afro88

The one that twigged me was in one of the first diagrams:

> Gradual release > The latest channel first; the stable channel trails it

Such an awkward, Claude-ish way of saying it

Under low risk, no reviews required:

> additive changes behind a flag

That's low risk when the flag is off. Is there suddenly proper code review before the flag gets turned on? That's when the risk is actualised.

Also, when they say "risk" - risk of what? Bugs and security incidents? What about other risks: future rework, slowdown of development, obfuscation of bugs, abstractions that will end up being made leaky to work etc. Are these all not considered because they are confident Claude can manage all of that?

So many questions

They look at it mostly like a black box. If it works, it doesn't matter if the code underneath is janky.

I've been vibe coding a game and it's so far from a one shot at this stage. A week and a half solid of prompting with multiple agents. Haven't looked at a line of code, but been iterating, playing and refining constantly. In my mind there's no chance anyone else could get the same result without pointing an agent at my game and reverse engineering it.

Maybe we need yet another word for this kind of development. It's going to be way more common.

Side note: I feel like I could only get this far with Opus 5.5 level models and tooling (cloud agents). No chance I could get to this point without rolling my sleeves up and helping with the technical side with earlier models, and no chance I could get this far pretty much only using my phone.

I'm basically paying Anthropic for both the experience of building a game with a team of decent engineers (it's been exhilarating), and the game itself. It's been incredibly fun. I would never pay this money for something to one shot it for me. This current level has been such a sweet spot of pretty much every ask being nailed and it still feeling like it's my own creation. Something one shotting it for me would kill most of the fun and feeling of "I did this" ownership.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that a big source of outrage on the internet is caused by people assuming that all other people are a homogenous blob.

It's not that "we" are going from one thing to another. It's that these are two different people, with different ethical boundaries.

Opus 5.5 in my experience outshines Fable 5.1 anyway. May as well have Opus do plan, breakdown and review, and Sonnet implement.

I've been vibe coding a game and running multiple Opus 5.5 in parallel on Claude Code Cloud, 5x Max plan, and I'm yet to hit a session limit too. Not sure when I'd use Sonnet. Though it would be nice to switch back to Pro I guess

I don't get it either. Ditto for visual design capability. It's so far above Opus 5 and yet the announcement mentioned nothing about it.

Agents are out of control by default, especially during a training run, which is why when they are productionised into cloud hosts or even local harnesses they have external guardrails in place

In other words, I have a gun that shoots bullets. It's up to me to use it responsibly and legally.

I've found Sol to be an excellent orchestrator, with Astra the planner and Sol again the implementer.

It's not the techs fault. This person chose to use it this way. They could have also carved out 20 mins at the start of their workday to do the same thing

> something that can beat a turing test w/o sweating

Ok I'll be that guy. It's pretty easy to figure out if you're talking to an LLM now we know it's tics, failure modes, jailbreak techniques etc

> Give me the cold hard truth.

Does this actually work to get better answers, or does it now just say "the cold hard truth" instead of "the honest take"

I mean... that's actually amazing advice. Not because they would grow up to create browser startups. But because they would grow up to create web startups that succeed because of very fundamental of how the web is rendered.

Which is paulg's point really

Where?