5 ms·

This is like saying you gave a Taylor Swift fan sheet music from 1984 and from Michael Jackson’s thriller and they couldn’t tell the difference. I have a stron

by brookst 5mo ago

This is like saying you gave a Taylor Swift fan sheet music from 1984 and from Michael Jackson’s thriller and they couldn’t tell the difference. I have a strong affinity for Claude Code because of the interaction experience and overall tone / vibe / process. I am 100% willing to believe the code it produces is identical or possibly less good than Codex. I enjoy working with Claude in a way I just don’t get from OpenAI. YMMV, you may feel just the opposite. But it’s a mistake to look at the produced code as the only dimension of these products.

amazingamazing 5mo ago
This is my point. The harness itself creates feelings that are positive, but the artifacts produced are similar. It is like the employee who is slightly worse but is a brownnoser getting promoted more often. And what do you know, that is what is happening. It is like the coke commercial with the nice music and beautiful person in the back. Speaking of which, remember Pepsi Challenge? Coke lovers are like the claude code lovers.
- mewpmewp2 5mo ago
  The creative output and time to direct, to deliver due to the flow will also be different. And it really depends on the task. Is it a typical well defined bug, or is it simpel CRUD. Or does it require research, combining different sources of data in a complex and creative ways. This is also why benches never show reality, and the only real understanding comes if you actually try to build something.
- hgoel 5mo ago
  But what they're pointing out is user experience, not marketing.
- 9dev 5mo ago
  That's a weird way to look at it. Any car gets you to your destination, but some people prefer driving a sports car or an SUV. They get something out of it that isn't just a marketing delusion, but subjective joy from the interaction with one product over another.
  - amazingamazing 5mo ago
    Luxury cars are indeed a good comparison. The subjective joy is a result of the delusion. That is why so much money is spent on such marketing to begin with. The analogous comparison would be if a blindfolded passenger turned out to prefer the Sienna to the 911.
    - mewpmewp2 5mo ago
      I would actually say it is a luxury car where you have your personal driver and you are free to work on other tasks, and it gets you faster to the destination. Time to me is at least the most valuable thing.
    - bibimsz 5mo ago
      this site is reddit 2.0
    - ctvo 5mo ago
      > The subjective joy is a result of the delusion. Repeat after me: _Other people can experience things you do not experience and it is still valid, and not a delusion_. They are not sheeple who fell for marketing.
      - tasuki 5mo ago
        I understand that's your opinion, but don't feel any inclination to repeat that. Sure, the subjective joy is valid, and yet it was 100% induced by marketing. > They are not sheeple who fell for marketing. People generally fall for marketing. Why do you think these specific people didn't?
        timfsu 5mo ago
        Imagine you try two products you’ve never heard of. You prefer one over the other. Was it marketing? That’s what’s happening here. Marketing can get you to try something you wouldn’t have otherwise, and it may suggest benefits you’d get if you tried it, but your preference of using one thing or the other is a subjective experience of your own.
bluegatty 5mo ago
If it were a matter of 'enjoyment' then the OP would have made his point. There should be a material difference between the tools. There is. vim / emacs / jetbrains - different tools to produce code. Codex and Claude are different.
tasuki 5mo ago
I have a disaffinity for Claude Code because it's unnecessarily big, closed source (disregarding the leak), and I have a strong feeling it'll be shittified in the future because of all the investors waiting to cash out (and perhaps even earlier by vibe coding). I have an affinity for small open source tools that do one thing and do it well. But those are just my preferences and I feel a little bit like an alien :)
- dboreham 5mo ago
  > it'll be shittified in the future This happens to everything from which a profit is extracted. Perhaps there's a way to fund the training of "actually open source" models, but so far we don't have that (unless you count the Chinese government).
  - tasuki 5mo ago
    > This happens to everything from which a profit is extracted. Yes, hence my affinity for small open source tools! > Perhaps there's a way to fund the training of "actually open source" models I meant Claude Code the agent harness, not the model. Models are an entirely different can of worms!
- brookst 5mo ago
  I hear you. I’m just in the camp of using the best tool available today, and if things change in another tool becomes better(either because the new tool is an improvement, or because the old tool gets worse) then I will switch. Perhaps because I am notoriously terrible at predicting the future. I gave up on that after passionately and exhaustively trying to convince everybody I knew that OS/2 was the future.
bluebands 5mo ago
talk about the quiet part out loud "yea it's dumber but it's nicer to me and i like the cool flashing colors so i'll use that"
matusp 5mo ago
Can you give me some examples of these interactions / vibe?
- brookst 5mo ago
  I’m working on an AI-assisted music composition and criticism tool (giant project, may or may not pan out). It covers audio (samples, levels, etc), theory (harmony, rhythm), genre (classical, Motown), song intent, etc. Working on the melody model, I asked Claude to thread it through those dimensions, both for composition and analysis. It’s a tough problem because there are heuristics but not rules for melody, so you have to come at it in layers: pitch and dynamics for analysis, intent -> genre -> harmony for composition. Lots of research and brainstorming, and I like that Claude will start implementing a plan we decided on, then say “hey wait this isn’t making sense” and pivot or change scope in sensible ways. For instance (btw its recent obsession with “honesty” is driving me batty, so that’s a good counter example right there): > The honest fix: distinguishing shaped-from-aimless is genuinely profile-relative (it needs the declared intent) — so v1 should not verdict it. v1 classifies only what’s genre-safe to call without intent (static vs active), reports all the facts that feed the shaped/random judgment (step/leap, reversal, contour, alphabet), and defers the shaped-vs-random verdict to profile-relative phase 2b. This is the same honesty as performance deferring declared-profile grading to 2b — and it’s more deferred for melody because melody is more genre-relative than feel. Let me revise the lens accordingly.

by brookst 5mo ago

amazingamazing 5mo ago

This is my point. The harness itself creates feelings that are positive, but the artifacts produced are similar. It is like the employee who is slightly worse but is a brownnoser getting promoted more often. And what do you know, that is what is happening. It is like the coke commercial with the nice music and beautiful person in the back. Speaking of which, remember Pepsi Challenge? Coke lovers are like the claude code lovers.

mewpmewp2 5mo ago
The creative output and time to direct, to deliver due to the flow will also be different. And it really depends on the task. Is it a typical well defined bug, or is it simpel CRUD. Or does it require research, combining different sources of data in a complex and creative ways. This is also why benches never show reality, and the only real understanding comes if you actually try to build something.
hgoel 5mo ago
But what they're pointing out is user experience, not marketing.
9dev 5mo ago
That's a weird way to look at it. Any car gets you to your destination, but some people prefer driving a sports car or an SUV. They get something out of it that isn't just a marketing delusion, but subjective joy from the interaction with one product over another.
- amazingamazing 5mo ago
  Luxury cars are indeed a good comparison. The subjective joy is a result of the delusion. That is why so much money is spent on such marketing to begin with. The analogous comparison would be if a blindfolded passenger turned out to prefer the Sienna to the 911.
  - mewpmewp2 5mo ago
    I would actually say it is a luxury car where you have your personal driver and you are free to work on other tasks, and it gets you faster to the destination. Time to me is at least the most valuable thing.
  - bibimsz 5mo ago
    this site is reddit 2.0
  - ctvo 5mo ago
    > The subjective joy is a result of the delusion. Repeat after me: _Other people can experience things you do not experience and it is still valid, and not a delusion_. They are not sheeple who fell for marketing.
    - tasuki 5mo ago
      I understand that's your opinion, but don't feel any inclination to repeat that. Sure, the subjective joy is valid, and yet it was 100% induced by marketing. > They are not sheeple who fell for marketing. People generally fall for marketing. Why do you think these specific people didn't?
      - timfsu 5mo ago
        Imagine you try two products you’ve never heard of. You prefer one over the other. Was it marketing? That’s what’s happening here. Marketing can get you to try something you wouldn’t have otherwise, and it may suggest benefits you’d get if you tried it, but your preference of using one thing or the other is a subjective experience of your own.

bluegatty 5mo ago

If it were a matter of 'enjoyment' then the OP would have made his point. There should be a material difference between the tools. There is. vim / emacs / jetbrains - different tools to produce code. Codex and Claude are different.

tasuki 5mo ago

I have a disaffinity for Claude Code because it's unnecessarily big, closed source (disregarding the leak), and I have a strong feeling it'll be shittified in the future because of all the investors waiting to cash out (and perhaps even earlier by vibe coding). I have an affinity for small open source tools that do one thing and do it well. But those are just my preferences and I feel a little bit like an alien :)

dboreham 5mo ago
> it'll be shittified in the future This happens to everything from which a profit is extracted. Perhaps there's a way to fund the training of "actually open source" models, but so far we don't have that (unless you count the Chinese government).
- tasuki 5mo ago
  > This happens to everything from which a profit is extracted. Yes, hence my affinity for small open source tools! > Perhaps there's a way to fund the training of "actually open source" models I meant Claude Code the agent harness, not the model. Models are an entirely different can of worms!
brookst 5mo ago
I hear you. I’m just in the camp of using the best tool available today, and if things change in another tool becomes better(either because the new tool is an improvement, or because the old tool gets worse) then I will switch. Perhaps because I am notoriously terrible at predicting the future. I gave up on that after passionately and exhaustively trying to convince everybody I knew that OS/2 was the future.

bluebands 5mo ago

talk about the quiet part out loud "yea it's dumber but it's nicer to me and i like the cool flashing colors so i'll use that"

matusp 5mo ago

Can you give me some examples of these interactions / vibe?

brookst 5mo ago
I’m working on an AI-assisted music composition and criticism tool (giant project, may or may not pan out). It covers audio (samples, levels, etc), theory (harmony, rhythm), genre (classical, Motown), song intent, etc. Working on the melody model, I asked Claude to thread it through those dimensions, both for composition and analysis. It’s a tough problem because there are heuristics but not rules for melody, so you have to come at it in layers: pitch and dynamics for analysis, intent -> genre -> harmony for composition. Lots of research and brainstorming, and I like that Claude will start implementing a plan we decided on, then say “hey wait this isn’t making sense” and pivot or change scope in sensible ways. For instance (btw its recent obsession with “honesty” is driving me batty, so that’s a good counter example right there): > The honest fix: distinguishing shaped-from-aimless is genuinely profile-relative (it needs the declared intent) — so v1 should not verdict it. v1 classifies only what’s genre-safe to call without intent (static vs active), reports all the facts that feed the shaped/random judgment (step/leap, reversal, contour, alphabet), and defers the shaped-vs-random verdict to profile-relative phase 2b. This is the same honesty as performance deferring declared-profile grading to 2b — and it’s more deferred for melody because melody is more genre-relative than feel. Let me revise the lens accordingly.