Degraded performance for multiple models(status.claude.com) |
Degraded performance for multiple models(status.claude.com) |
We'll be fine no matter how Anthropic fares.
I guess they would need to control/"own" more of their customers data in proprietary formats. Not markdown/source code in English with agents running on customers' machines.
Something cloud/web-based, "preferably".
English too difficult for you, Dario?
The only issue with relying on local models is when you need them to prompt other models, and you might need to offload or switch models constantly which adds significant overhead.
But when it all works, its truly awe inspiring.
Thursday will be the rest of the infrastructure
Then Friday we can turn off civilization for the weekend. Somebody remember to flip it back on Sunday night.
At least OpenAI has the decency to reset after a serious outage.
It's almost at a point now that if I use anything but Fable, the quality is subpar, Compared to alternatives (closed and open). The only reason I use Fable is because my harnesses still depend on claude code.
I think there are some anti-patterns in CC that cause the issue - less a deficiency with other models.
Not to mention a lot of the harness is just built around the misbehaviors of anthropics models.
It's a lot of the instruction when it gets given to other models actually degrades their performance, not because the models are bad, but because they don't have the same underlying issues as Claude.
Claude API - 99.27%
Claude Code - 99.16%
Claude.ai - 99.14%
At any large tech company these numbers would get entire teams of engineers fired. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been busy selling its “better than human engineers” AI while not managing to crack three 9s of availability.
Is Github not a large tech company?
With Chinese competition just months behind them, they'd need to show a reasonable pathway to some kind of singularity event to justify whatever crazy valuation they intend to get.
Because the recent products for builders ain't it
One team I worked with had tests for the product we made ranging from IE6 to IE11, for example. We did demos in-company where people would poke at the products before launch, play with it. When it reached production, it was rock solid stuff. Our motto was "quality is non-negotiable": we were willing to cut scope but never rush things.
I think things changed since then. "Move fast and break things" was a change, and the bill always comes.
I still believe Claude has a better UI/UX in the web interface, but tolerating Anthropic's bullshit is not worth it.
ba dum tsss
(sorry couldn’t help myself)
Really shows how isolated their government systems must be.
Fucking morons over there.
Heavy sarcasm here if it's not obvious. Of course I know why.
I advised them to ditch the shrink and retain my services. I could fix the mess they made of his mind, on the condition they return the Claude instance I had trained for months, or no deal.
He's still broke, isn't he..
But on my personal (pro) subscription- "Claude is at capacity right now."
Hm.
Availability aside they've really made me appreciate OpenAI and cheer for other competitors in the marketplace even if I have mixed feelings about using Chinese models.
It's funny how Fable reflects the company that produced it.
God save you if you have a company with narrow but correct technical tradeoffs, because you operate at scale.
Opus from 4.7 one will wreck your code and argue for hours with your engineers.
Certain parts of our company have had to mandate 4.6 and a training doc to explain why our current choice is both the cost efficient and performant one and shouldn't just be ripped out.
Newer models will re-litigate the same bad, known failed architectures over and over again.
I wonder if from now on we have to switch providers every six months or so.
wish i was joking.
When it comes to most companies, there is no reward for loyalty.
For instance "formal verification" has been a dirty word, but now that you can write a proof in lean and have an AI generate an implementation which satisfies it, it seems the bounds of what's economical has changed in a very pro-QA direction.
Not to say that that's the silver bullet, but there are many similar examples worth exploring.
But I've been interviewing SDETs lately and maybe I've just been unlucky but I don't see a lot of candidates that are ready to rise to meet this challenge.
We stopped tending to that garden and now that we have a recipe that calls for it's fruits, they're underripe.
Jumping to another company’s offering because of one instance doesn’t seem like that’s going to meaningfully change your experience. I’m guessing there was more to it, but that’s how it came across in your first post.
I only use CC or Codex for a quick MVP once every few months or so.
Is the whole "it's gonna replace people" even still on the table?
Unfortunately, I don't think that's true.
Do you see it already happening? I personally not. Lay offs are due to economic reasons, at least that's what I see. Why does Anthropic still had so many engineers?
I got the impression companies are already moving back from their initial excitement. Many went all-in AI "more is better", that's not the case anymore. Why restricting usage, it's much cheaper than paying an engineer.