There are a lot of non developer claude code users these days. The hype about vibe coding lets everyone think they can now be an engineer. Problem is if anthropic caters to that crowd the devs that are using it to do somewhat serious engineering tasks and don't believe in the "run an army of parallel agents and pray" methodology are being alienated.
Maybe Claude Code web or desktop could be targeted to these new vibe coders instead? These folks often don't know how simple bash commands work so the terminal is the wrong UX anyway. Bash as a tool is just very powerful for any agentic experience.
pjm331 3 minutes ago [-]
It’s funny because on one end of the spectrum you have non dev vibe coders for whom every log is noise
On the other end are the hardcore user orchestrating a bunch of agents, not sitting there watching one run, so they don’t care about these logs at all
In the middle are the engineers sitting there watching the agent go
WXLCKNO 4 minutes ago [-]
Exactly how I feel. I'm happy that more people are using these tools and learning (hopefully) about engineering but it shouldn't degrade the core experience for let's say "more advanced" users who don't see themselves as Vibe coders and want precise control over what's happening.
MattGaiser 3 minutes ago [-]
Anecdotally, all the non-technical people I know are adapting fine to the console. You don’t need to know how bash commands work to use it as you are just approving commands, not writing them.
ramon156 22 minutes ago [-]
All my information about this is being based on feels, because debugging isn't really feasible. Verbose mode is a mess, and there's no alternative.
It still does what I need so I'm okay with it, but I'm also on the $20 plan so it's not that big of a worry for me.
I did sense that the big wave of companies is hitting Anthropic's wallet. If you hadn't realized, a LOT of companies switched to Claude. No idea why, and this is coming from someone who loves Claude Code.
Anyway, getting some transparency on this would be nice.
minimaxir 9 minutes ago [-]
> If you hadn't realized, a LOT of companies switched to Claude. No idea why, and this is coming from someone who loves Claude Code.
It is entirely due to Opus 4.5 being an inflection point codingwise over previous LLMs. Most of the buzz there has been organic word of mouth due to how strong it is.
Opus 4.5 is expensive to put it mildly, which makes Claude Code more compelling. But even now, token providers like Openrouter have Opus 4.5 as one of its most popular models despite the price.
taude 10 minutes ago [-]
I can't watch a YouTube video without seeing a Claude ad.
Same for friends.
Safe for non-programmer friends.
co_king_3 15 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
CubsFan1060 6 minutes ago [-]
This has to be a bot account, right? 2 days old.
Yesterday "I don't know about you, but I benefit so much from using Claude at work that I would gladly pay $1,500-$2,000 per month to keep using it."
verelo 3 minutes ago [-]
> FWIW I think LLMs are a dead end for software development
Thanks for that, and it's worth nothing FYI.
LLMs are probably the most impressive machine made in recorded human existence. Will there be a better machine? I'm 100% confident there will be, but this is without a doubt extremely valuable for a wide array of fields, including software development. Anyone claiming otherwise is just pretending at this point, maybe out of fear and/or hope, but it's a distorted view of reality.
ako 5 minutes ago [-]
I don’t understand how you can conclude that LLMs are a dead end: I’ve already seen so much useful software generated by LLMs, there’s no denying that they are a useful tool. They may not replace seniors developers, and they have their limitations, but it’s quite amazing what they already do achieve.
palebluedot 9 minutes ago [-]
> FWIW I think LLMs are a dead end for software development, and that the people who think otherwise are exceptionally gullible.
By this do you mean there isn't much more room for future improvement, or that you feel it is not useful in its current form for software development? I think the latter is hard position to defend, speaking as a user of it. I am definitely more productive with it now, although I'm not sure I enjoy software development as much anymore (but that is a different topic)
arealaccount 6 minutes ago [-]
I notice and think about the astroturfing from time to time.
It seems so gross.
But I guess with all of the trillions of investor dollars being dumped into the businesses, it would be irresponsible to not run guerrilla PR campaigns
taurath 7 minutes ago [-]
> FWIW I think LLMs are a dead end for software development, and that the people who think otherwise are exceptionally gullible.
I think this takes away from the main thrust of your argument which is the marketing campaign and to me makes you seem conspiratorial minded. LLMs can be both useful and also mass astroturfing can be happening.
Personally I have witnessed non coders (people who can code a little but have not done any professional software building) like my spouse do some pretty amazing things. So I don’t think it’s useless.
It can be all of:
1. It’s useful for coding
2. There’s mass social media astroturfing happening
3. There’s a massive social overhype train that should be viewed skeptically
4. Theres some genuine word of mouth and developer demand to try the latest models out of curiosity, with some driven by the hype train and irrational exuberance and some by fear for their livelihoods.
snek_case 8 minutes ago [-]
LLMs are super efficient at generating boilerplate for lots of APIs, which is a time consuming and tedious part of programming.
cfiggers 7 minutes ago [-]
> They are aggressively manipulating social media with astroturfed accounts, in particular this site and Reddit.
cindyllm 13 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
hirako2000 14 minutes ago [-]
Sounds like the compacting issue.
> Compacting fails when the thread is very large
> We fixed it.
> No you did not
> Yes now it auto compacts all messages.
> Ok but we don't want compaction when the thread isn't large, plus, it still fails when the compacted thread is too large
> ...
Retr0id 12 minutes ago [-]
I also found this change annoying.
Often a codebase ends up with non-authoritative references for things (e.g. docs out of sync with implementation, prototype vs "real" version), and the proper solution is to fix and/or document that divergence. But let's face it, that doesn't always happen in practice. When the AI reads from the wrong source it only makes things worse, and when you can't see what it's reading it's harder to even notice that it's going off track.
artisin 15 minutes ago [-]
Vibe-coders griping about Claude's vibe-coded CLI hits all the right vibes.
WXLCKNO 9 minutes ago [-]
Jokes about vibe-coded CLI aside, I think that's the issue for me, the defaults are being tailored to vibe coders. (and the general weirdness of trying to fix it with verbose mode)
I like that people who were afraid of CLIs perhaps are now warming up to them through tools like Claude Code but I don't think it means the interfaces should be simplified and dumbed down for them as the primary audience.
Sure you can press CTRL+O, but that's not realtime and you have to toggle between that and your current real time activity. Plus it's often laggy as hell.
lukev 13 minutes ago [-]
If you're not vibecoding your own UX to render CC's output the way you like it, you're not living.
co_king_3 12 minutes ago [-]
If you're not vibecoding your own UX to render CC's output the way you like it, you're getting replaced by AI.
JohnMakin 21 minutes ago [-]
I'm not sure this is a regression, at least how I use it - you can hit control + o to expand, and usually the commands it runs show the file path(s) it's using, and I'm really paranoid with it, and I didn't even notice this change.
thousand_nights 14 minutes ago [-]
i've never had to use control + o before but with the latest changes, i give Opus a simple task that should take a few seconds and it's like "used 15k tokens" and "thinking" for three minutes with absolutely zero indication or visibility as to what it's actually doing and i have to ESC ESC it to stop and ask what the FUCK are you actually doing claude?
virtue3 5 minutes ago [-]
I think this change is really disingenuous.
If they hide how the tool is accessing files (aka using tokens) and then charging us per token - how are we able to track loosely what our spend is?
I’m all for simplification of the UX. But when it’s helping to hide the main spend it feels shitty.
theZilber 21 minutes ago [-]
What happens when you press ctrl+o? You get verbose mode?
pacoWebConsult 19 minutes ago [-]
You can only ctrl+o the most recent response, and its a lot worse than knowing the # of lines read or the pattern grepped, which are useful because it can tell you what the agent is thrashing on trying to find, or what context would be useful to give it upfront in the future.
koakuma-chan 20 minutes ago [-]
I just tested, it shows you which files it read, same as first example he gave "Where you used to see."
WXLCKNO 7 minutes ago [-]
Yeah just that it's not real time and you have to toggle to see it. It lags a bunch also in longer threads. Definitely a downgrade.
alsetmusic 19 minutes ago [-]
I believe it opens the file that was referenced. Apologies in advance if I got that wrong.
I wanted a terminal feel (dense/sharp) + being able to comment directly on plans and outputs. It's MIT, no cloud, all local, etc.
It includes all the details for function runs and some other nice to haves, fully built on claude code.
Particularly we found planning + commenting up front reduces a lot of slop. Opus 4.6 class models are really good at executing an existing plan down to a T. So quality becomes a function of how much you invest in the plan.
ffritz 16 minutes ago [-]
What if it’s used with a different harness, e.g. Opencode?
minimaxir 4 minutes ago [-]
You infamously cannot use Claude Code with a different harness anymore (without shenanigans that will likely draw Anthropic's ire).
dogleash 9 minutes ago [-]
>Try using it for a few days. We've been using this internally at Anthropic for about a month now, and found that it took people a few days to mentally switch over to the new UI. Once they did, it "clicked" and they appreciated the reduced noise and focus on the tools that actually do need their attention.
Ah, the old "you're holding it wrong."
WXLCKNO 8 minutes ago [-]
Sorry I'm dumber than the average Anthropic employee, might just take me a few more days for it to "click" that I'm no longer seeing useful information and that this is good.
iamleppert 6 minutes ago [-]
As soon as there is a viable alternative to Claude Code, I'm gone after this change. It appears minor on the surface but their response to all the comments tells you everything you need to know. They don't even want to concede at all, or at least give a flag to enable the old behavior, what was deployed and working for many users before. It's a signal that someone, somewhere at Anthropic is making decisions based on ego, not user feedback.
The other fact pattern is their CLI is not open source, so we can't go in and change it ourselves. We shouldn't have to. They have also locked down OpenCode and while there are hacks available, I shouldn't have to resort to such cat and mouse games as someone who pays $200/month for a premium service.
I'm aggressively exploring other options, and it's only a matter of if -- not when, one surfaces.
alansaber 22 minutes ago [-]
I don't feel as if any CLI editor has quite nailed UX yet
Imustaskforhelp 19 minutes ago [-]
If you are talking about agents I feel like opencode has gotten pretty good UI/UX
If you are talking about a CLI editor, then micro has hit the nail on quality UX
The UX where it completely breaks copy paste conventions on Linux? Other than that I agree it's gotten pretty good but this one thing drives me mad each time I use it.
koakuma-chan 21 minutes ago [-]
> Read 3 fies (ctrl+o to expand)
What if you hit ctrl+o?
huydotnet 18 minutes ago [-]
exactly what i think when reading the top of the article, maybe the author turned off vebose mode
MicKillah 19 minutes ago [-]
This comes up from time to time and although my experience is anecdotal, I see clear degradation of output when I run heavy loads (100s of batched/chunked requests, via an automated pipeline) and sometimes the difference in quality is absolutely laughable in how poor it is. This gets worse for me as I get closer to my (hourly, weekly) limits. I am Claude Max subscriber. There’s some shady stuff going on in the background, for sure, from my perspective and experience during my year or so of intense usage.
afro88 16 minutes ago [-]
Man, you have to read the article, not just the headline
MicKillah 10 minutes ago [-]
That would definitely be helpful, but the headline hit a painful spot for me and I went in! You’re right tho! I was in my feelins. I still am. lol
From the additional reduction in verbose mode, I can't help but infer the output isn't actually meant to be part of the developer feedback loop. It's more of a "look how busy I am, Boss." Similar to how we all understand a programmer frantically banging on their keyboard is working much harder and more productively than someone staring at a wall.
eptcyka 14 minutes ago [-]
Can we not like, just apply a patch? Or will anthropic be mad if I run their client with my own patch?
Nix makes it easy to package up esotheric patches reliably and reproducibly, claude lowers the cost of creating such patches, the only roadblocks Inforesee are legal.
ares623 12 minutes ago [-]
"This is as bad as it's going to be" turning out to be wrong
kissgyorgy 21 minutes ago [-]
This is why I am a big fan of self-hosting, owning your data and using your own Agent. pi is a really good example. You can have your own tooling and can switch any SOTA model in a single interface. Very nice!
Add another LLM to extract paths from verbose mode...
noupdates 24 minutes ago [-]
Quite frankly, most seasoned developers should be able to write their own Claude Code. You know your own algorithm for how you deal with lines of code, so it's just a matter of converting your own logic. Becoming dependent on Claude Code is a mistake (edit: I might be too heavy handed with this statement). If your coding agent isn't doing what you want, you need to be able to redesign it.
nicetryguy 21 minutes ago [-]
It's not that simple. Claude Code allows you to use the Anthropic monthly subscription instead of API tokens, which for power users is massively less expensive.
co_king_3 9 minutes ago [-]
Drug dealer business model. The first bag is free. Don't act surprised when you get addicted and they 10x the price.
tibbar 16 minutes ago [-]
this is the real reason why people are switching to claude code.
bradfa 19 minutes ago [-]
Yes and no. There are many not-trivial things you have to solve when using an LLM to help (or fully handle writing) code.
For example, applying diffs to files. Since the LLM uses tokenization for all its text input/output, sometimes the diffs it'll create to modify a file aren't quite right as it may slightly mess up the text which is before/after the change and/or might introduce a slight typo in text which is being removed, which may or may not cleanly apply in the edit. There's a variety of ways to deal with this but most of the agentic coding tools have this mostly solved now (I guess you could just copy their implementation?).
Also, sometimes the models will send you JSON or XML back from tool calls which isn't valid, so your tool will need to handle that.
These fun implementation details don't happen that often in a coding session, but they happen often enough that you'd probably get driven mad trying to use a tool which didn't handle them seamlessly if you're doing real work.
noupdates 12 minutes ago [-]
I'm part of the subset of developers that was not trained in Machine Learning, so I can't actually code up an LLM from scratch (yet). Some of us are already behind with AI. I think not getting involved in the foundational work of building coding agents will only leave more developers left in the dust. We have to know how these things work in and out. I'm only willing to deal with one black box at the moment, and that is the model itself.
vjerancrnjak 17 minutes ago [-]
It's quite tricky as they optimize the agent loop, similar to codex.
It's probably not enough to have answer-prompt -> tool call -> result critic -> apply or refine, there might be a specific thing they're doing when they fine tune the loop to the model, or they might even train the model to improve the existing loop.
You would have to first look at their agent loop and then code it up from scratch.
mikert89 14 minutes ago [-]
The model is being trained to use claude code. i.e. the agentic patterns are reinforced using reinforcement learning. thats why it works so well. you cannot build this on your own, it will perform far worse
noupdates 8 minutes ago [-]
Are you certain of this? I know they use a lot of grep to find variables in files (recall reading that on HN), load the lines into into context. There's a lot of common sense context management that's going on.
dingnuts 19 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
nekusar 4 minutes ago [-]
Well, they already fucked over the community with their "lol not really unlimited" rug-pull.
For those of you who are still suckered in paying for it, why do you think the company would care how they abuse the existing users? You all took it the last time.
htx80nerd 25 minutes ago [-]
another case of 'devs are out of touch with users basics needs and basic day-to-day usage of our app'
AlotOfReading 14 minutes ago [-]
I think it's a case of wishful design. When they (or rather their own vibecoding tools) imagine how the tool is used, they aren't imagining that it's actually a human-machine interface, with the human actively engaged in the loop. Instead, the human is mostly expected to behave as a magical prompt oracle with a credit card and let the machine take care of the details.
falloutx 10 minutes ago [-]
by devs you mean those two guys on twitter who brag about vibe coding with 100 agents running simultaneously. While Claude Code still can't display images. I wonder what they are doing with those 100 agents
closewith 24 minutes ago [-]
It's definitely a case of out-of-touch devs, but which cohort they are is still to be seen.
colechristensen 21 minutes ago [-]
I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about! - Zapp
I mean I get it I guess but I'm not nearly so passionate as anyone saying things about this
turnsout 15 minutes ago [-]
As a heavy CC user, I appreciate a cleaner console output. If you really need to know which 3 files CC read, AI-assisted coding agents might not be for you.
wouldbecouldbe 17 minutes ago [-]
Developers are just complainers.
co_king_3 24 minutes ago [-]
Am I mistaken or is Claude Code essentially an opt-in rootkit?
minimaxir 15 minutes ago [-]
Modern agenting coding software is scoped to only allow edits in the project folder, with some sandboxing more aggressively than others (Claude Code the most)
lukev 13 minutes ago [-]
And it's pretty easy to run in a stronger sandbox too.
"docker sandbox run claude" in a recent version of docker is a super easy way to get started.
Rendered at 18:57:52 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Maybe Claude Code web or desktop could be targeted to these new vibe coders instead? These folks often don't know how simple bash commands work so the terminal is the wrong UX anyway. Bash as a tool is just very powerful for any agentic experience.
On the other end are the hardcore user orchestrating a bunch of agents, not sitting there watching one run, so they don’t care about these logs at all
In the middle are the engineers sitting there watching the agent go
It still does what I need so I'm okay with it, but I'm also on the $20 plan so it's not that big of a worry for me.
I did sense that the big wave of companies is hitting Anthropic's wallet. If you hadn't realized, a LOT of companies switched to Claude. No idea why, and this is coming from someone who loves Claude Code.
Anyway, getting some transparency on this would be nice.
It is entirely due to Opus 4.5 being an inflection point codingwise over previous LLMs. Most of the buzz there has been organic word of mouth due to how strong it is.
Opus 4.5 is expensive to put it mildly, which makes Claude Code more compelling. But even now, token providers like Openrouter have Opus 4.5 as one of its most popular models despite the price.
Yesterday "I don't know about you, but I benefit so much from using Claude at work that I would gladly pay $1,500-$2,000 per month to keep using it."
Thanks for that, and it's worth nothing FYI.
LLMs are probably the most impressive machine made in recorded human existence. Will there be a better machine? I'm 100% confident there will be, but this is without a doubt extremely valuable for a wide array of fields, including software development. Anyone claiming otherwise is just pretending at this point, maybe out of fear and/or hope, but it's a distorted view of reality.
By this do you mean there isn't much more room for future improvement, or that you feel it is not useful in its current form for software development? I think the latter is hard position to defend, speaking as a user of it. I am definitely more productive with it now, although I'm not sure I enjoy software development as much anymore (but that is a different topic)
It seems so gross.
But I guess with all of the trillions of investor dollars being dumped into the businesses, it would be irresponsible to not run guerrilla PR campaigns
I think this takes away from the main thrust of your argument which is the marketing campaign and to me makes you seem conspiratorial minded. LLMs can be both useful and also mass astroturfing can be happening.
Personally I have witnessed non coders (people who can code a little but have not done any professional software building) like my spouse do some pretty amazing things. So I don’t think it’s useless.
It can be all of:
1. It’s useful for coding
2. There’s mass social media astroturfing happening
3. There’s a massive social overhype train that should be viewed skeptically
4. Theres some genuine word of mouth and developer demand to try the latest models out of curiosity, with some driven by the hype train and irrational exuberance and some by fear for their livelihoods.
> Compacting fails when the thread is very large
> We fixed it.
> No you did not
> Yes now it auto compacts all messages.
> Ok but we don't want compaction when the thread isn't large, plus, it still fails when the compacted thread is too large
> ...
Often a codebase ends up with non-authoritative references for things (e.g. docs out of sync with implementation, prototype vs "real" version), and the proper solution is to fix and/or document that divergence. But let's face it, that doesn't always happen in practice. When the AI reads from the wrong source it only makes things worse, and when you can't see what it's reading it's harder to even notice that it's going off track.
I like that people who were afraid of CLIs perhaps are now warming up to them through tools like Claude Code but I don't think it means the interfaces should be simplified and dumbed down for them as the primary audience.
Sure you can press CTRL+O, but that's not realtime and you have to toggle between that and your current real time activity. Plus it's often laggy as hell.
If they hide how the tool is accessing files (aka using tokens) and then charging us per token - how are we able to track loosely what our spend is?
I’m all for simplification of the UX. But when it’s helping to hide the main spend it feels shitty.
What’s wrong with you, people? Are you stupid?
I wanted a terminal feel (dense/sharp) + being able to comment directly on plans and outputs. It's MIT, no cloud, all local, etc.
It includes all the details for function runs and some other nice to haves, fully built on claude code.
Particularly we found planning + commenting up front reduces a lot of slop. Opus 4.6 class models are really good at executing an existing plan down to a T. So quality becomes a function of how much you invest in the plan.
Ah, the old "you're holding it wrong."
The other fact pattern is their CLI is not open source, so we can't go in and change it ourselves. We shouldn't have to. They have also locked down OpenCode and while there are hacks available, I shouldn't have to resort to such cat and mouse games as someone who pays $200/month for a premium service.
I'm aggressively exploring other options, and it's only a matter of if -- not when, one surfaces.
If you are talking about a CLI editor, then micro has hit the nail on quality UX
https://micro-editor.github.io/
What if you hit ctrl+o?
Nix makes it easy to package up esotheric patches reliably and reproducibly, claude lowers the cost of creating such patches, the only roadblocks Inforesee are legal.
https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2026/1/31/pi/
For example, applying diffs to files. Since the LLM uses tokenization for all its text input/output, sometimes the diffs it'll create to modify a file aren't quite right as it may slightly mess up the text which is before/after the change and/or might introduce a slight typo in text which is being removed, which may or may not cleanly apply in the edit. There's a variety of ways to deal with this but most of the agentic coding tools have this mostly solved now (I guess you could just copy their implementation?).
Also, sometimes the models will send you JSON or XML back from tool calls which isn't valid, so your tool will need to handle that.
These fun implementation details don't happen that often in a coding session, but they happen often enough that you'd probably get driven mad trying to use a tool which didn't handle them seamlessly if you're doing real work.
It's probably not enough to have answer-prompt -> tool call -> result critic -> apply or refine, there might be a specific thing they're doing when they fine tune the loop to the model, or they might even train the model to improve the existing loop.
You would have to first look at their agent loop and then code it up from scratch.
For those of you who are still suckered in paying for it, why do you think the company would care how they abuse the existing users? You all took it the last time.
I mean I get it I guess but I'm not nearly so passionate as anyone saying things about this
"docker sandbox run claude" in a recent version of docker is a super easy way to get started.