4 ms·

If you want to proxy Claude for a legitimate reason, you’ll have potentially nerfed responses. edit: Legitimate reasons include: - analyzing what Claude Code

If you want to proxy Claude for a legitimate reason, you’ll have potentially nerfed responses. edit: Legitimate reasons include: - analyzing what Claude Code is sending to Anthropic to verify its not exfiltrating data; - selecting a model dynamically based on prompt difficulty, or enforcing a particular model; - switching between multiple Anthropic accounts based on the project; - filtering out credentials, PII and company secrets. and many more.

NewsaHackO 4mo ago
Half of those don't actually require proxying Claude. Also, Claude has made it apparent time and time again that it does not want people using Claude Code as a "tool" in a workflow. If you want to select a model dynamically based on the prompt difficulty, Anthropic wants people to use the API for this. It was the whole issue Claude had with OpenClaw.
- gunapologist99 4mo ago
  > Also, Claude has made it apparent time and time again that it does not want people using Claude Code as a "tool" in a workflow. Why would Anthropic get to dictate how someone uses a "tool" (that's literally what Claude Code is... a tool in a workflow) They're swimming upstream. Trying to maintain a rapidly shrinking moat and not being very creative about it. Making enemies of your users is often a failing strategy.
  - BeetleB 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dakolli 4mo ago
      [flagged]
  - AnIrishDuck 4mo ago
    > Why would Anthropic get to dictate how someone uses a "tool" (that's literally what Claude Code is... a tool in a workflow) This is a direct conflict in framing. They clearly do not see Claude Code as a "tool in a workflow" but instead as a service that will eventually replace all programmers. I think the self-evident quality of the various parts of the Claude Code universe is a pretty obvious indicator of the problems with that approach. It is still important to understand a party's thinking if you want to understand their position. > They're swimming upstream. Trying to maintain a rapidly shrinking moat and not being very creative about it. Making enemies of your users is often a failing strategy. Time will tell, but I agree that they are indeed in a tough spot. Probably not for the reasons that they think.
  - NewsaHackO 4mo ago
    I agree, my wording was a bit off. What I meant was a tool call in a harness. Claude Code should itself be the harness.
- drdexebtjl 4mo ago
  This forum is called Hacker News. I would expect most users not to limit themselves to using tools precisely how they were intended to be used.
  - JCharante 4mo ago
    I mean go do it but don't complain about the company adding countermeasures when they don't want you to do it
  - nonethewiser 4mo ago
    Irrelevant in terms of what sort of usage Anthropic will enforce.
- arkits 4mo ago
  Why does the Agent SDK or even claude -p exist then?
theptip 4mo ago
I guess I can see why they might nerf detected clients server side, but without evidence I would not assume it. Could also be so that 1) they can identify sus client IPs, 2) do a statistical analysis on distilled models to prove that their system prompts were clearly using unique tokens from Anthropic’s API.

NewsaHackO 4mo ago

Half of those don't actually require proxying Claude. Also, Claude has made it apparent time and time again that it does not want people using Claude Code as a "tool" in a workflow. If you want to select a model dynamically based on the prompt difficulty, Anthropic wants people to use the API for this. It was the whole issue Claude had with OpenClaw.

gunapologist99 4mo ago
> Also, Claude has made it apparent time and time again that it does not want people using Claude Code as a "tool" in a workflow. Why would Anthropic get to dictate how someone uses a "tool" (that's literally what Claude Code is... a tool in a workflow) They're swimming upstream. Trying to maintain a rapidly shrinking moat and not being very creative about it. Making enemies of your users is often a failing strategy.
- BeetleB 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dakolli 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- AnIrishDuck 4mo ago
  > Why would Anthropic get to dictate how someone uses a "tool" (that's literally what Claude Code is... a tool in a workflow) This is a direct conflict in framing. They clearly do not see Claude Code as a "tool in a workflow" but instead as a service that will eventually replace all programmers. I think the self-evident quality of the various parts of the Claude Code universe is a pretty obvious indicator of the problems with that approach. It is still important to understand a party's thinking if you want to understand their position. > They're swimming upstream. Trying to maintain a rapidly shrinking moat and not being very creative about it. Making enemies of your users is often a failing strategy. Time will tell, but I agree that they are indeed in a tough spot. Probably not for the reasons that they think.
- NewsaHackO 4mo ago
  I agree, my wording was a bit off. What I meant was a tool call in a harness. Claude Code should itself be the harness.
drdexebtjl 4mo ago
This forum is called Hacker News. I would expect most users not to limit themselves to using tools precisely how they were intended to be used.
- JCharante 4mo ago
  I mean go do it but don't complain about the company adding countermeasures when they don't want you to do it
- nonethewiser 4mo ago
  Irrelevant in terms of what sort of usage Anthropic will enforce.
arkits 4mo ago
Why does the Agent SDK or even claude -p exist then?

theptip 4mo ago

I guess I can see why they might nerf detected clients server side, but without evidence I would not assume it. Could also be so that 1) they can identify sus client IPs, 2) do a statistical analysis on distilled models to prove that their system prompts were clearly using unique tokens from Anthropic’s API.