crakhamster01

My workplace is so AI-pilled now that people have Claude responding to Slack threads on their behalf. It's not even discrete - the messages are literally tagged with a "posted via Claude Code" label, and unabashedly use LLM voice. Sometimes it's unclear to me whether the poster even understands what Claude wrote back for them.

It's infuriating to read, but even more so, it feels disrespectful. It's like they're implicitly saying, "I can't be bothered to respond to you, so just parse this AI slop".

I don't really know how to make a case against it since leadership is very pro-AI usage. Has anyone dealt with something similar and have suggestions?

I came into this blog post a hater, but honestly - hats off to the team. This sounds like it was a very arduous project, and I don't envy the engineers that have to sweat over handling Anthropic's scaling commit volume.

To that end though, this line feels like it (intentionally?) undersells the engineering team -

> Very often, we found that the role of the engineers was to tell Claude “no.”

To me, this blog post highlighted the immense value that domain-specific knowledge still carries in engineering. I wouldn't be surprised if their team was comprised of former Facebook/Google/Github source control engineers. Individuals with real experience on these types of systems.

The dream for a lot of folks in the industry right now is that you could just staff a bunch of generalists on a problem like this, and through the power of Claude come up with a sufficient solution. I think the reality is that without the domain expertise to direct Claude, you would end up with something vastly different, and not really usable at Anthropic's scale.

I had been holding off on buying an Apple TV in anticipation of this launch, and am a bit underwhelmed. $300 just seems crazy for what is, or I guess, what it's coming from.

Does anyone know why having 128GB of storage is useful? Just for installing more apps? I've had Google TV devices in the past, and don't think I ever came close to the 32GB storage limit. Maybe there's a gap I'm missing...

I think a lot of the commenters here may already have a negative perception of Platform teams. That they are a byproduct of big tech org inflation, a sign that the companies aren't serving their users, etc. The initial hook of "inventing work" then indulges these pre-conceived notions, and you end up with rants on how engineers have lost the plot.

Personally, I found the article well written. Platform teams ultimately want the overall company to succeed. Their leverage - and mandate - is through helping the engineering org ship safer, faster, and more efficiently. The signal recommendations mentioned by the author are spot on from my experience, and I appreciated reading their perspective.

Care to elaborate on how this parallels Japan? Otherwise this just reads like a random drive-by at best, and a culture-war talking point at worst.

> By some estimates, Japan’s foreign-born population could reach the OECD average of 10 percent by 2070.

Ignoring whether the new rules are reasonable, the most baffling part of all this is how small the foreign population in Japan is.

Things are undoubtedly harder for the average Japanese citizen these days, but foreigners make up just 3% of the population. Targeting this cohort, I can't imagine a single policy change that would positively impact the lives of non-foreigners. Even if you snapped your fingers and deported every foreigner out of Japan, the only noticeable impact would be a shortage of low-wage workers/convenience store staff, who are predominantly from SE and South Asian countries.

The foreign population growing from 3% today to 10% in 45 years should be a consideration for sure, but the amount of attention and media play immigration issues get in Japan is astonishing. I don't think the politicians are acting in bad faith, so my conclusion is that they simply don't know what else to do to improve things.

Having also worked with the tools you mentioned, is using commits in-place of "versions" + squash merging all that different?

  1. Adding commits means reviewers can easily diff changes to the PR
  2. Squash merging preserves only 1 commit per PR ends up on trunk

> I know personally the value the LLM adds to my workflow is considerably more than the $200/m I pay the frontier labs.

AFAIK the frontier labs make their money on enterprise, and they recently changed their terms so that most businesses can't use the $200/m plan anymore.

This is why companies like Uber - and mine :( - announced per employee AI budgets on the order of ~$1000/month.

When you're forced to pay API costs, the value prop of Kimi/Qwen becomes a lot more compelling.

Thanks for sharing! I make videos and often have the same problem as well.

Being able to semantic search over your library is useful, but does it solve the review problem? I feel like you would still need to watch the footage back before you know what you're working with.

I don't really understand how engineers at Uber are hitting $1500/month. Are they forced to pay API costs?

My company provides employees with API keys and soft limits, but as soon as you approach ~$400/month they ask that you get a Claude/Codex Max subscription instead. Curious if it's not the same case at Uber.

> As further evidence that enterprise agents represent product-market fit for these companies, consider their open job listings.

PMF is one interpretation, but it could also be read as desperation.

In my opinion, we've been at PMF for quite a while now. The November inflection point that's often referenced definitely changed how we interface with models, but as far as coding goes, I feel like Cursor had proven itself useful for at least a year prior to that.

The demand has always been there, the outstanding question is still - how do you build a business on top of these products? None of the frontier models have emerged as uniquely capable, but open weight models are now catching up in capability as well. The explosion in go-to-market roles feels more like an attempt to lock customers into contracts so that they don't consider alternatives.

I assume the hope is that during this 12-month contract they will develop real integrations, something deeper than just a CLI harness. If you've ever worked in procurement or dev tooling at a reasonably sized company, you'll know that this is exactly what teams try to avoid.

It's anyone's guess what will happen this time, but I'm excited to see how the IPOs go.

> Antigravity also offers models other than Gemini as well. When you say Antigravity, you think of a platform whereas when you say Gemini you think of the model.

I the other reasons you mentioned could be solved while keeping the Gemini name, but this is a fair point. I didn't realize they offered 3rd party models!

> When you say Antigravity, you think of a platform whereas when you say Gemini you think of the model

Yea I guess if their goal long-term is to be something more akin to Cursor that makes sense, but Anthropic seems to be doing just fine using "Claude" in their naming scheme.

> I would wager your feelings conflict with their analysis

How their target audience feels isn’t separate from “analysis” - it’s the input.