Part of being grounded and self aware is realizing you are not your thoughts and not everything you believe is true.
The brain does what it does in an attempt to help you, but not often it hits the mark, sometimes it takes a bit of a reminder to pause and unpack things more carefully.
I started to use VSCode in 2026. Hardware caught up to it so it's not as slow as I remember (still slow, but fine). It's so noisy. Every cursor move highlights half the screen, at least 3 different searches active at the same time, it's a mess. Can't really write (or read) code in it. Using it for copilot.
I didn't understand what you said or your analogy, sorry maybe I'm stupid. Would you be able to explain this differently? Maybe something implied was omitted and I didn't follow that.
How does Critic ensure that the narrative, the assumptions, decisions and complexity generated by the agent are correctly brought forward in this different format and not, itself, being vulnerable to the same exact problems?
Now, Critic doesn't interfere with the actual process of code-writing. Your agent is free to write code as it wants. Critic's plugin simply observes the agent during its turn and at certain boundaries, nudges it to write a narrative. The plugin also comes with skills on how to write a concise narrative and how to identify "complex code" that needs annotation. Critic also prevents an agent from ending its turn until it publishes a quality narrative (we use heuristics like word count and format parsing to measure this).
All together, this results in a narrative that is short, direct, and easy to skim through.
word count and format parsing measure the shape of the narrative though, not whether it matches the diff. I think the question is not if it's well formed, but if it makes sense and has all the information, and I don't think you can do that with heuristics.
Do you do anything in addition to that, like for example, an extra agent session where given the narrative and diff, the agent lists the claims it cannot verify from the code, or something along those lines?
There are so many people involved on this yet we still say things like "Claude did", we need to start waking up and being more real about how we are still in "AI + Human" land.
What's wrong with saying "A team of researchers backed by Anthropic using Claude discovers a novel enzyme system with CRISPR-like repeats" or, ffs, mention the lead researcher in the headline?
It looks like the researchers just wrote the agentic harness and the rest of the work really was done autonomously by Claude with only extremely limited guidance after.
BTW the first author of the paper worked in the Doudna lab studying the origins of crispr (and after their PhD, joined Anthropic). All of the authors either have, or are going to have, excellent careers. I dont' think they are worried about attribution.
Anthropic is paying them to not worry that much about attribution. If any of them emphasised their role over and above Claude they wouldn't get the money anymore.
I'm more annoyed that they announce "CRISPR-like" to hit those SV Next Big Thing dopamine receptors but upon reading haven't done any laboratory work to determine if it has any useful applications like CRISPR-Cas9.
It's totally legitimate research worthy of publication, but Anthropic chose a hot technology in the popular imagination for a reason. Now I'm going to have to see "Claude invented a new CRISPR in 24 hours!" everywhere and trying to correct it will just turn into repetitive arguments about goalposts moving....
OpenAI/Anthropic have never pitched themselves as a replacement for farmers. They do explicitly say that they're going to cause significant job loss in knowledge work sectors all the time.
Right - I'm saying that you can greatly improve productivity / reduce employment while still having humans in the loop. We've already seen it happen with farming, from 1900 -> present.
At a trade show, I met a company that was advertising a feature as powered by Claude. I asked an employee what that meant, as it seemed unlikely, and he then didn’t know how answer so he introduced me to the CEO. The CEO said that the ad meant that Claude now writes all of their code including that new feature. They are now working on having Claude handle their QA process. I wondered if any of the devs were at the booth or if the employee I spoke to first was a dev who knew it was bs.
The first <sigh> does sound a lot like a moan. OP linked to the timestamp so I missed it when it first played. I was also confused but on second playback I heard the first <sigh> and also thought wtf.
reply