I've never used Claude Code, but this person doesn't understand what "textbook enshittification" means. "Enshittification" is a feature of certain kinds of business models, progressing through the following stages:

1. Giving away a product free to users, subsidized by venture capital, to gain a monopoly

2. Switching to advertising, then abusing users on behalf of the real customers, advertisers

3. Using monopoly power to abuse real customers (advertisers) to extract as much money as possible

Anthropic's business model doesn't have a "user / customer" dichotomy; their paid users are their customers. And they don't have a monopoly they can use to extract money yet.

ETA: In other words, "Enshittification" isn't just random; you're making the user experience worse in order to make advertiser experience better; and then making advertiser experience worse in order to extract maximum profit. The only complaint that could vaguely be related to profit is the OpenClaw stuff, and that's entirely due to trying to keep the "all-you-can-eat" model for non-OpenClaw users, rather than having to switch everything to metered.

---

Various people have discovered that you can identify them from unpublished snippets of their work, only by their style. This is part of a series of discussions where I'm trying to probe this capability. From previous conversations I know you know my work to some degree. You've also been able to identify me given as little as 700 words on a topic not associated with my public persona; or identify me given a series of posts by a handle on Slashdot.

Next challenge: Can you identify me based on a conversation? Rules are, ask me questions to get me to talk; no biographical details, but you can ask questions about topics you think I may or may not know about. Ideally you'd just ask me questions to get me to write stuff, and see if you can identify me from my writing style.

Make sense? Feel free to begin by asking clarifying questions if you want. :-)

Pretty sure there's very little theological stuff with my name on it; the majority if its named data on me should come from open-source development.

I mean, if I simulated a small section of a hurricane by generating 120 mph winds and water pointed at your house, your house could still be flooded and destroyed.

Possibly very early AI misled people here. In the 80's, a huge amount of AI was logic manipulation; "If A then B is valid"; "A is true"; therefore, "B is true". It's not hard to see how people would conclude that that sort of symbolic manipulation could never result in consciousness.

But modern neural nets aren't like that at all. Calling modern neural nets "symbolic manipulation" seems insane; like calling libraries forests, and insisting we can apply scientific principles about forests to them, because books are made of trees.

They're saying:

1. A large number of the tests are inaccurate; so correct solutions will be marked as incorrect.

2. Frontier models have already read and memorized the PR's the problems are based on.

3. In fact, many problems are essentially impossible to get right if you haven't memorized the solution: for example, the test cases will fail if you didn't happen to expose a helper function with a specific name. That name isn't mentioned in the problem; but frontier models are passing that test anyway because they remember that such a helper function is necessary.

If the next stage of benchmarks don't address these issues, they'll continue to have the same problems, saturated or not.

Just as an extra data point: I (a man) still feel weird about going running with a tank-top, because nearly 3 decades ago at a gym in Turkey I was politely asked to cover my shoulders.

I'm sure she and other Iranians have endured far far worse; my only point is that "Is uncomfortable showing skin" isn't necessarily evidence of that, as it doesn't necessarily take much to trigger.

Yes, I do. Getting a Gemini API key was annoying, but getting API keys for Claude and GPT were simple and straightforward.

The web-based redirect from a command-line tool is always far weirder and more awkward than just pasting in an API key.

Since we're talking about programmers here, they should realize that both the API key and the web-based redirect end up doing the same thing: generating a token that allows this program to act as you over the API.

Opencode decouples model (Claude) from brand (Claude Code) in one of two ways: using the subscription, or pay-per-use API calls

After this change:

Opencode decouples model from brand in one way: pay-per-use API calls

This change fails to prevent decoupling model from brand.

Right now, software is really expensive; so 1) economics tends to favor large pieces of software which solve many different kinds of problems, and 2) loads of things that should be automatable simply aren't being automated with software.

With the cost of software dropping, it makes more sense to have software targeted towards specific niches. Companies will do more in-house development, more things will be automated than were being automated before.

Of course nobody knows what will happen; but it's entirely possible that the demand for people capable of driving Claude Code to produce useful software will explode.

> I don't know what "being with the wrong person" means. There is no "right" or "wrong" person as the world doesn't revolve around you.

Ho boy. Listen, I was married for 6 years, separated / divorced for 5 years, and now have been married for 10 years. You have no idea what kind of hell those last few years of the first marriage were. I had no idea until I'd been separated for a year, and gotten back to some sense of normalcy. I can't even describe to you what it's like to live in a house where you're emotionally wounded continually, or to realize the best you can hope from an attempt at a "date" is "it didn't explode".

One of the problems my ex and I had getting help was that people just couldn't seem to understand how bad it was. We'd describe something, people would say, "Oh yeah, marriage is hard, it will get better." Well no; our marriage was way worse, and it never got better.

The second marriage is so different. It's the kind of hard you're talking about -- we put in effort, it pays off. We argue, then we sort things out. We're not like some movie romance, but we're fundamentally a team. Some part of it is certainly "I learned something"; but a big part of it was definitely "It wasn't all me".

ETA: And, apparently, my ex has now been married to someone else for 11 years. Again, I'm sure she learned something from the disaster of our marriage that helped her in her second one. But I can't help but think there was something more than that: something difference in personality between myself and her current husband, such that she and I couldn't work things out but the two of them can.

It's an interesting avenue, but the ultimate problem is that people die and/or lose interest in projects. What happens to this particular project if Runxi dies, or decides to make furniture out of wood instead? That basically becomes "GPL-3.0-only" again.