I switched to Jellyfin and also don't regret it. I agree the quality is lower, BUT that sacrifice in this case was worth it given Plex's shitty track record. If any of y'all are interested in helping the Jellyfin project, that would be dope!
For about 5% of Silicon Valley, reaching these new 'heights' of civilization is the goal. For the rest, including a bunch of folks in these threads, their primary motivator is building generational wealth for their family, humanity be damned. I'll just keep nodding my head at these HN discussions while pushing down the thoughts that a majority of this crowd is complicit (myself included). Every day, I grow more confident in my choice the eschew my legacy and leave y'all to it.
When I meet fellow devs, I ask what projects they've shipped. Roles are near-meaningless across companies and convey 0 information about what their work involves in my experience. I appreciate that OP learned something about the job through this article.
Totally agreed, I've been 'got' in interviews before. Now I ask follow-ups with specifics. If you were an IC, you should know libraries/architectures that were used. If you were in leadership, you should be able to tell me the story leading up to a project, about the parties involved, and the outcomes.
It takes time to do properly, though. And most of the time I just don't care about evaluating someone's capabilities like that.
Last week, we discovered our 'AI-native' marketing VP put his team's entire documentation hub on a public Github Pages site for an entire week. This included prospect lists, meetings, marketing metrics like CaC/lead times, funnel metrics, etc. He did not solicit feedback from engineering and violated multiple points in our AI policy. Of course there will be no repercussions.
The heavy users of Claude at my job disagree (me included), our work gets shipped and the quality has increased by all metrics. Are you talking about enterprise or consumer Claude subscriptions? I think they're serving drastic different quality depending on how much $ you fork up.
I don't see much sense to have hn as support thread, but here are quotes from my single claude investigation session, and that happens in every claude code session that I have, especially with 4.7
* The first agent's claim that was 3.x-only was wrong
* is nice-to-have but doesn't target our exact case as cleanly as the agent claimed.
* The agent's "direct fix for yyy" is overstated.
* not 57% as the earlier agent claimed
etc etc etc
And I forgot how many times my session with claude starts: did you read my personal CLAUDE.md and use background agents for long running operations?
I use enterprise subscription, max effort, was with both 4.6 and 4.7.
And please refrain from comments like "you're using it wrong", as the drop in output quality is very clear and noticeable.
Much like Windows threads with people experience strange bugs without knowing any of their workloads and tools, it's impossible to say. We've got a team of 30 using it full time, and as a member of end leadership I would be hearing if it was constantly missing expectations. It did take iterations to get here, as with everything.
Some of the usual suspects when people are getting bad results:
* Overbloated claude.md, it should not contain everything, it should be a table of contents pointing to other files
* Max effort - why? Overthinking on simpler tasks results in degraded quality, much like in humans.
* You speak of your single session but with agents reviewing other agent outputs. Without knowing your goal and your prompt, and what the agents had access to, my first inclination is that the initial request was vague, a bunch of unnecessary info was returned, and your review step caught that extra jank.
I'm not gonna bother making the joke you allude to, but every single employee I've worked with in person has had glaring holes in their setups which, once solved, dramatically reduced stuff like what you're talking about.
I work in a space where one could imagine a Claude replacing our product.
I think someone stated it clearly - they can't take on these kinds of businesses until they build out the risk side and the personnel, all of which is a human problem not a tech one. A lot of processes still require physical steps and backstops because it's not possible to source all the data needed to act on it in the first place. Then you have audits and reconciliations, a bunch of strict workflow rules and atomicity to reach levels of software that bigger financial institutions would accept.
My gut reaction to stuff like this is a mix of "oh shit, they could take over my company" and "they're the next script kiddy that thinks software is anywhere near a majority of the work in some software spaces".
The personnel also need to take the fall when the AI does it wrong. A judge isn't going to jail Claude, they are going to jail the sucker who unknowingly authorized the fraud.
Will Anthropic externalize the risk, selling access to agents? Or will internalize the risk and liability, selling financial services? Maybe both? I guess lots of companies want both, doing some things internally and keeping other things at arms length by outsourcing to 3rd party accountants.
Managing risk is a negotiation across parties, not just ponying up the cash. Personnel completes steps that are still physical requirements, usually by law. I think those are two things Anthropic isn't going to want to get into anytime soon.
Does anyone have a good source that details these negative effects? I’m not doubting they exist, I mean gambling in general has many negative externalities, but I’m just interested in identifying the cancer aspects more specifically.
>but I’m just interested in identifying the cancer aspects more specifically.
the most obvious and maybe most concerning one is military related insider trading. Just two weeks ago a guy was sentenced for using classified information to gamble, which mind you is the literal point of the market but from the perspective of US military security is a disaster. In addition military bets apparently pay out significantly more than regular bets, suggesting more insider trading. The idea isn't too far fetched that someone could push to carry out or botch an operation to cash out on a betting market at which point we're in dystopian novel territory I guess.
How hard are you looking? "I haven't seen arguments" doesn't mean much if you're not looking for them. You might as well have had a blindfold on. It's as meaningful as saying "I haven't seen arguments as to why Rust eliminates memory safety bugs."
Yep, this has been my experience over 15 years in startups as well. There are barely any punishments, so there is no incentive for startups to change how they operate.
Same here. I've witnessed horrifying security bugs that were basically flagged as WONTFIX internally because it was too much work to fix until it was exploited.
reply