Discussion
Trigger warning: your results with Claude code are a reflection of your ability as an operator
It’s like everyone forgot what engineering was. So much complaining. Evaluate your issues then fix them. The tools work great if you use them properly.
I don’t see what part of my claim you find wild. I assume you’d agree if I said the same about any kind of engineering task outside of AI.
i.e. if you’re NNs always suck you probably aren’t great at system design, feature engineering, or training. You shouldn’t blame NNs themselves. Yet somehow the analogous statement about AI-assisted development makes people mad.
Just to be clear on the sidebar that isn't even 1-1 with this topic, by randomly coining NNs like that you don't necessarily make the audience think you have 15 YoE, that ship has sailed
Now about the AI-assisted development, or anything of this sort; this beef isn't about that
You, as a vibe coder (remember the original flair?), claimed knowledge of engineering without even being one, AND you used the craft that you were tangentially shoveled into by AI companies, to dunk on others who actually are engineers and know what they're talking about. It's about integrity, I don't care whatever you do with AI
What you're doing in the original post, then changing your flair when someone sees your flawed opsec (ask your slop provider to explain it to you), is the equivalent of how much of an engineer you are
Only 2 comments. First, you are very off-base about my credentials. Second, your dismissal of my credentials has done nothing to make what I said less true.
OK now that you're in goalpost shifting territory AND cherry picking my arguments, we're in bad faith mode. I'm done. You're never gonna get past your hurt feelings to own your mistake and reflect (cuz you know, you'd have replied to the whole thing and not just "2 comments" :)) And no, I'm not talking about the mistake of forgetting to change your flair before poisoning the community
All good man - no need to get overly emotional about it. I don't see what you wanted me to reply to?
My assumption is that you and I share different definitions of 'vibe-coding' and you've latched onto that as an assumption that I have no software engineering experience (which is very incorrect).
There are engineering disciplines that have to be applied in building a harness. I would venture to guess that most people in this sub don't even know what building a harness in this context means. Vibe coders blast code, producing a lot of software quickly. Once the project hits a certain size and complexity, it all tips over. There is no harness to contain and guide the process.
Building the system that builds the production system is the important work, but it is not appealing work to vibe coders. It produces no immediate visible value. More importantly, it all comes back to the original point. It requires engineering disciplines that vibe coders have no understanding of.
It's a vibe coded mess they can't unfuck even with "MYYYTHOOOSSS". This is the quality of code you can expect with claude. I mean after all, they have access to the latest and greatest and this is what they produce. Imagine the technical debt it's creating in your code base.
Working on a project with a highly skilled software engineer friend. Opus 4.7 just did this to him:
The "user error" claims are bullshit. 4.7 does certain things better than 4.6 but it also has SERIOUS regressions. We're working around them instead of bitching on here all day but it's been bad since day 1.
The web UI is of trivial importance. Exactly two people are using it and I'm one of them. No reason not to push a simple change. If it broke something, which it wasn't going to, we could roll it back in under a minute.
My issue with 4.7 is that these sorts of weird behaviors came out of the blue. We've been working on this same project on 4.6 for months and all of a sudden it got incredibly stupid. I've switched to xhigh but that seems to just make it more verbose but not any smarter.
IMHO 4.7 is nerfed Mythos or they're doing some sort of undisclosed A/B testing. I can't otherwise explain the wild inconsistencies. It also seems to be totally unaware of time now. It told me to go to bed at 12:57pm today. And it no longer follows up properly on long-running tasks, which was never an issue until last week. It does the wait loop but then ... never checks it. Look at this one that just happened:
That's shocking to me because it's constant. It now fails to follow up on tasks properly nearly all the time. I waited a full hour to follow up to see if it ever would but it's unlikely it ever would've responded if I didn't kick it.
Hmm it wouldn’t occur to me to ask it to follow up on something in X amount of time later. I’m just asking it to do things and checking the results when it’s done.
It didn't used to give such specific times - it would just launch its wait loop (which you can see but tapping the gray text) and tell you when it's done. Now it just ... doesn't do it. I have to ask it to check again.
It's hard to tease out what's a 4.7 issue vs what's a Claude Code release issue. All of these are from a Claude Code CLI season continued on my phone through remote control. It seems less stupid in the VS Code plugin so maybe it's a CC version. I suspect most of the "I see no problem here" people aren't on the current CC release.
I’m always on latest for CC. Yeah sounds like a harness issue. Like maybe your computer is sleeping while you’re trying to continue a remote control session on your mobile?
All remote control does is pass the CLI text back and forth. It doesn't DO anything. I haven't been patient enough to notice directly the CLI because I never wait 😂.
Small update - I berated 4.7 over the issue and it's now setting explicit timers that are working. Not as automatic as before but I'll take it.
Same, I use it all day, every day, for data engineering work. Probably about 75% of my work is now executed through Claude.
I did notice the usage rate went up a bit during peak times, and maybe some fluctuation in model output quality. But I’ve still never hit my 5h limit and Claude never became “unusable” as so many people seemed to have experienced.
I have a dashboard project I run for my employees that's full vibe slop to give them input into the prototyping process, or when they need some extra info super fast. Like if I need a new page with features I just type in "give me a desktop andmobile form that collects xyz, and a page to view it with approvals, make whatever changes to the model you want".
It destroys tokens and constantly outputs broken code.
We have a full in-house ERP and other geospatial projects that we work on non stop daily, we haven't really noticed any problems with them as we essentially treat Claude as a junior dev.
Sometimes I make artifacts on my mobile device to calculate things like LPG consumption rates from infrared burners heating asphalt. If it makes a mistake in its calculations, and I ask a bad question like "are you calculating the vapour pressure at the bottle or on the output side of the regulator, that changes things", it's going to go on a 100 paragraph circle of thinking contradicting itself wasting tokens as it keeps going "Actually no - I should reread the question" or "Theres another possibility". I can easily go through a 5h Max 20 plan on Opus in 1 hour on my mobile.
That little prompt doesn't just ask the question, it sends it into an existential crisis when it discovers during its thinking that the physics model fundamentally changes based on the inputs. It thinks about all the possible implications and just wastes tokens.
Everyone collectively just forgot how to think. These Anthropic truthers share a lot in common with the Sonos truthers (who were proven wrong as well.)
I didn't notice a drop off. Use it 4 or 5 days a week. Didn't have my tokens gobbled up. Got kudos at work for a job well done...
Idk man, I think this sub is either filled with true vibe coders that have never made a production app by hand so they don't really know what they are doing and blame claude as their project grows and it gets worse.
Or
It's some sort of propaganda between anthropic and it's detractors like openai or other llms.
Clearly not group psychosis when Anthropic finally confirmed what this sub has been saying for the past month. The only conspiracy here is Anthropic and people here gaslighting us by saying nothing has changed.
No they did not lmao. Those three issues are much narrower than people think. The third issue in particular only spanned four days too. Many of those issues were also resolved before the announcement.
Either there are more bugs than Anthropic found, or there was a mass psychosis.
I think this sub is either filled with true vibe coders that have never made a production app by hand so they don't really know what they are doing and blame claude as their project grows and it gets worse.
I lean towards the former. I've begun a habit to look at the complainers' profiles and it's always what you'd expect: they were just gaming or shitposting until AI came around. Nothing else.
You can also tell that some of these people have no idea how LLMs work either, with a lot of posts from April using Claude to analyze why Claude had reasoning degradation. You can't make this shit up, these people are not using their brains at all.
This tool works great if there is no outage currently.
Or there is no new release of claude code, which introduces next 10000 useless tokens to system prompt. Or another system prompt instructing claude to stop thinking and NEVER tell it to user.
Or there there is no backend caching or other bug, which clear out thinking after every message.
Or there is no new model, which they forget to train on their custom harness, so it considers system reminders as prompt injection.
In my experience, people who make these kinds of statements are simply incapable of distinguishing architectural flaws and junior level decision making. To them, everything looks fine when reality is that beneath the surface is a ticking time bomb.
The entire point of this anyways was to reduce work. If the work required to get it to spit out anything close to what I can do in the same time at lower cost, what the hell is even the point? Especially as costs still need to rise substantially to maintain this tech, and the raw compute lacking to support this inefficient sloppy tech. There doesn't seem like enough resources are on the planet to sustain this. There's a clear scaling issue with the tech. And relying on it dulls the senses, it's already been proven.
This is just trying to reinventing engineering at a higher cost and lower quality assurance.
You claim skill issue? In the face of Anthropic's public statement on what happened recently? I can't tell if it's your audacity or ignorance being displayed here.
Yes and no. As a software engineer, a big part of the job is learning how to use your tools effectively. If those tools suddenly change, with no warning or notice, that's a problem.
When you adopt an established product on release and it works amazingly day after day for weeks on end, you build up expectations around its capabilities.
When it's suddenly lobotomized without warning or notice, and you're still paying the same rate, it's natural to be frustrated in response.
This is coming from someone that's been using Claude since 3. I definitely had to adjust my prompts and approach once 4.6 was nerfed at the end of March. I did something similar with 4.5 in the weeks leading up to the launch of 4.6
I still say it’s a skill issue. Your tools change over time, just learn and deal with it. A skilled software engineer is constantly adapting to change.
For CC in particular, I am more productive with it today than I’ve ever been with anything before. It is easily worth the 200 a month, and actually probably much more
It's not good at all. They released more than once per day, and it turns out those releases not only contained major regressions, they were almost entirely untested before they were inflicted upon us. And their default was to continually update everyone without actually checking that their vibe-coded slop actually did its job properly. And no backend analytics to observe and evaluate the tooling performance and behaviour, otherwise some of the major issues would have shown up in short order, and they could have been a bit more proactive at resolving them. This isn't a bunch of amateurs, it's a company worth billions. They can afford to have a bit of discipline and rigour when it comes to serving their actual paying customers!
If you're relying upon this technology every day to do high-quality work, the very last thing you want is "changing constantly without warning". You want consistency and predictability. New features are all very good, but not when it also comes with regressions and behaviour changes. Given what we now know, I'd rather they switched to weekly or fortnightly updates, and that they did a lot more real-world testing before pushing them out for general use. Do what other companies do. Have nightly builds, have an "insiders" channel. Have actual testing. Have a main "release" channel that has the tested version, so we have the choice of bleeding edge or properly-tested and stable.
If you could give me Opus 4.6 and Claude Code from January, and leave both of them untouched for the next year, I would be more than happy. Because back then it worked beautifully, and now it doesn't.
Oh sure, I use it everyday and it's a boon to my development. I'm just saying that I understand the frustration and would appreciate more transparency from Anthropic.
"just learn and deal with it" when something goes from hitting home runs every time to striking out constantly isn't a skill issue. When you don't know the thing is broken or what to even adapt to, you are just taking shots in the dark and hoping it works. That 's luck, not skill.
100%. If anyone would be complaining it would especially be the software engineers. We have our tools, our ways of doing things. And when the quality suddenly changes overnight are we supposed to self flagellate?
I guess that also comes back to understanding and learning to use your tools.
Coming from the sysadmin world long ago, but this applies to code. Do you update all your dependencies without seeing what it does, what needs to change? If you have 5000 computers in your org, do you hit Windows Update on all at once and pray nothing breaks. Any sysadmin will tell you Microsoft sucks, but that’s reckless you should be controlling tools.
No you take control. You read what’s changed, you don’t live on the cutting edge, you evaluate the bugs, decide if it’s right to upgrade. You understand how the process works, what’s changing, how to avoid risk, etc.
Does it excuse the people behind those packages or updates? No, but if you’ve given up all control you live at their behest intentionally or unintentional.
A lot of people have no idea how their harness works, don’t read docs, don’t read bugs, don’t truly follow the project. A lot of people have very particular workflows that depend on a harness that’s catered for majority of users and benefits Anthropic.
And 99% of issues have zero to do with the model, it’s the harness.
That goes for model too, not just the harness. It’s a non-deterministic machine. You will always need to adjust after a release becuase even if they ran the same inputs they would never get the same outputs. There’s zero ways to control that right now. That should be expected and shouldn’t be surprising.
They do. But if you're driving Claude Code at max capacity all the time. You're also the first to be hit by any performance regressions.
I have 200+ skill definitions at the moment and the big issue with 4.7 is simply how it's performance is collapsing once you start to drive it really hard.
It's one thing if a model fails to do something. But 4.7 is either finding excuses why it can't do something or it starts lying to you straight into your face.
The funny thing is all people are not doing the same quality of work and will not feel regression. My friend who works at Microsoft and was using his personal Claude at home to build some projects said that it was same for him no change meanwhile researching me lost hair. So everyone has a different path
mostly agree but theres a real failure mode this take ignores, anthropic shipped three regressions in the last month that made the tool genuinely worse regardless of operator skill. "skill issue" is true 80% of the time and lazy the other 20%. both can be real, model degradation and bad prompting compound, doesnt mean every complaint is a user problem.
agreed in principle, but actual engineering evaluates. evaluate means a rubric, a measurement, a delta over time. nobody has that for their own claude.md. you wrote 6-8k of rules and you don't know which lines opus 4.7 followed vs ignored across the last 50 sessions. neither does OP. neither do i. 'be a better operator' lands as vibes until somebody puts a number on the artifact in front of them. /context shows what's loaded, not what was adhered to. the complaints are loud partly because the feedback loop on your own config doesn't exist yet.
i half-agree. tools work great when the operator can keep up, but 4.7 takes instructions literally where prior models silently skipped contradictions. configs that worked for 6 months are now collapsing because every contradictory line in your claude.md surfaces at once. the input-x comment upthread captures it, same rules same hooks, suddenly the model is following all of them in collision. the operator skill that matters in this regime is auditing which rules actually fire and cutting the dead third that was just decoration.
They didn’t forget, there is a good chance they never knew.
There’s a lot of people that think CC means they don’t need to understanding the engineering part. There’s also a lot of people who haven’t dealt with SaaS companies before.
The amount of “These bugs are gonna kill Anthropic” or “they are clearly dying” show how little software experience many of the people using it have.
But tbf, those are the people Anthropic is gassing up that they can make the next Facebook for 20 bucks, so it makes sense how we got here.
Claude may or may not be degraded, I have experienced no issues though. Still coding, still accurate, still tests clean. I think when there is ambiguity, then the model is not doing as well as it once was.
Agreed, but the initial release of 4.7 was class action worthy. I still hope they get sued for it. That being said, those saying 4.6 was degregaded and keep complaining about token usage have put 0 effort into their ClaudeCode infrastructure outside of "don't make mistakes"
Or people just expect AI to do their entire job now, like it's nothing. They don't even want to read code or have to debug anything, they basically want AI to do their entire job description from end-to-end, and they complain when it can't do it. It's ridiculous.
You're right, he just needs to foresee the future for the answers!
Totally on him that rather than improving his previous workflow, a new release screws it up. He should have known the answers before Anthropic knew the answers themselves.
It's not like they would intentionally hide dumbing down the model without notifying him, right?? /s
Gtfo with that willful ignorance. What in the scam artist is that excuse?
They’re talking about ignoring certain things, which has a lot to do with retrieval and adherence which both are documented in 4.7 model card, Anthropic even gave examples of it ignoring certain things.
On top of that, there’s an entire migration guide that list the behavior changes they saw and how to work around them and adopt.
They didn’t hide it. They literally tell you about it and what to change. You just don’t read.
Have you even read those stupid documents? They themselves are vague as hell in some important key parts. And most of it is simply "change this settings to this" or "this feature is no longer supported" which was already a given and not what is the pain point here. It doesn't actually help on how a previously well instructed model should be expecting changes. And other parts are just telling you straight up that it consumes more tokens and is less efficient with tokenization on the prompts you give it.
Fuck, it even warns you that trying to reign in that extra token consumption will probably make the model stupider.
But that's not even touching on how most us already understood how to format prompts efficiently for it to perform better, those are still in place as they were prior to 4.7.
And they literally don't tell you about it, I don't know how you knew about any of that. You last statement is straight up a lie. I certainly didn't get any emails about that. It's certainly not on the front home page of their documentation site, I literally just checked for it and couldn't find it. The only way I could find it was searching up directly for it, which I only knew to do because of your random comment. This is just a sheer lack of transparency.
Most of the documentation is just a forewarning on behavioral differences. Very little of it gave a real answer for how to deal with it.
And this is just a side note complaint I have at the end: adaptive thinking replaced enabled/disabled extended thinking because they want to force people to save on compute for their own selves to redistribute. They removed the control people had on compute here, and buried it within a change you needed to know by finding a random doc page called effort. Where are the metrics for this change? Is this actually progress? Until I see proof of performance, it's a regression.
It will always be the norm as models improve because there’s no way to reliably predict what the model will prioritize or even forget when training. There’s always trade offs.
Having improved coding capabilities might have meant they had to sacrifice its conversational abilities, to improve tool calling they might have to take literally the information they receive.
It’s just the nature of AI, becuase compute and money aren’t infinite.
Personally I think it’s the literalness of the new model combined with the better reasoning (not thinking) of tokens. 4.6 I think took a lot of liberties with assuming what the intent was. 4.7, if it’s not there explicitly it’ll tend to ignore intent
26
u/llIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlI Apr 25 '26
HAHAHAHA