7 ms·

I already switched to claude a while ago. Didn’t bring along any context, just switched subscriptions, walked away from chatgpt and haven’t touched it again. Tu

by Joeri 7mo ago

I already switched to claude a while ago. Didn’t bring along any context, just switched subscriptions, walked away from chatgpt and haven’t touched it again. Turned out to be a non-event, there really is no moat. I switched not because I thought Claude was better at doing the things I want. I switched because I have come to believe OpenAI are a bad actor and I do not want to support them in any way. I’m pretty sure they would allow AGI to be used for truly evil purposes, and the events of this week have only convinced me further.

KellyCriterion 7mo ago
> there really is no moat. For ChatGPT and Gemini, yes. But for Claude, they have a very deep & big one: Its the only model that gets production ready output on the first detailled prompt. Yesterday I used my tokens til noon, so I tried some output from Gemini & Co. I presented a working piece of code which is already in production: 1. It changed without noticing things like "Touple.First.Date.Created" and "Touple.Second.Date.Created" and it rendered the code unworking by chaning to "Touple.FirstDate" and "Touple.SecondDate" 2. There was a const list of 12 definitions for a given context, when telling to rewrite the function it just cut 6 of these 12 definitions, making the code not compiling - I asked why they were cut: "Sorry, I was just too lazy typing" ?? LOL 3. There is a list include holding some items "_allGlobalItems" - it changed the name in the function simply to "_items", code didnt compile As said, a working version of a similar function was given upfront. With Claude, I never have such issues.
- ben_w 7mo ago
  That's been my experience too. I'm using the recent free trial of OpenAI Plus to vibe code, and from this I would say that if Claude Code is a junior with 1-3 years of experience, OpenAI's Codex is like a student coder.
  - Oreb 7mo ago
    Does it depend on what type of programming you do? Doing Swift/SwiftUI work, I have exactly the opposite experience. I’ve been using both recently, and I want to use Claude alone (especially after the last week’s events), but Codex is just so much faster and better.
    - ben_w 7mo ago
      Swift/SwiftUI are two of the three experimental projects I'm using Codex on, the other is a physics simulation in python. It keeps trying to re-invent the wheel, does a bad job of it. The physics sim was supposed to be a thin wrapper around existing libraries, but instead of that it tried to write all the simulation code itself as a "fallback" (but it was broken), and never actually installed the real simulators that already did this stuff despite being told to use them in the first place. The last few dozen(!) prompts from me have been pairs of ~["Find all cases where you've re-invented the wheel, add them to the planning document", "now do them"]. And it's still not finished removing the original nonsense, so far as I can tell. One of the two Swift experiments is just a dice roller, it took about 10 rounds of non-compiling metal shaders (I don't know metal, which is why I didn't give up and do that by hand after 4) before I managed to get that to work, and when it did work it immediately broke it again on the next four rounds. It wrote its own chart instead of using Swift Charts, and did it badly. It tried to put all the hamburger menu options into a UIAlertController. Something blocks the UI for several seconds when you change the dice font. I didn't count how many attempts it took to correctly label the D4. The other Swift experiment was a musical instrument app, that got me to the prototype stage, eventually, but in a way that still felt like a student's project rather than a junior's project.
      - ben_w 7mo ago
        (Just outside edit window, I now realise I was ambiguous in this comment, it was more like "Find all cases where you've re-invented the wheel, add their removal to the planning document")
      - skeledrew 7mo ago
        > Find all cases where you've re-invented the wheel Did you put in the original prompt the "wheels" you wanted it to use? It's a toss-up when you aren't very specific about what you want.
        ben_w 7mo ago
        For the swift apps, at least half of the errors are of a type where I wouldn't expect to have needed to tell someone to not do it like that, and only a student could reasonably be expected to not know better. For the python physics sim, step 1 was to generate the plan, the prompt included "I want actual plasma physics, including high-density, high-field regimes, externally applied fields, etc., so consider which FOSS libraries would suit this.", and then it proceeded itself to choose some existing libraries, and I made sure those specific named FOSS libraries actually ended up in the plan. My first clue this wasn't going to work was that even from step 1 it was pushing for writing all the simulation code and not actually using e.g. WarpX despite that it itself had suggested WarpX. In fact, even when WarpX was in the plan, it was "integrate" rather than "just use this from the get-go". I may well throw the whole thing out and try again with Claude when this trial expires. Most of the runs have been comically non-physical, to the extent you don't even need a physics degree to notice, or even a physics GCSE.
- littlestymaar 7mo ago
  > But for Claude, they have a very deep & big one: Its the only model that gets production ready output on the first detailled promp That's not a moat though. Claude itself wasn't there 6 months ago and there's no reason to think Chinese open models won't be at this level in a year at most. To keep its current position Claude has to keep improving at the same pace as the competitor.
- ptnpzwqd 7mo ago
  I have used Claude (incl. Opus 4.6) fairly extensively, and Claude still spits out quality that is far below what I would call production ready - both littered with smaller issues, but also the occasional larger blunder. Particularly when doing anything non-trivial, and even when guiding it in detail (although that admittedly reduces the amount of larger structural issues). Maybe it is tech stack dependent (I have mostly used it with C#/.NET), but I have heard people say the same for C#. The only conclusion I have been able to draw from this, is that people have very different definitions of production ready, but I would really like to see some concrete evidence where Claude one-shots a larger/complex C# feature or the like (with or without detailed guidance).
  - je42 7mo ago
    Interesting - what kind of structural issues have you encountered? Is these more related to the existing source code or is this a bad pattern thar you would never do regardless of the existing code?
  - huflungdung 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - peteforde 7mo ago
    I see this over and over again. I don't dispute your experience. My experience with ESP32 development has been unreasonably positive. My codebase is sitting around 600k LoC and is the product of several hundred Opus 4.x Plan -> Agent -> Debug loops. I review everything that goes through, but I'm reviewing the business logic and domain gotchas, not dumb crap like what you and so many others describe. What is so strange to me is that surely there is more C# out there than ESP-IDF code? I don't have a good explanation beyond saying that my codebase is extensively tested and used; I would know very quickly if it suddenly started shitting the bed in the way you explain.
    - ivan_gammel 7mo ago
      The more code is out there, the worse is the average in the training dataset. There will be legacy approaches and APIs, poor design choices, popular use cases irrelevant for your context etc that increase the chances of output not matching your expectations. In Java world this is exactly how it works. I need 3-5 iterations with Claude to get things done the way I expect, sometimes jumping straight to manual refactoring and then returning the result to Claude for review and learning. My CLAUDE.md (multiple of them) are growing big with all patterns and anti-patterns identified this way. To overcome this problem model needs specialized training, that I don‘t think the industry knows how to approach (it has to beat the effort put in the education system for humans).
- AlecSchueler 7mo ago
  > Its the only model that gets production ready output on the first detailled prompt. Yesterday I used my tokens til noon, so I tried some output from Gemini & Co. I presented a working piece of code which is already in production: One does often hear that where LLMs shine is with greenfield code generation but they all start to struggle working with pre-existing code. It could be that this wasn't a like for like comparison. That said I do personally feel Claude to produce far better results than competitors.
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    > One does often hear that where LLMs shine is with greenfield code generation but they all start to struggle working with pre-existing code. Don't we all?
    - seba_dos1 7mo ago
      Nope.
    - AlecSchueler 7mo ago
      Whether we do or not it's besides the point. The comparison was between Claude, which produced competent greenfield code, and Gemini which struggled with brownfield. The comparison is stacked in Claude's favour.
    - astrange 7mo ago
      I'm better at pre-existing code, if only because empty text files give me writers block.
  - ivan_gammel 7mo ago
    Greenfield implementation is not flawless as well.
    - ajshahH 7mo ago
      The only sources of these “it works flawlessly” I know of are: - literal Claude ads I see online - my underperforming coworkers whose code I’ve had to cleanup and know first hand that no, it wasn’t flawless This kind of sentiment is gaslighting CTOs everywhere though. Very annoying.
- otabdeveloper4 7mo ago
  > Its the only model that gets production ready output on the first detailled prompt. That's, just, like, your opinion, man.
  - KellyCriterion 7mo ago
    ...and of a lot of colleagues in and out of my sector :)
- jccx70 7mo ago
  [dead]
rustyhancock 7mo ago
I know this is necessarily a very unpopular opinion however. I think HN in particular as a crowd are very vulnerable to the halo effect and group think when it comes to Anthropic. Even being generous they are only very minimally a "better actor" than OpenAI. However, we are so enthralled by their product that we tend to let the view bleed over to their ethics. Saying we want out tools used in line with the US constitution within the US on one particular point. Is hardly a high moral bar, it's self preservation. All Anthropic have said is: 1. No mass domestic surveillance of Americans. 2. No fully autonomous lethal weapons yet. My goodness that's what passes for a high moral standard? Really anything that doesn't hit those very carefully worded points is not "evil"?
- earthnail 7mo ago
  Well, they did stand up to the US administration and lost a lot of money in the process. That takes courage. They clearly were being bullied into compliance, and they stood their ground. You can see the significance of this is you look at German Nazi history. If more companies had stood up to the administration, the Nazi state would have been significantly harder to build. In my opinion, what Anthropic did is not a small thing at all.
  - rustyhancock 7mo ago
    The comment I replied to said that they believed OpenAI would allow "AGI to be used for truly evil purposes". By contrast Anthropic wouldn't? Yet Anthropics stance is only two narrow restrictions. As I said are those two things the only evil things possible? If not, why is it that people on HN think Anthropic would not allow evil usage? My hypothesis is a halo effect. We are so enthralled by Claudes performance that some struggle to rationally assess what Anthropic has actually done. Yes it's no small thing to say no to the Trump administration but that does not mean they haven't said Yes to otherwise facilitated other evils. In fact to me the statements from Anthropic seem to make clear they are okay with many evils.
    - thunky 7mo ago
      > Yet Anthropics stance is only two narrow restrictions. Really I think Anthropic should have a single restriction: to not assist with illegal or unconstitutional activities. If automated killings etc is illegal then it would be covered by that one rule. I don't think Anthropic should be in the business of deciding what is "evil".
neya 7mo ago
[flagged]
- bsder 7mo ago
  > I swear HN is just a bunch of fanboys full of NPC behavior. Why are you assuming these are real people and not NPCs? The amount of money flowing around AI is staggering. To believe that the AI companies aren't flooding all the social media zones with propaganda is disingenuous.
  - neya 7mo ago
    > To believe that the AI companies aren't flooding all the social media zones with propaganda is disingenuous. Touché
  - TacticalCoder 7mo ago
    > To believe that the AI companies aren't flooding all the social media zones with propaganda is disingenuous. You don't use "believe" with "disingenuous": it literally makes zero sense. If people honestly believe that, they may be naive. Or they can be "disingenuous" if they're not being sincere. But if you just say what you believe, you're sincere (and maybe naive), and hence cannot possibly be disingenuous.
    - bsder 7mo ago
      Hmmm. Good point. I probably knee jerk apply "disingenuous" to everybody AI-adjacent, but I should rethink that given the connotation of "false candor". "Naive" is certainly a better choice.
- Mashimo 7mo ago
  What is your definition of NPC behavior?
  - neya 7mo ago
    > Random guy on the internet posts links to cancel ChatGPT subscription > Cancels subscription > Random guy on the internet tells you to be outraged > Gets outraged I'm not even a fan of OpenAI generally speaking, but, this is just silly cancelling them for no reason. If not them, some other lab would have done it. Or worse, DoW would've forced them to.
Gooblebrai 7mo ago
Claude still doesn't have image generation?
- oldpersonintx 7mo ago
  [dead]
- nkmnz 7mo ago
  Interesting. Have been using Gemini, Gpt and Claude extensively in parallel and never noticed that.
- Sammi 7mo ago
  Image generation isn't what most devs spend most of their time on?
- wongarsu 7mo ago
  It is semi-competent at making SVGs. Which are the only kind of images I really need in dev work. For marketing or personal stuff I do sometimes want images, but I don't really mind going somewhere else for that
- toss1 7mo ago
  I'm switching over to Claude from OpenAI, and I don't care. OpenAI's image generation is terrible anyway. Just try to get it to generate something to scale, like a cabinet for a specific kitchen or bathroom space. Give it all the explicit constraints, initial sketches, etc. it wants. The results are laughably bad. Sure, it does get some of the tones and features, but any kind of actual real-world constraint is so far off, and the dimension indicators it includes are hilarious if they weren't so bad.
jacquesm 7mo ago
> I’m pretty sure they would allow AGI to be used for truly evil purposes It's perfectly possible that 'truly evil purposes' were the goal all along. Slogans and ethics departments are mere speed bumps on the way to generational wealth.
crossroadsguy 7mo ago
I wrote off ChatGPT/OpenAI because of Sam Altman and those eyeball scan things - so sort of even before all this was a rage and centre stage. Sometimes it's just the gut feeling, and while it may not always be accurate, if something doesn't "feel" right, maybe it is not right. No one else is all good either, but what I mean to say is there are some entities/people who repeatedly don't feel right, have things attached to them that never felt right, etc., and you get a combined "gut feeling". At least that's how it was for me.
kdheiwns 7mo ago
Yesterday was my first time trying it. One thing that felt a bit strange to me was that I asked it something and the response was just one paragraph. Which isn't bad or anything but it felt... strange? Like I always need to preface ChatGPT/gemini/whatever question with "Briefly, what is..." or it gives me enough fluff to fill a 5 page high school essay. But I didn't need to do that and just got an answer that was to the point and without loads of shit that's barely related. And the weirdest thing that I noticed: instead of skimming the response to try finding what was relevant, I just straight up read it. Kind of felt like I got a slight amount of focus ability back. Accuracy is something I can't really compare yet (all chatbots feel generally the same for non-pro level queries), but so far, I'm fairly satisfied.
- mavamaarten 7mo ago
  In my limited experience, that's mostly since the 4.6 release. I noticed that with the same prompt, it answers much more briefly. A bit jarring indeed, but I prefer it. Less bs and filler, and less burning off electricity for nothing.
  - xmonkee 7mo ago
    It’s probably an offshoot of making Claude more and more suitable for code/cowork.
  - ACCount37 7mo ago
    This behavior first appeared in 4.5, mostly for specific types of questions and in "natural conversation" workflows. 4.6 might have pushed it further.
- esperent 7mo ago
  > Which isn't bad or anything but it felt... strange? On the contrary, it's great. It's fully capable of outputting a wall of text when required, so instead of feeling like I'm talking to something that has a minimum word count requirement, I get an appropriate sized response to the task at hand.
- Sharlin 7mo ago
bossyTeacher 7mo ago
I tried Claude recently (after they dropped the nonsensical requirement to give them your phone number) and I was surprised to see how significantly less sycophant it was. Chatgpt, unless you are talking hard science, tends to be overly agreeable. Claude questions you a lot (you ask for x and it asks you stuff like: why are you interested in x, or based on our previous convo, x might not be suitable to you, or I see your point but based on our previous convo, y is better than x, etc). Chatgpt rarely does that. Of course, also OpenAI being ran by openly questionable people while Dario so far doesn't seem nowhere near as bad even if none of them are angels.
samiv 7mo ago
I did the same thing and cancelled my OpenAI plan today. Besides boycotting it for their latest grifting I also found it to not really produce much value in my use cases. Moving back to doing this archaic thing called using my own brain to do my work. Shocking.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
mannanj 7mo ago
Yes they have a great marketing team and a powerful astro turfing presence though, especially with the recent "Claude beat up OpenClaw! OpenAI is supporting the community by buying it!" and that nonsense. Though tbh I hardly feel Claude is innocent either. When their safety engineer/leader left, I didn't see any statements from the Anthropic team not one addressing the legitimate points of his for why he left. Instead we got an eager over-push in the media cycle of "Anthropic standing up to DOD! Here's why you can trust us!" It's all sounds too similar to propaganda and astroturfing to me.
bko 7mo ago
I never understood the point of this kind of comment. It doesn't add any value or anything to the discussion. Its basically two paragraphs with some presupposition (openai bad) and how the author is virtuous by canceling his subscription. No explanation, argument, nuance. Its just virtue signaling. Actually... I guess I do know the point of this kind of comment. I just don't know why these kinds of comments get upvoted, even if you do agree openai bad
Buttons840 7mo ago
I love no mote! One day I'd like to create a server in my basement that just runs a few really really nice models, and then get some friends and CO workers to pay me $10 a month for unlimited access. All with the understanding that if you hog the entire server I'm going to kick you off, and if you generate content that makes the feds knock on my door I'm turning over the server logs and your information. Don't be an idiot, and this can be a good thing between us friends. It would be like running a private Minecraft server. Trust means people can usually just do what they want in an unlimited way, but "unlimited" doesn't necessarily mean you can start building an x86 processor out of redstone and lagging the whole server. And you can't make weird naked statues everywhere either. Usually these things aren't issues among a small group. Usually the private server just means more privacy and less restriction.
- afcool83 7mo ago
  Amazing how analogous this is to the early Internet when people started running web servers out of their basement and then eventually graduated up to being their own dial-in ISP…

by Joeri 7mo ago

KellyCriterion 7mo ago

> there really is no moat. For ChatGPT and Gemini, yes. But for Claude, they have a very deep & big one: Its the only model that gets production ready output on the first detailled prompt. Yesterday I used my tokens til noon, so I tried some output from Gemini & Co. I presented a working piece of code which is already in production: 1. It changed without noticing things like "Touple.First.Date.Created" and "Touple.Second.Date.Created" and it rendered the code unworking by chaning to "Touple.FirstDate" and "Touple.SecondDate" 2. There was a const list of 12 definitions for a given context, when telling to rewrite the function it just cut 6 of these 12 definitions, making the code not compiling - I asked why they were cut: "Sorry, I was just too lazy typing" ?? LOL 3. There is a list include holding some items "_allGlobalItems" - it changed the name in the function simply to "_items", code didnt compile As said, a working version of a similar function was given upfront. With Claude, I never have such issues.

ben_w 7mo ago
That's been my experience too. I'm using the recent free trial of OpenAI Plus to vibe code, and from this I would say that if Claude Code is a junior with 1-3 years of experience, OpenAI's Codex is like a student coder.
- Oreb 7mo ago
  Does it depend on what type of programming you do? Doing Swift/SwiftUI work, I have exactly the opposite experience. I’ve been using both recently, and I want to use Claude alone (especially after the last week’s events), but Codex is just so much faster and better.
  - ben_w 7mo ago
    Swift/SwiftUI are two of the three experimental projects I'm using Codex on, the other is a physics simulation in python. It keeps trying to re-invent the wheel, does a bad job of it. The physics sim was supposed to be a thin wrapper around existing libraries, but instead of that it tried to write all the simulation code itself as a "fallback" (but it was broken), and never actually installed the real simulators that already did this stuff despite being told to use them in the first place. The last few dozen(!) prompts from me have been pairs of ~["Find all cases where you've re-invented the wheel, add them to the planning document", "now do them"]. And it's still not finished removing the original nonsense, so far as I can tell. One of the two Swift experiments is just a dice roller, it took about 10 rounds of non-compiling metal shaders (I don't know metal, which is why I didn't give up and do that by hand after 4) before I managed to get that to work, and when it did work it immediately broke it again on the next four rounds. It wrote its own chart instead of using Swift Charts, and did it badly. It tried to put all the hamburger menu options into a UIAlertController. Something blocks the UI for several seconds when you change the dice font. I didn't count how many attempts it took to correctly label the D4. The other Swift experiment was a musical instrument app, that got me to the prototype stage, eventually, but in a way that still felt like a student's project rather than a junior's project.
    - ben_w 7mo ago
      (Just outside edit window, I now realise I was ambiguous in this comment, it was more like "Find all cases where you've re-invented the wheel, add their removal to the planning document")
    - skeledrew 7mo ago
      > Find all cases where you've re-invented the wheel Did you put in the original prompt the "wheels" you wanted it to use? It's a toss-up when you aren't very specific about what you want.
      - ben_w 7mo ago
        For the swift apps, at least half of the errors are of a type where I wouldn't expect to have needed to tell someone to not do it like that, and only a student could reasonably be expected to not know better. For the python physics sim, step 1 was to generate the plan, the prompt included "I want actual plasma physics, including high-density, high-field regimes, externally applied fields, etc., so consider which FOSS libraries would suit this.", and then it proceeded itself to choose some existing libraries, and I made sure those specific named FOSS libraries actually ended up in the plan. My first clue this wasn't going to work was that even from step 1 it was pushing for writing all the simulation code and not actually using e.g. WarpX despite that it itself had suggested WarpX. In fact, even when WarpX was in the plan, it was "integrate" rather than "just use this from the get-go". I may well throw the whole thing out and try again with Claude when this trial expires. Most of the runs have been comically non-physical, to the extent you don't even need a physics degree to notice, or even a physics GCSE.
littlestymaar 7mo ago
> But for Claude, they have a very deep & big one: Its the only model that gets production ready output on the first detailled promp That's not a moat though. Claude itself wasn't there 6 months ago and there's no reason to think Chinese open models won't be at this level in a year at most. To keep its current position Claude has to keep improving at the same pace as the competitor.
ptnpzwqd 7mo ago
I have used Claude (incl. Opus 4.6) fairly extensively, and Claude still spits out quality that is far below what I would call production ready - both littered with smaller issues, but also the occasional larger blunder. Particularly when doing anything non-trivial, and even when guiding it in detail (although that admittedly reduces the amount of larger structural issues). Maybe it is tech stack dependent (I have mostly used it with C#/.NET), but I have heard people say the same for C#. The only conclusion I have been able to draw from this, is that people have very different definitions of production ready, but I would really like to see some concrete evidence where Claude one-shots a larger/complex C# feature or the like (with or without detailed guidance).
- je42 7mo ago
  Interesting - what kind of structural issues have you encountered? Is these more related to the existing source code or is this a bad pattern thar you would never do regardless of the existing code?
- huflungdung 7mo ago
  [dead]
- peteforde 7mo ago
  I see this over and over again. I don't dispute your experience. My experience with ESP32 development has been unreasonably positive. My codebase is sitting around 600k LoC and is the product of several hundred Opus 4.x Plan -> Agent -> Debug loops. I review everything that goes through, but I'm reviewing the business logic and domain gotchas, not dumb crap like what you and so many others describe. What is so strange to me is that surely there is more C# out there than ESP-IDF code? I don't have a good explanation beyond saying that my codebase is extensively tested and used; I would know very quickly if it suddenly started shitting the bed in the way you explain.
  - ivan_gammel 7mo ago
    The more code is out there, the worse is the average in the training dataset. There will be legacy approaches and APIs, poor design choices, popular use cases irrelevant for your context etc that increase the chances of output not matching your expectations. In Java world this is exactly how it works. I need 3-5 iterations with Claude to get things done the way I expect, sometimes jumping straight to manual refactoring and then returning the result to Claude for review and learning. My CLAUDE.md (multiple of them) are growing big with all patterns and anti-patterns identified this way. To overcome this problem model needs specialized training, that I don‘t think the industry knows how to approach (it has to beat the effort put in the education system for humans).
AlecSchueler 7mo ago
> Its the only model that gets production ready output on the first detailled prompt. Yesterday I used my tokens til noon, so I tried some output from Gemini & Co. I presented a working piece of code which is already in production: One does often hear that where LLMs shine is with greenfield code generation but they all start to struggle working with pre-existing code. It could be that this wasn't a like for like comparison. That said I do personally feel Claude to produce far better results than competitors.
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  > One does often hear that where LLMs shine is with greenfield code generation but they all start to struggle working with pre-existing code. Don't we all?
  - seba_dos1 7mo ago
    Nope.
  - AlecSchueler 7mo ago
    Whether we do or not it's besides the point. The comparison was between Claude, which produced competent greenfield code, and Gemini which struggled with brownfield. The comparison is stacked in Claude's favour.
  - astrange 7mo ago
    I'm better at pre-existing code, if only because empty text files give me writers block.
- ivan_gammel 7mo ago
  Greenfield implementation is not flawless as well.
  - ajshahH 7mo ago
    The only sources of these “it works flawlessly” I know of are: - literal Claude ads I see online - my underperforming coworkers whose code I’ve had to cleanup and know first hand that no, it wasn’t flawless This kind of sentiment is gaslighting CTOs everywhere though. Very annoying.
otabdeveloper4 7mo ago
> Its the only model that gets production ready output on the first detailled prompt. That's, just, like, your opinion, man.
- KellyCriterion 7mo ago
  ...and of a lot of colleagues in and out of my sector :)
jccx70 7mo ago
[dead]

rustyhancock 7mo ago

I know this is necessarily a very unpopular opinion however. I think HN in particular as a crowd are very vulnerable to the halo effect and group think when it comes to Anthropic. Even being generous they are only very minimally a "better actor" than OpenAI. However, we are so enthralled by their product that we tend to let the view bleed over to their ethics. Saying we want out tools used in line with the US constitution within the US on one particular point. Is hardly a high moral bar, it's self preservation. All Anthropic have said is: 1. No mass domestic surveillance of Americans. 2. No fully autonomous lethal weapons yet. My goodness that's what passes for a high moral standard? Really anything that doesn't hit those very carefully worded points is not "evil"?

earthnail 7mo ago
Well, they did stand up to the US administration and lost a lot of money in the process. That takes courage. They clearly were being bullied into compliance, and they stood their ground. You can see the significance of this is you look at German Nazi history. If more companies had stood up to the administration, the Nazi state would have been significantly harder to build. In my opinion, what Anthropic did is not a small thing at all.
- rustyhancock 7mo ago
  The comment I replied to said that they believed OpenAI would allow "AGI to be used for truly evil purposes". By contrast Anthropic wouldn't? Yet Anthropics stance is only two narrow restrictions. As I said are those two things the only evil things possible? If not, why is it that people on HN think Anthropic would not allow evil usage? My hypothesis is a halo effect. We are so enthralled by Claudes performance that some struggle to rationally assess what Anthropic has actually done. Yes it's no small thing to say no to the Trump administration but that does not mean they haven't said Yes to otherwise facilitated other evils. In fact to me the statements from Anthropic seem to make clear they are okay with many evils.
  - thunky 7mo ago
    > Yet Anthropics stance is only two narrow restrictions. Really I think Anthropic should have a single restriction: to not assist with illegal or unconstitutional activities. If automated killings etc is illegal then it would be covered by that one rule. I don't think Anthropic should be in the business of deciding what is "evil".

neya 7mo ago

[flagged]

bsder 7mo ago
> I swear HN is just a bunch of fanboys full of NPC behavior. Why are you assuming these are real people and not NPCs? The amount of money flowing around AI is staggering. To believe that the AI companies aren't flooding all the social media zones with propaganda is disingenuous.
- neya 7mo ago
  > To believe that the AI companies aren't flooding all the social media zones with propaganda is disingenuous. Touché
- TacticalCoder 7mo ago
  > To believe that the AI companies aren't flooding all the social media zones with propaganda is disingenuous. You don't use "believe" with "disingenuous": it literally makes zero sense. If people honestly believe that, they may be naive. Or they can be "disingenuous" if they're not being sincere. But if you just say what you believe, you're sincere (and maybe naive), and hence cannot possibly be disingenuous.
  - bsder 7mo ago
    Hmmm. Good point. I probably knee jerk apply "disingenuous" to everybody AI-adjacent, but I should rethink that given the connotation of "false candor". "Naive" is certainly a better choice.
Mashimo 7mo ago
What is your definition of NPC behavior?
- neya 7mo ago
  > Random guy on the internet posts links to cancel ChatGPT subscription > Cancels subscription > Random guy on the internet tells you to be outraged > Gets outraged I'm not even a fan of OpenAI generally speaking, but, this is just silly cancelling them for no reason. If not them, some other lab would have done it. Or worse, DoW would've forced them to.

Gooblebrai 7mo ago

Claude still doesn't have image generation?

oldpersonintx 7mo ago
[dead]
nkmnz 7mo ago
Interesting. Have been using Gemini, Gpt and Claude extensively in parallel and never noticed that.
Sammi 7mo ago
Image generation isn't what most devs spend most of their time on?
wongarsu 7mo ago
It is semi-competent at making SVGs. Which are the only kind of images I really need in dev work. For marketing or personal stuff I do sometimes want images, but I don't really mind going somewhere else for that
toss1 7mo ago
I'm switching over to Claude from OpenAI, and I don't care. OpenAI's image generation is terrible anyway. Just try to get it to generate something to scale, like a cabinet for a specific kitchen or bathroom space. Give it all the explicit constraints, initial sketches, etc. it wants. The results are laughably bad. Sure, it does get some of the tones and features, but any kind of actual real-world constraint is so far off, and the dimension indicators it includes are hilarious if they weren't so bad.

jacquesm 7mo ago

> I’m pretty sure they would allow AGI to be used for truly evil purposes It's perfectly possible that 'truly evil purposes' were the goal all along. Slogans and ethics departments are mere speed bumps on the way to generational wealth.

crossroadsguy 7mo ago

I wrote off ChatGPT/OpenAI because of Sam Altman and those eyeball scan things - so sort of even before all this was a rage and centre stage. Sometimes it's just the gut feeling, and while it may not always be accurate, if something doesn't "feel" right, maybe it is not right. No one else is all good either, but what I mean to say is there are some entities/people who repeatedly don't feel right, have things attached to them that never felt right, etc., and you get a combined "gut feeling". At least that's how it was for me.

kdheiwns 7mo ago

Yesterday was my first time trying it. One thing that felt a bit strange to me was that I asked it something and the response was just one paragraph. Which isn't bad or anything but it felt... strange? Like I always need to preface ChatGPT/gemini/whatever question with "Briefly, what is..." or it gives me enough fluff to fill a 5 page high school essay. But I didn't need to do that and just got an answer that was to the point and without loads of shit that's barely related. And the weirdest thing that I noticed: instead of skimming the response to try finding what was relevant, I just straight up read it. Kind of felt like I got a slight amount of focus ability back. Accuracy is something I can't really compare yet (all chatbots feel generally the same for non-pro level queries), but so far, I'm fairly satisfied.

mavamaarten 7mo ago
In my limited experience, that's mostly since the 4.6 release. I noticed that with the same prompt, it answers much more briefly. A bit jarring indeed, but I prefer it. Less bs and filler, and less burning off electricity for nothing.
- xmonkee 7mo ago
  It’s probably an offshoot of making Claude more and more suitable for code/cowork.
- ACCount37 7mo ago
  This behavior first appeared in 4.5, mostly for specific types of questions and in "natural conversation" workflows. 4.6 might have pushed it further.
esperent 7mo ago
> Which isn't bad or anything but it felt... strange? On the contrary, it's great. It's fully capable of outputting a wall of text when required, so instead of feeling like I'm talking to something that has a minimum word count requirement, I get an appropriate sized response to the task at hand.
Sharlin 7mo ago

bossyTeacher 7mo ago

I tried Claude recently (after they dropped the nonsensical requirement to give them your phone number) and I was surprised to see how significantly less sycophant it was. Chatgpt, unless you are talking hard science, tends to be overly agreeable. Claude questions you a lot (you ask for x and it asks you stuff like: why are you interested in x, or based on our previous convo, x might not be suitable to you, or I see your point but based on our previous convo, y is better than x, etc). Chatgpt rarely does that. Of course, also OpenAI being ran by openly questionable people while Dario so far doesn't seem nowhere near as bad even if none of them are angels.

samiv 7mo ago

I did the same thing and cancelled my OpenAI plan today. Besides boycotting it for their latest grifting I also found it to not really produce much value in my use cases. Moving back to doing this archaic thing called using my own brain to do my work. Shocking.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

mannanj 7mo ago

Yes they have a great marketing team and a powerful astro turfing presence though, especially with the recent "Claude beat up OpenClaw! OpenAI is supporting the community by buying it!" and that nonsense. Though tbh I hardly feel Claude is innocent either. When their safety engineer/leader left, I didn't see any statements from the Anthropic team not one addressing the legitimate points of his for why he left. Instead we got an eager over-push in the media cycle of "Anthropic standing up to DOD! Here's why you can trust us!" It's all sounds too similar to propaganda and astroturfing to me.

bko 7mo ago

I never understood the point of this kind of comment. It doesn't add any value or anything to the discussion. Its basically two paragraphs with some presupposition (openai bad) and how the author is virtuous by canceling his subscription. No explanation, argument, nuance. Its just virtue signaling. Actually... I guess I do know the point of this kind of comment. I just don't know why these kinds of comments get upvoted, even if you do agree openai bad

Buttons840 7mo ago

I love no mote! One day I'd like to create a server in my basement that just runs a few really really nice models, and then get some friends and CO workers to pay me $10 a month for unlimited access. All with the understanding that if you hog the entire server I'm going to kick you off, and if you generate content that makes the feds knock on my door I'm turning over the server logs and your information. Don't be an idiot, and this can be a good thing between us friends. It would be like running a private Minecraft server. Trust means people can usually just do what they want in an unlimited way, but "unlimited" doesn't necessarily mean you can start building an x86 processor out of redstone and lagging the whole server. And you can't make weird naked statues everywhere either. Usually these things aren't issues among a small group. Usually the private server just means more privacy and less restriction.

afcool83 7mo ago
Amazing how analogous this is to the early Internet when people started running web servers out of their basement and then eventually graduated up to being their own dial-in ISP…