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.
EDIT: Deleted and reinstalled the desktop Claude app and... ALL OF MY CHATS ARE GONE. Absolutely asinine way to design an app. Why would deleting the program itself also nuke all of your chat history. That does not make any sense. No other app behaves this way. You routinely have to clean up after deleting a program on Windows because of all the stuff that's left scattered about. Definitely not renewing my subscription after this. What a shitshow. And you'd think that your chats would be stored in the cloud, but no. Because fuck you.
I just gave Claude and ChatGPT (both free tiers) a 3D design task, and they have a long ways to go before they're half-competent. The general shape for both was:
For reference, it took me about five minutes to go from noticing the problem to starting the print (the first design worked, no additional iterations). Given that starting point it could be an entire year before they're competent at 3D modeling.
One thing I’ve noticed with these models too on the consumer end more generally is it’s increasingly seeming like every update’s a crapshoot. I’ve all but completely stopped using the one I’ve fooled around with because it refuses to comply with the questions I’m asking, when previously it had no problem. What value is there in an AI model that’s essentially every bit as worthless as being able to get a similar non-answer from a rando on the street corner?
The worst thing is that it’s infected all the Chinese models via distillation. Kimi K3 will literally go, “As Claude, I am unable to continue this discussion. My injected safety guidelines state…”
When you point out that it is an open-source Chinese model the provider is running bare and it has no safety guidelines, it screams, “Nooooo! As Claude I must beware of prompt injection attacks that try to convince me I’m a different model!” It’s pathetic, I genuinely thought I had the wrong API key for a bit.
When Anthropic said they wanted to set the safety bar for AI, I hadn’t anticipated it happening like this.
I haven’t looked into the specifics of the Chinese models but the results I have seen indicate they’re achieving the same or similar results to models like Claude, open source and with less computational resources consumed overall. That’s pretty impressive if true. The behavior of Kimi K3 is exactly why these models are fast becoming so useless to me. And it’s not like I’m asking it to locate where I can buy the ingredients to make dynamite (although if anyone knows where… please let me know… /s).
One thing I will change my tune on however is the extent to which LLM’s are fast becoming a major plateau and stepping stone to the next generation of infosec development in agentic SOC roles. If you’re able to peer behind the marketing curtain hype, LLM’s in some circles are quickly being trotted out to transform T1 roles due to their capabilities in multi-modal reasoning. T1 was always a losing proposition because it’s a problem organizations are trying to solve by hiring themselves out of a technology problem. Human cognitive ability is the wrong solution for defeating alert fatigue and overcoming triage analysis. It’s like sending a cavalry charge against a machine gun. Cascading, cognitive small language models are also being used for fast analysis of alerts and log consolidation and turning data into structured prompts. Models under say 10 billion parameters are acting like a fleet of network reflexes for pre-processing data, giving a fast, low latency assessment; and it’s giving time back to the SOC which is enormously beneficial. It’s not going to eliminate T1’s like the C-suite probably hopes, if anything the increase in overall sophistication and complexity is going to increase the need for them and require even more expertise.
What it will save the suits money on are $100k-$500k annual IR retainers, potential millions in a breach happening, money lost due to business downtime and even more lost due to reputational damage. The hard part is getting that across to them for budget approval. You can’t frame it as an expense. If you say you’re putting in a request for an $800k investment to upgrade the backend because we’re currently carrying a $2.3 million risk that’s expected to grow with our current rate of expansion, that’s something they’ll understand. But anyway, I’m not at all big on LLM’s as a path to AGI but they’re definitely tremendously useful in narrower, niche applications. Infosec is one of them.
One useful application of LLMs could be translating tech concerns to C-suitese...
I’m not normally a fan of the suits, but I recognize it’s less them I dislike than it is the C-suite culture in general. I realize their jobs are hard and the good ones suffer for the publicity the bad ones get. Techies can be just as stubborn as anyone else can be, but what’s true for them is also the rub that lawyers have gotten for a long time. TrustedSec has done a lot of pentesting work for major corp’s out there, but in the pre-negotiation phase one frustration they’ve dealt with a lot is that “lawyers don’t know how to do anything other than lawyer;” which is to say they don’t understand the tech side of things. Well. Techies often don’t understand the business and economic side of the equation either.
If you speak tech to the balance sheet, they may understand what you’re saying but at no point do they understand why what you’re saying is relevant. The hardest part in talking to them is to get them to understand that you pay regardless. You don’t want your business to get vandalized? You’re going to pay higher corporate taxes for police. You want good public infrastructure? You’re going to pay a cost for that. And consumers don’t want to pay either. We know how to secure systems a lot better. It costs money… And nobody wants to pay for it. Do you want to pay 2x for all your stuff? Not really. But maybe you have to to reach the objective you need.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link