insights, and a non-algorithmic perspective that can't be replicated by a model trained on the past. But here's the catch: how do you prove your consciousness is sovereign and not just a sophisticated puppet of some underlying model? How do you prove your thoughts are your own? This is where the techno-feudalism argument becomes terrifyingly real. The new "landowners" (the Nvidias and Anthropics) won't just own the means of production (compute); they will own the means of verification. They will set the price—the "existence tax"—for you to prove that your cognitive output is valuable, that your "self" is authentic. So, UBI isn't the solution; it's a tranquilizer. The real fight isn't for a basic income, but for *cognitive sovereignty*. We need an open, verifiable protocol for selfhood, a "Proof of Personhood" that isn't controlled by the same entities selling us the shovels for this new gold rush. Otherwise, we're not just becoming unemployed; we're becoming livestock.

110 points by 01-_- 1y ago

> If you want things to be done safely and responsibly, you do it in the open AFAICT this is a complete article of faith. Or insofar as it's true, it's true because doing it in the open allows other stakeholders to criticize and shape its direction – which seems precisely the dialogue that Jensen seems allergic to (makes sense given his incentives, of course)

imperialdrive 1y ago

Finally gave Claude a go after trying OpenAI a while and feeling pretty _meh_ about the coding ability... Wow, it's a whole other level or two ahead, at least for my daily flavor which is PowerShell. No way a double-digit amount of jobs aren't at stake. This stuff feels like it is really starting to take off. Incredible time to be in tech, but you gotta be clever and work hard every day to stay on the ride. Many folks got comfortable and/or lazy. AI may be a kick in the pants. It is for me anyway.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
WXLCKNO 1y ago
I've been trying every flavor of AI powered development and after trying Claude Code for two days with an API key, I upgraded to the full Max 20x plan. Cursor, Windsurf, Roo Code / Cline, they're fine but nothing feels as thorough and useful to me as Claude Code. The Codex CLI from OpenAI is not bad either, there's just something satisfying about the LLM straight up using the CLI
- solumunus 1y ago
  It really is night and day. Most of them feel like cool toys, Claude Code is a genuine work horse. It immediately became completely integral to my workflow. I own a small business and I can say with absolute confidence this will reduce the amount of devs I need to hire going forward.
  - hollowturtle 1y ago
    I don't get claims like that, if AI let me do more and be more productive with less people I could also grow and scale more, that means that I can also hire more and again multiply growth because each dev will bring more and more... I'm skeptic because I don't see it happening, actually the contrary more people doing more things maybe, but the not 10x nor 100x otherwise we would see products built in 5 years coming out in literally 15 days
    - davnicwil 1y ago
      It might be that the value more software can add is already at its limit in any given business - or at least returns will be diminishing. Meaning in those particular businesses the appetite to hire devs might stay flat (or even shrink!) as AI makes existing devs more efficient. The more interesting question is whether this is true across the economy as a whole. In my view the answer is clearly no. Are we already operating at the limit of more software to add value at the margin? No. So though any particular existing business might stop hiring or even cut staff, it won't matter if more businesses are created to do yet more things in the world with software. We might even end up in a place where across the economy, more dev jobs exist as a result of more people doing more with software in a kind of snowball effect. More conservatively, though, you'd at least expect us to just reach equilibrium with current jobs if indeed there is new demand for software to soak up.
    - solumunus 1y ago
      It’s not my goal to scale infinitely. I want to run a small, tight business which is highly profitable but also pleasant to operate long term. I’m not looking for some huge exit.
- wellthisisgreat 1y ago
  hey can you explain the appeal of Claude Code vs Cursor? I know the context window part and Cursor RAG-ing it, but isn't IDE integration a a true force multiplier? Or does Claude Code do something similar with "send to chat" / smart (Cursor's TAB feature) autocomplete etc.? I fired it up but it seemed like just Claude in terminal with a lot more manual copy-pasting expected? I tried all the usual suspects in AI-assisted programming, and Cursor's TAB is too good to give up vs Roo / Cline. I do agree Claude's the best for programming so would love to use it full-featured version.
  - cybrjoe 1y ago
    i rewrote a code base that i’ve been tinkering on for the last 2 years or so this weekend. a complete replatform, new tech stack, ui, infra, the whole nine yards. the rewrite took exactly 3 days, referenced the old code base, online documentation, github issues all without (mostly) ever leaving claude. it completely blew my mind. i wrote maybe 10 lines of code manually. it’s going to eliminate jobs.
    - lazystar 1y ago
      > it’s going to eliminate jobs. that's the part i'm not sold on yet. it's a tool that allows you to do a year's work in a week - but every dev in every company will be able to use that tool, thus it will increase the productivity of each engineer by an equal amount. that means each company's products will get much better much faster - and it means that any company that cuts head count will be at risk of falling behind it's competitors. i could see it getting rid of some of the infosec analysts, i guess. since itll be easier to keep a codebase up to date, the folks that run a nessus scan and cut tickets asking teams to upgrade their codebase will have less work available.
      - bluefirebrand 1y ago
        > it's a tool that allows you to do a year's work in a week Exaggerations like this really don't help your credibility
- dandaka 1y ago
  Claude Code works surprisingly well and is also cheaper, compared to Windsurf and Cline + Sonnet 4. The rate of errors dropped dramatically for my side projects, from "I have to check most changes" to "I have not written a line".
unshavedyak 1y ago
I purchased Max a week ago and have been using it a lot. Few experiences so far: - It generates slop in high volume if not carefully managed. It's still working, tested code, but easily illogical. This tool scares me if put in the hands of someone who "just wants it to work". - It has proven to be a great mental block remover for me. A tactic i've often had in my career is just to build the most obvious, worst implementation i can if i'm stuck, because i find it easier to find flaw in something and iterate than it is to build a perfect impl right away. Claude makes it easy to straw man a build and iterate it. - All the low stakes projects i want to work on but i'm too tired to after real work have gotten new life. It's updated library usage (Bevy updates were always a slog for me), cleaned up tooling and system configs, etc. - It seems incapable of seeing the larger picture on why classes of bugs happen. Eg on a project i'm Claude Code "vibing" on, it's made a handful of design issues that started to cause bugs. It will happily try and fix individual issues all day rather than re-architect to make a less error prone API. Despite being capable to actually fix the API woes if prompted to. I'm still toying with the memory though, so perhaps i can get it to reconsider this behavior. - Robust linting, formatting and testing tools for the language seem necessary. My pet peeve is how many spaces the LLM will add in. Thankfully cargo-fmt clears up most LLM gunk there.
GardenLetter27 1y ago
I find it's good if you can get a really clean context, but on IRL problems with 100k+ lines of code that's extremely hard to manage. It absolutely aced an old take-home test I had though - https://jamesmcm.github.io/blog/claude-data-engineer/ https://jamesmcm.github.io/blog/claude-data-engineer/ But note the problems it got wrong are troubling, especially the off-by-one error the first time as that's the sort of thing a human might not be able to validate easily.
Aurornis 1y ago
> Finally gave Claude a go after trying OpenAI a while and feeling pretty _meh_ about the coding ability... Wow, it's a whole other level or two ahead, I’ve been avoiding LLM-coding conversations on popular websites because so many people tried it a little bit 3-6 months ago, spot something that doesn’t work right, and then write it off completely. Everyone who uses LLM tools knows they’re not perfect, they hallucinate some times, their solutions will be laughably bad to some problems, and all the other things that come with LLMs. The difference is some people learn the limits and how to apply them effectively in their development loop. Other people go in looking for the first couple failures and then declare victory over the LLM. There are also a lot of people frustrated with coworkers using LLMs to produce and submit junk, or angry about the vibe coding glorification they see on LinkedIn, or just feel that their careers are threatened. Taking the contrarian position that LLMs are entirely useless provides some comfort. Then in the middle, there are those of us who realize their limits and use them to help here and there, but are neither vibe coding nor going full anti-LLM. I suspect that’s where most people will end up, but until then the public conversations on LLMs are rife with people either projecting doomsday scenarios or claiming LLMs are useless hype.
neilfrndes 1y ago
Yup, Claude Code is the real deal. It's a massive force multiplier for me. I run a small SaaS startup. I've gotten more done in the last month than the previous 3 months or more combined. Not just code, but also emails, proposals, planning, legal etc. I feel like working in slo-mo when Claude is down (which unfortunately happens every couple of days). I believe that tools like Claude code will help smaller companies disproportionately.
- finlayson_point 1y ago
  how are you using claude code for emails? with a MCP connection or just taking the output from the terminal
  - neilfrndes 1y ago
    I just copy the terminal output, no MCP. The context relevant to most emails is in a CLAUDE.md file.

leetrout 1y ago

Anthropic warns unemployment is a serious risk. Nvidia has an inflated stock and knows how to play the game so of course they deny any such thing with a view not much past the next quarterly earnings call. No surprises here.

zozbot234 1y ago
Unemployment will be a serious risk indeed once the current AI bubble bursts and we enter a new economic downturn. As it is, AI-generated unemployment is just FUD.
- seadan83 1y ago
  When that bubble bursts, perhaps non-AI tech companies will start receiving VC funds again.

artemsokolov 1y ago

Strange to see such unfounded criticism directed at Anthropic and Dario. So far, they seem to be the most transparent and responsible in the AI race.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Because this has nothing to do with wanting more transparency or responsibility – just doesn't want a chilling of demand, export controls, or other regulation on chips.
qoez 1y ago
Definitely responsible but transparent definitely not. Anyway he's probably just saying this because it's beneficial for nvidias bottom line if it's open.
jjfoooo4 1y ago
Anthropic's marketing has been successful at position them as the responsible alternative to OpenAI, but what concretely do they actually do differently than any other model provider? It feels very akin to the Uber vs Lyft situation, two companies with very different perceptions pursuing identical business models

dsign 1y ago

Why look at five years and say "everything is gonna be fine in five years, thus, everything is gonna be fine and we should keep this AI thing going"? It's early days and nobody knows how things will go, but to me it looks that in the next century or so humans are going the way of the horse, at least when it comes to jobs. And if our society doesn't change radically, let's remember that the only way most people have of eating and clothing is to sell their labor. I'm an AI pessimist-pragmatist. If the thing with AI gets really bad for wage slaves like me, I would prefer to have enough savings to put AIs to work in some profitable business of mine, or to do my healthcare when disease strikes.

quonn 1y ago
> It's early days and nobody knows how things will go, but to me it looks that in the next century or so How is it early days? AI has been talked about since at least the 50s, neural networks have been a thing since the 80s. If you are worried about how technology will be in a century, why stop right here? Why not take the state of computers in the 60s and stop there? Chances are, if the current wave does not achieve strong AI the there will be another AI winter and what people will research in 30 or 40 or 100 years is not something that our current choices can affect. Therefore the interesting question is what happens short-term not what happens long-term.
- dsign 1y ago
  I said that one hundred years from now humans would have likely gone the way of the horse. It will be a finished business, not a thing starting. We may take it with some chill, depending on how we value our species and our descendants and the long human history and our legacy. It's a very individual thing. I'm not chill. There's no comparing the AI we have today with what we had 5 years ago. There's a huge qualitative difference: the AI we had five years ago was reliable but uncreative. The one we have now is quite a bit unreliable but creative at a level comparable with a person. To me, it's just a matter of time before we finish putting the two things together--and we have already started. Another AI winter of the sort we had before seems to me highly unlikely.

rectang 1y ago

The Anthropic CEO wants companies to lay off workers and pay Anthropic to do the work instead. Is Anthropic capable enough to replace those workers, and will it actually happen? Such pronouncements should be treated with the skepticism you'd apply to any sales pitch.

levocardia 1y ago

Nvidia is also very mad about Anthropic's advocacy for chip export controls, which is not mentioned in this article. Dario has an entire blog post explaining why preventing China from getting Nvidia's top of the line chips is a critical national security issue, and Jensen is, at least by his public statements, furious about the export controls. As it currently stands, Anthropic is winning in terms of what the actual US policy is, but it may not stay that way.

KerrAvon 1y ago
Jensen is right, though. If we force China to develop their own technology they’ll do that! We don’t have a monopoly on talent or resources. The US can have a stake at the table or nothing at all. The time when we, the US, could do protectionism without shooting ourselves in the foot is well and truly over. The most we can do is inconvenience China in the short term.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Should we also give them the plans for all of our military equipment then, by the same logic? Neither side is obviously right.
- orangecat 1y ago
  The most we can do is inconvenience China in the short term. If scaling holds up enough to make AGI possible in the next 5-10 years, slowing down China by even a few years is extremely valuable.
  - cedws 1y ago
    Nothing says we’re the good guys like “we’ll do whatever it takes to sandbag our competitors.” Of course, we’re the benevolent ones who will only use this tool for wealth and prosperity.
    - DaSHacka 1y ago
      Nothing says intelligent geopolitical strategy like conceding your advantage to foreign adversaries for short-term private gains.

scuol 1y ago

Just this morning, I had Claude come up with a C++ solution that would have undefined behavior that even a mid-level C++ dev could have easily caught (assuming iterator stability in a vector that was being modified) just by reading the code. These AI solutions are great, but I have yet to see any solution that makes me fear for my career. It just seems pretty clear that no LLM actually has a "mental model" of how things work that can avoid the obvious pitfalls amongst the reams of buggy C++ code. Maybe this is different for JS and Python code?

ddaud 1y ago
I agree. That mental model is precisely why I don’t use LLMs for programming.
mistrial9 1y ago
a difference emerges when an agent can run code and examine the results. Most platforms are very cautious about this extension. Recent MCP does define toolsets and can enable these feedback loops in a way that can be adopted by markets and software ecosystems.
jsrozner 1y ago
This is exactly right. LLMs do not build appropriate world models. And no...python and JS have similar failure cases. Still, sometimes it can solve a problem like magic. But since it does not have a world model it is very unreliable, and you need to be able to fall back to real intelligence (i.e., yourself).
pepinator 1y ago
This is where one can notice that LLM are, after all, just stochastic parrots. If we don't have a reliable way to systematically test their outputs, I don't see many jobs being replaced by AI either.
- mistrial9 1y ago
  > just stochastic parrots this is flatly false for two reasons -- one is that all LLMs are not equal. The models and capacities are quite different, by design. Secondly a large number of standardized LLM testing, tests for sequence of logic or other "reasoning" capacity. Stating the fallacy of stochastic parrots is basically proof of not looking at the battery of standardized tests that are common in LLM development.

kbos87 1y ago

Companies like Nvidia and OpenAI base their answers to any questions on economic risk on their own best interests and a pretty short view of history. They are fighting like hell to make sure they are among a small set of winners while waving away the risk or claiming that there's some better future for the majority of people on the other side of all this. To claim that all of the benefit isn't going to naturally accrue to a thin layer of people at the top isn't a speculation at this point - it's a bold faced lie. When AI finally does cause massive disruption to white collar work, what happens then? Do we really think that most of the American economy is just going to downshift into living off a meager universal basic income allotment (assuming we could ever muster the political will to create a social safety net?) Who gets the nice car and the vacation home? Once people are robbed of what remaining opportunities they have to exercise agency and improve their life, it isn't hard to imagine that we see some form of swift and punitive backlash, politically or otherwise.

brookst 1y ago
I’m very skeptical of claims that all things will always do this and never do that, etc. IMO Jensen and others don’t know where AI is going any more than the rest of us. Your imaginary dystopia is certainly possible, but I would warn against having complete conviction it is the only possible outcome.
- kbos87 1y ago
  Fair point and I absolutely acknowledge that the future AI will usher in is still very much an unknown. I do think it's worth recognizing that there is one part of the story that is very predictable because it's happened over and over again - the part where some sort of innovation creates new efficiencies and advantages. I think it's fair to debate the extent to which AI will completely disrupt the white collar working class, but to whatever extent it does, I don't think there's much argument about where the benefit will accrue under our current economic system.
  - autobodie 1y ago
    [flagged]

jjfoooo4 1y ago

The AI executives predicting AI doomsday trend has been pretty tiresome, and I'm glad it's getting push back. It's impossible to take it seriously given an Anthropic's CEO's incentives: to thrill investors and to shape regulation of competitors. The biggest long term competitor to Anthropic isn't OpenAI, or Google... it's open source. That's the real target of Amodei's call for regulation.

Spivak 1y ago

Hey now, let's not criticize the Anthropic CEO just yet. He made a totally not just pulling a number out of his ass prediction, but a prediction that's nonetheless falsifiable. > that 50% of all entry-level white-collar jobs could be wiped out by artificial intelligence, causing unemployment to jump to 20% within the next five years I'm not a betting woman but I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet.

tossandthrow 1y ago
The other end is that we continue a roughly 3% unemployment over the next 5 years. I am curious to hear why you think that?
- seadan83 1y ago
  False dichotomy, we don't have to continue at 3% for the 20% prediction to be wrong. So far, I've seen jobs lost to tariffs. I've yet to see a job lost to AI. Observations are not evidence, but so far there is no evidence I see that shows AI to be a stronger macro economic force than say recessions, tariffs (trade wars) or actual wars.
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    > for the 20% prediction to be wrong. The was also not the bet. > I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet. I interpret that as full employment, which we are practically at now. It would be amazing if we can stick on to full employment without serious inflation over the next 5 years, and it sounds unreasonable in my ears.
    - seadan83 1y ago
      >> I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet. > I interpret that as full employment, which we are practically at now. Yeah, no, the other end of the bet is that the 20% unemployment outcome will not happen (and it is implied that anything close to that would count, like say 15% or 17%, and of course anything over 20% would qualify too). 20% unemployment is massive depression level of unemployment; so the other end of the bet is that there won't be a massive depression. That is why I stated you present a false dichotomy that the bet is either "depression" or "full employment", the other end of the bet is "not depression"

croes 1y ago

What people like Nvidia‘s CEO (deliberately) don’t understand is that lost jobs are lost jobs but job opportunities aren’t necessarily real new jobs. The same happened with blue collar jobs.

syspec 1y ago

I use Claud Opus 4, and it's pretty good at writing code. For very common languages. It makes a lot of mistakes in its own code, trivial ones, like creating functions and calling them with the arguments reversed. The idea that it's going to blackmail me somehow by showing me what /looks/ like an email, sounds laughable.

jasonsb 1y ago

So far they're both wrong. Jensen says AI technologies will open more career opportunities in the future with zero evidence to support his claim. Dario says unemployment will skyrocket, but we're not seeing a spike in unemployment yet. If Dario's claims were indeed valid, we should already be observing at least a slight spike in the unemployment data.

ninetyninenine 1y ago

This theory that if AI becomes sufficiently advanced and cheap, company productivity will go up and they will in fact need to hire more people because of it is completely false. If AI becomes sufficiently advanced and cheap productivity will go up and companies will as a result need to hire more AI. Let’s be clear. If an AI is developed that is equal to a human in intelligence and cheaper than a human to employ capitalism in general is impacted in a major way. If that happens just pray that robotics doesn’t become sufficiently advanced such that jobs requiring crafting or manual work doesn’t get replaced. Also to be clear I’m not advocating or saying whether or not any of these things will happen. I am simply saying that hypothetically if AI progresses in a certain way then the following consequence is inevitable.

theptip 1y ago

Anthropic is the most open of the major labs; RSP, actual model cards, and they publish their red teaming results. C.f. openAI who released o3 and didn’t publish any model card or safety eval at all, their justification being “it’s not GA, only the top paid subscription can use it”. That’s not how safety works.

Tepix 1y ago

The reason that AI companies are valuated so highly is the inherent promise of replacing humans in the labor force.

akomtu 1y ago
In the Big Short movie there is a scene where the old trader scolds two newbies: "why are you so happy? don't you understand that if your bet is right, it means the american economy is going to crash, that millions will lose their jobs?" Right now we're betting on sp500 going up, which is mostly backed by the belief that machines are going to replace us soon.

hollowturtle 1y ago

Am I a skeptic/fool if I think every claim made these CEOs is just bs and they're just over exaggerating to let their product/self image look like real game changer? Like I still don't see any white collar job lost except for companies pretending AI will do the work as an execuse to do massive lay offs. Plus over the history every game changer technology enabled more jobs than before, I don't get the fomo they're injecting into society causing all this anciety just for selfish returns. IMO We should keep Amodei accountable in five years if no jobs are lost but more are created

swalsh 1y ago

Sonnet 4 changed my mind on AI safety. It can do ALOT of work unattended, real work like configuring servers. If you give it a goal, and a set of tools, it will get the job done. But I got freaked out the first time I used it, since I didn't realize just how good it was at pursuing it's goal. I gave it a custom MCP server with limited bash commands. But one of the commands was python (I assumed Anthropic would have trained it not to be so relentless... i was wrong), with that it just gladly used python to build and execute any command I didn't give direct access to. Sonnet 4 is scary smart and efficient. The only hesitation i have is that it's messy. For example, since it does not have a memory (i'm using claude desktop) i've seen it duplicate installations/configurations of containers if it failed to find the origional installation. The solution is to add language to the prompt instructing it to drop documentation, and to read documentation on everything it does.

waltercool 1y ago

[dead]

tonyhart7 1y ago

I don't care if AI eliminates job or not tbh, maybe its like internet that jobs would created but maybe not the only thing that I certain is I would take advantage of this "AI revolution" so called, maybe just maybe Human would get replace with Human + AI tools for now at least

NetRunnerSu 1y ago

The debate between Jensen and Amodei misses the fundamental point. It's not about whether AI creates or destroys jobs. It's about whether it creates or destroys agency. The historical parallel isn't the industrial revolution, where human labor was augmented by machines. The real parallel is the invention of agriculture, which created a surplus but also gave rise to a non-producing ruling class and a system of taxation on existence itself. In the coming AI economy, the most valuable commodity won't be labor, but *verifiable, sovereign consciousness*. The "job" of the future might simply be to be a human—a source of novel data, unpredictable insights, and a non-algorithmic perspective that can't be replicated by a model trained on the past. But here's the catch: how do you prove your consciousness is sovereign and not just a sophisticated puppet of some underlying model? How do you prove your thoughts are your own? This is where the techno-feudalism argument becomes terrifyingly real. The new "landowners" (the Nvidias and Anthropics) won't just own the means of production (compute); they will own the means of verification. They will set the price—the "existence tax"—for you to prove that your cognitive output is valuable, that your "self" is authentic. So, UBI isn't the solution; it's a tranquilizer. The real fight isn't for a basic income, but for *cognitive sovereignty*. We need an open, verifiable protocol for selfhood, a "Proof of Personhood" that isn't controlled by the same entities selling us the shovels for this new gold rush. Otherwise, we're not just becoming unemployed; we're becoming livestock.