0x500x79

I think that the start of the article was interesting, then it goes down the path of middle managers being the root of all evil, just seems a bit like whiplash.

I completely agree with building the wrong thing is the root cause of a lot of failures. In fact, I think that AI has stopped a lot of the conversation of "Why should I not build this". Historically, that answer was ROI - why spend days/weeks/months on something that might not be valuable. Now I see people just saying "Yes, and" to all feature requests.

Yep, it might work for one or two turns but I see it regress pretty quickly with instructions and/or CLAUDE.md. It has to be deeper.

I have a similar project that I have built and found great success with it storing things like coding standards, decisions, etc.

One thing that is interesting during my work is that Codex and OpenCode using OpenAI models are REALLY good at using the tool, whereas new models and changes in Claude code keep making it difficult to stay on top of it's usability there. It seems like instructions and/or models are changing that cause for it to prefer the Claude Code memory tooling instead of allowing for remote memory tooling.

Opus 5 seems to have made it materially worse (or some harness change around Opus 5, I haven't dug in entirely to analyze). I had to get more in-depth setup instructions to make sure that Claude Code would consistently use my memory tooling.

I have two comments. One this feels like anti-competitive behavior that should not be accepted or allowed. Two, how can people support this?

There are multiple comments in this thread with comments along the line of: "Oh im sure they didn't mean to, let's not attribute this to malice". There is a long history here of lawyers, back and forth between OpenCode and OpenClaw and various other "Open" harnesses. Digging into my commit history and blocking access based off of a string is not acceptable for a product in my opinion -- and I don't think this was purely on accident.

Other comments calling out that they are compute constrained and need to do this in order to continue functioning. They shouldn't oversell then. I think that overselling airline tickets is abhorrent and so is overselling any product in a way that you know that you will impact legitimate customers. Up your pricing and/or stop accepting invites, we will quickly get to the bottom of it.

A company does not deserve the benefit of the doubt over and over and over again.

Pin your dependencies folks! Audit and don't upgrade to every brand new version.

Agree, for now im using dotagents by sentry to handle a lot of this.

> If any of our liberated code is found to infringe on the original license, we'll provide a full refund and relocate our corporate headquarters to international waters.*

I love it. Brilliant satire that foreshadows the future.

Sell the solution. The Claude code review system is 15-25 dollars per-review!

Yep, except this time its "We will take the data that you are generating in order to tell everyone that you aren't necessary anymore".

Agree. It's the primary reason (IMO) that they are so bullish on forcing people to use claude code. The telemetry they get is very important for training.

I think it's a well balanced article.

The Anthropic Marketing here has... not been. I think that it's a great signal of agent orchestration, logevity of tasks, etc, but the messaging is "Software is Over we built a C compiler that can build linux, doom, sqlite, etc".

The oracle and existing test suites were a big chunk of why this got as far as it did IMO (well besides the training data in which there have been hundreds of c compilers). I also don't see a reference to the studies that call out that they could get copyrighted works with high percentages out of models, which would should also be included.

I am currently deciding what I do with future projects with regards to open sourcing because of the world this has been creating with regards to IP.

The telemetry from claude code must be immensely valuable for training. Using it is training your replacement!

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

IMO it's funny, but not terribly useful. As long as people don't take it too seriously then it's just a hobby, right.... right?

Even their status page (which are usually gamed) shows two 9s over the past 90 days.