Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why do people use Claude? It is slow, dumb, and expensive. Maybe it's somehow magically different on the $200/month plan, but it is basically unusable for me. I am sitting at max usage limits for most of the day. I don't know what I am doing wrong. I really regret getting the subscription. It's fucking down now, too.
I try not to touch the Opus 5 model unnecessarily. I use new chats with fresh context for different features. For bigger projects, I tell Claude to delegate its work to other agents like the good little clanker it is.
Usage limits, for the most part, don't really even exist in Antigravity. I tried Codex, too, but through the API. I was not disappointed and kept upping my balance. I probably ended up spending $30 or so in API fees. I honestly should've gone with my instinct and gotten the ChatGPT subscription instead. I personally found GPT-5.6 Sol to be impressive, though obviously expensive. It was still worth it, since it literally fixed my whole project, did so in a sensible way, and kept running different automated tests to validate everything. Everything just worked perfectly once it was done.
Opus 5's code quality and thinking kinda suck, too. Gemini 3.7 Flash beat it. I had Gemini research and then implement a feature, then I tried to have Claude do the exact same thing starting from the exact same commit and using the exact same prompts. The result was just bad and unimpressive, and it seems it completely misunderstood my prompt. Or, it was just lazy and unambitious.
Fuck Claude. All my homies hate Claude.
I use Claude as a normie. Not really doing any 'projects' but just using it as something between a research assistant, superior Google and personal advisor. I prefer it to ChatGPT because the latter will use 2000 words when 200 would do, and because Claude is noticeably less sycophantic.
I found it pretty helpful when I was applying for jobs, but I can believe that another model would have been about as good.
It's really weird how different experiences everyone seems to have. The 2000 words when 200 would do seems to me like a general AI issue and if anything it's worse with Claude when I'm using it. Claude is less sycophantic, but I've had the opposite problem with it: It told me an approach wouldn't work because of a problem, that later Chatgpt found out was wrong - the approach did work as intended, and Claude was just being faux-critical for no reason. Admittedly it's partially bc of advice from my wife who is a very heavy AI user, I've started to remind every AI to be critical ("please look over this proposal, tell me potential problem fields, and critically evaluate it from the perspective of a domain-expert evaluator") to get around the sycophancy, which seems to work better with Chatgpt. It's nowhere near perfect and still operates at the level of an early PhD who still makes plenty of mistakes, but it's still amazing to get instant feedback with a decent accuracy rate for only something like 20/month.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link