It would appear no one else submitted the posts in question, so the most obvious answer is the account is finding interesting articles that no one else has found. It would be one thing if it won out of many dupe posters, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
You aren't serious about high-frequency karma ("HFK") unless you colocate your equipment with the routing for your sources so you can beat your HFK competition to a submission by at least 200ms.
We will have reached HFK-ception when the bots are fighting to be the first to submit "How I used AI to build a High-Frequency Karma Farming Bot on Hacker News."
Noob comes from newb, which comes from newbie. Some argue it comes from "nubile" but I don't personally buy that etymology. I distinctly remember "newb" followed by "noob" but that was eons ago.
They are all valid front page submissions by the looks of them and they appear to be the first ones submitted. It wouldn’t be hard to do if you cared enough to configure notifications for frontier announcements. If someone were using technology to influence submissions or misuse HN, that would be a concern but I don’t see any evidence of that.
To directly answer your question, my guess is they have an alert set up for various places on the internet, and are able to post the links faster than anyone else. Maybe that part is automated.
AI product updates probably tend to rank very well here. If you look at the domains the user is submitting, they’re pretty normal: twitter accounts of tech CEOs, big company blogs, etc.
If I saw a bunch of blogs with affiliate links or landing pages for slop products I’d be more suspicious.
You can make your post on top in some services by paying 5 dollars on fiver. I asked before about HN, and someone said it is hard to do... Maybe they found a way?
I question all the time what dictates the posts I see on the front page every day, and whether or not it's truly based on organic interest. i wish i could say i up/down vote frequently but i do not and i wonder if that's true for most people.
People keep asking for this w/ Codex, too, and I really regret that both labs seem inclined to listen.
If you ask a thinking/research type question in 'Chat' versus 'Work' mode in these products -- say, something complex about politics, or do a multiturn business strategy, or want to work thru a new concept, you get very different answers.
The harness, steering, etc. in the chat/reasoning products is so much better for this type of question (that doesn't require code as a primary substrate).
Even as someone who mainlines like, 7 coding agents at all times, I regret that productivity fever will mean the regression of think-first-act-later AI UX.
I hope not Chat is still all you can eat and Work uses Codex tokens. I can see why they would want people to think they wanted this without thinking about how it currently works. If Chat starts eating tokens then there is not much reason to use Chat other than most people don't live in the command line like developers. Claude Chat / Cowork already eats tokens either way so not much of a change really. I have never used Work since if I want access to local files the CLI is a much better interface combined with an IDE, but can see the appeal to non-developers.
This is my main reason for not using Work. I was tempted to use a few "scheduled tasks" in ChatGPT, but once I found out they used Codex tokens I stopped creating new ones.
I built a terminal control plane and added an MCP server that runs on my Mac. It lets MCP clients create terminal sessions, send messages, read the contents, etc on my Mac.
The terminal sessions are running Luna on XHigh (on Pi) and GPT 6 Pro on ChatGPT.com is the main orchestrator.
Since ChatGPT and Codex have different limits, I can have 6 Pro orchestrate the Luna sessions. Using voice mode to talk back and forth about the software factory is really nice. Will be open-sourcing soon.
I recommend using Work sparingly because sometimes it is the better choice, but I do ration it. With Claude I simply don't use the web/app chat at all (and I have no idea what Cowork even does ngl, never used it) I think there's a Claude Design? No idea why I would need it (mostly, why I would spend tokens on it lol)
GPT Chat seems smarter for business questions or planning that does not require iteration or wrangling data sources.
But Work gives the model a computer instance it can use for programmatic data access, API munging, etc.
Success cases I’ve had:
chat - read the reports in my Gmail and put a counter proposal together.
Work - cross reference all the options with commute time using traffic aware map data. Ground it on drop off / pick up times from each option’s stated rules and hours. Create a table with commute and idle time break downs.
The fact that it doesn't work well today doesn't invalidate the user need. Not everyone wants a terminal style interface. Traditional UX makes more sense especially if say you are accessing existing plugins and say kicking off a scheduling task - no way would I want to do that via a chat interface if I have the option.
I agree that they should be separate modes, but presenting it as a toggle in the app is a terrible user experience.
The model itself should figure out how much “power” it needs to run the query. I’m just asking a question. Whether you need to do a simple internet search or spin up a VM and run scripts is up to you.
In one of the earlier iterations of this they at least made the UX distinguish Codex vs. ChatGPT which I really enjoyed.
I must admit I spent a little time in ChatGPT this weekend, thinking I was in Codex. After some unexpected behavior (disappointed) I realized my mistake.
LLMs are inherently deterministic. The way everyone deploys LLMs leads to non-deterministic results, but there's nothing† stopping providers from offering deterministic evaluation if they choose.
All the sources of randomness are under the control of the provider, even if today's deployment structures mean providers introduce extra randomness due to the concurrent nature of the evaluation. Serialise the computation, feed it from a pRNG, and you have a fully deterministic result. But providers don't want to offer a deterministic result, and especially not one as fragile, expensive, and inefficient as a full serialisation would be.
†: For variants of "nothing" that include cost and deployment challenges.
This is technically true, but when people talk about randomness, its not only about same input-> different output, like temperature>0 and the things you said.
Its also about very similar inputs -> different outputs. Even with everything you said, yes, same input would result consistently into same output, but sliightly different input and you might get completely different/semantic answer.
There's deterministic enough, and then there's computer science non-deterministic. If I ask for a Todo app, I'm going to get a Todo app, even if the buttons get moved around and the background color of it is brown instead of purple if I ask today vs 6 months ago. If the AI completes the phrase "the capital of France is..." with anything other than Paris, something has gone more wrong than usual.
The fact that people asked for it means that there is a demand for it. Maybe you aren't the target audience? One size can't fit all. People just have to adjust and go.
Yes the point is that they wouldn't have to adjust unless they are merged into one. Precisely because one size can't fit all, yet they insit on one size now.
These kinds of updates always have this romantic scenario of someone having Claude develop a presentation or something on their way to work between multiple devices, which actually feels a little sad and does not align with what happens in my life at all.
I get to work, go straight to the meeting room, and pull up what it made to present.
It's barely coherent nonsense. Lots of irrelevant details, buzz words, wrong charts or confusing phrasing. Obviously LLM output.
I read it out.
When I'm done, I get a question about one of Claude's incorrectly inferred details.
The shame instantly kills me.
This is a scenario I've seen play out with coworkers. Except that last part, instead of dying or owning up to the mistake of trusting LLM output they waffle. Their shame circuit is broken.
That is incredibly frustrating for a coworker to do that. Even if you do use an LLM to generate all the slides it is your job as a presenter to go through and make edits and actually practice the presentation.
If you are just presenting it for the first time after seeing it you are going to just be reading off the slides, which is a waste of everyones time.
Someone I know does this, and seems to think it's a flex, because he bragged about it being "the first time I've actually seen this presentation" a few times during the presentation.
At my previous company, a distinguished engineer did this. Used generated slides he hadn't looked at until presenting to the entire staff+ engineer group. The slides weren't good and he mostly ignored them.
A Canadian politician did this during a speech in front of the house/parliament or whatever. In the middle of the speech the LLM wrote "Here's a more natural, flowing version of that section that reads like a legislative speech" and he read it verbatim and then continued on, not even realizing what he just read.
Why even have a meeting? That's just a waste of time when agents are much better at reviewing plans anyway. You don't even need presentations anymore. Executive officers can just create a review agent with a "special sauce" prompt (essential to justify their high salary) and auto sign off on a plan if it passes the crucial test: "is this plan good?" Finally we can have true business automation and people can go back to much more important things, like looking at KPI reports and being impressed or unimpressed.
Previously having a deck was basically a signal that said “I took some time to prepare for this meeting and put together some coherent talking points” even if the deck itself was just a bunch of of text outlining what the speaker was saying.
Now that people are generating decks with AI, they’re basically worthless. I don’t need a bunch of bullet points you didn’t take anytime to think about on the screen while you talk about something you didn’t prepare for.
Because nobody actually knows what anybody else’s job consists of. But everyone is familiar with how jobs work in the ‘romcom job universe’ where workplace stakes are generally driven by ‘I have this really important make-or-break presentation due Friday!’
I suspect it’s because writers don’t normally have jobs and the only time they are ever in offices it’s to deliver a pitch for a project.
I've found basically all of the release presentations are completely irrelevant and seem to target a very narrow subset of the population. They're always reserving something like a restaurant or a sports venue or generating a new slide deck for their business meeting. Perhaps these companies would do better if they could make a use case for regular people. You know, the 90% of the folks out there working normal jobs and not spending infinite money. I don't think I know a single person who has made a restaurant reservation more than once or twice (mostly never) in their entire life. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but I can't relate to any of these demonstrations.
I regularly make restaurant reservations and create slide decks for my work, and both of those seem quite common among people I know. What would be a normal people use case for Cowork in your view?
I'm probably about 90%ile income for my household but live in a HCoL area and have two children in daycare. I rent, don't own, and I have enough that I can buy a coffee without thinking, but will be sending my kids to public school, can't just up and go on a vacation.
I make restaurant reservations 7-8 times a year? My wife and I go on dates and you simply aren't getting a table where I live if you don't. Fyi we typically spend $120 or so on those dinners.
If I'm booking a restaurant I'll probably be discussing the date/time options with the people I'm going with, and I can't see how adding a chatbot to the mix is meant to help?
These are modern infomercials. Concrete pains ("planning a vacation is hard!"), shallow solutions that don't stand up to real-world use, and, in the end, a promise left unfilfilled. (And a thing in your drawer that takes up space.)
honestly, one day i will understand why these guys go so hard on planning vacations.
one of the best parts of vacations is actually planning it! trying to find restaurants, organizing your days, trying to fit activities -- that makes you look forward to your time off.
really, i want to automate the boring parts of my life (did i really pay rent this month?) not the things that make me happy.
I think they're grabbing at universally-understood frictions that people associate with pleasure or anxiety … or, most powerfully, identity.
We all know the feeling of wanting to be successful, or to go on a great vacation. Showing these scenarios creates strong emotional response in the audience - we're now the people winning at work, going on a great vacation. This is especially important when you're selling something dull. See: insurance.
"Find a primary care physician in my area who is taking new patients and accepts my insurance. Give me your top three candidates, and book an appointment within the next six weeks with your top choice."
idk I thought the same until I got personal amex support at work, now it’s my roofline on how useful/trusted an agent could be. Now I book all my travel through them, and it’s an absolute blessing
Exactly! Imagine if it booked like a 3000 dollar 1st class flight because it thought it was providing you with "the most comfortable and hospitable experience as possible."
I'm retired and write code as a hobby, not presentations or docs, but it fits how I use exe.dev to make a code change. I will have a conversation with the AI, then say "Please go ahead" and close my laptop to do something else. Since I use web browsers exclusively for this, I can check on its progress from my phone, tablet, or laptop.
(They have iOS and Android apps too, but I've never bothered to install them.)
Hi, this is my team! Happy to answer any questions.
There's a lot in this launch, but the core idea is to simplify the product while giving users access to more capabilities. You no longer need to know ahead of time how much work a conversation might involve. If you're at your computer, Claude can use your local files and apps. If you close your laptop, Claude can keep working on its own computer.
This launch also lets you use Claude Design, Claude Docs, and Claude Slides directly from conversations. That's possible because we made Artifacts much more powerful: whenever Claude makes you an app, website, design system, or anything else, it can deploy an artifact with multiplayer features and databases.
As many of you probably know from your own work, giving users more power while making the experience simpler is really, really hard. It took many iterations to get to this version. We're far from done, but I expect people will be able to do much more while having to think about it less.
From a user experience standpoint this sounds like a clear win. Congratulations.
With AI safety top of mind so much lately, I can't help but notice the announcement does not address this.
With "Chat" mode, there was a user expectation that session had only limited capability to produce unexpected side effects, read sensitive files, etc.
With "Cowork" mode, it seems like more powerful capabilities have been on by default, requiring deep settings and safety understanding to disable if desired.
Merging modes feels like it is removing a simple and easy to understand risk management tool. How does the combined mode help users understand, manage and feel confident about what risks they are accepting?
How are you determining how much oomph Claude gives a particular question? When I ask Claude Chat to e.g. summarize a document, it does this and returns a summary inline, whereas cowork does a bunch of tool calls and intermediate steps, eventually writing a document to disk. How does new claude know how deep to go?
As part of all the work being done I really hope the sidebar gets more user control. There is a bunch of stuff that I don't intend to use myself but take up first class space (designer is always there, I never need to bring up artifacts, etc). I'd like to reduce the sidebar to what I use most often.
Specifically around the work UX. Trying to bring up scheduled tasks is really painful and required a lot of clicking around instead of just seeing the task results under my project. I hope this is being looked at.
Lastly, and this is a real nit. Let me turn off the "tips" when stuff is being worked on. I'm already paying, you don't need to force a rotating feature advertisement into the interface.
There are a lot of people using this outside of the coding space, most of my friends use these to create decks and things like that to present. Mind you they never double check information and numbers.
Why is Claude Code still proprietary, while Codex is Open Source? What would it take to fix that? This is a major reason to pick OAI models over Anthropic (because while you can use an open agent with any model, the AI labs charge much more for that interaction style).
Will there be a Claude Sheets too? I find myself using Claude to work with spreadsheets more than almost any other document type. It does okay now, but feel like it could be even better, especially with visualizations and formulas.
It's not a bad idea, however if Cowork, Designs, Docs and Slides are still different products, it'd be great for the user to know they are being routed to that particular product automatically because of what they were asking for in their prompt.
In the web interface, are there any plans to support attaching local directories through File System Access API and accessing internal (as in, not reachable over Internet) MCPs, assuming correct CORS setup, of course?
I liked the ability to explicitly only chat, without the possibility of Cowork activating since I have never wanted that. It's unclear how I can still guarantee that now.
A bit meta, but this is one of the first posts in Anthropic's official blogs I've read that has distinctively Claude-style prose, thought less prominent than usual:
What Claude makes doesn’t need its own place either.
Enterprise admins choose when to turn them on
the frustrating part was deciding where a task belonged
What they’d started in one also didn’t carry into the other
And the unnecessary school-project level verbosity:
You can choose how Claude checks in with you. By default,
Claude asks before taking an action. If you’d rather let it
keep working and check in only when something needs a closer look,
you can turn that on. You keep the final say.
Nobody really knows how to product-ize any of these LLM interfaces beyond just chat.
They don't want a traditional UI with buttons and forms and labels because they want the interface to be "chat". The problem is that "chat" is tedious. And the turn-based, linear nature of the chat interaction model makes it even more tedious and unproductive.
I don't think it's that anyone wants the interface to be chat. I think it's that the underlying technology is inherently words in and words out. It's similar to how devices with capacitive screens are most naturally going to support tapping, dragging, and pinching.
It's funny to me that instead of moving existing tech to a word in word out paradigm, people are dropping millions getting the chat to work with the existing paradigm.
Probably inevitable, but seems like a lot of disruption could happen there.
I mean, that's the first adoption phase where you don't start from scratch but keep using the old tech with the bolted on LLMs. It would take some time for devs to build the primitives around the new tech.
My personal hot take is that the product people (engineers too probably) at these companies are just straight up lazy. Yes, a new UI paradigm is hard, but it's been painfully obvious that chat just absolutely sucks. It's also obvious that some DSL-ish thing is possible, something that just does token juggling and the end-user sees some UI behavior.
I know this all sounds abstract. I've been mulling over it for the past year and it's very hard; and LLMs are super janky and inconsistent so it's 100% not trivial. So in some sense I understand why a lazy bottom-of-the-barrel "chat interface" has become the de facto standard.
> How in the world would I interface with claude other than sending it messages?
The protocol will of course be `text -> text` for the typical LLM (though some new models are structured, as we saw yesterday with Jev). Even so, the user doesn't need to be exposed to the protocol (almost ever). It's not like I'm crafting a POST request to send this form.
There's a lot of room for window dressing, and I look at AI like I look at the touch-screen. It was a fun technical toy until people (mostly Apple) poured in a lot of serious effort into "ok, how do we make this pleasant to use, intuitive, and genuinely useful?"
For the abstract "you can do anything" product, you want an open ended interface, but if I'm, eg, renting a car, is a free form text box really the way to go? The rental company knows exactly what information they need from me before they'll rent me a car, so a free form text box so the computer can ask me questions one by one vs a traditional form, seems suboptimal.
The great confusion for Anthropic and OAI is how to break out from pure chat without signalling you in fact intend to eat all of your customer's business too.
IMO no one knows what LLMs are capable of yet and the goal post keeping moving every few months that building any specific UIs right now risks rendering them obsolete or too slow.
e.g. We went from somewhat smarter code autocomplete, to asking chatgpt copy paste, to cli agent running inside your project, managing session, to GUI to manage that, to projects where you talk to a "Chief of Staff" agent that manages other sessions, to who knows what's next.
I think the right interfaces for LLMs right now need to be very simple and easy to change/evolve. And chat still seems to be the best default solution.
I wouldn't call copy & paste code from a webui of chatgpt either traditional or boring. I'd call it tedious, error prone and guaranteed to get poor results. There is much better tooling and harnesses to leverage now.
> The moment someone figures out a new modality for LLMs is when we’ll see the next hockey stick.
Honestly, that fills me with fear. LLMs exist to make money to their companies, and said companies are not gonna turn around and say, "you know what, go are going to make an android for each elderly person, that can not only help them with their medications, but that can actually make their medications, tailored to their biologies." Instead, they are going to go for the low-handing fruit of "you know Bob, the guy who makes jokes in meetings but who is grumpy about delivery timelines? Well, we are going to make an android to replace Bob. MetalBob will make even better jokes. The blue model will be able to explain in excruciating level of detail why timelines aren't reasonable. The red model will walk through the cubicles with a whip to ensure everybody keeps working all the time, and nobody goes to pee."
We’re working on this problem at my company. All of our competitors have churned out a bunch of generic chat based agents (basic harness with a few tools connected and different system prompts) to do basic stuff you’d used to do from a wizard or even just a couple of buttons in a form. We’re steering away from this by building full ‘surface’ agents with A2UI and an initial surface message. The users just see a normal looking web application but under the hood it’s all driven by a harness. UI updates are effectively just new events received by the client. Events are either generated by an LLM directly, or deterministically - it’s up to the dev.
Technology folks don’t really understand people and what they need.
This always happens. This is why woz needed Steve.
Steve Jobs is sorely missed tbh. For all the shit he got - he was a true visionary. He lived at the intersection of technology and the humanities… he kept preaching this. And now we are seeing why.
One thing I would like is a tree-like chat structure like reddit / HN. Many times I abandon the direction things have gone but would like to resume at some ancestor or sibling response.
>Each conversation is a Yjs CRDT tree. It can branch into sub-threads (recursively), and you can drill down, backtrack, edit, undo/redo, and inspect everything: tool calls, approvals, and the raw context JSON going to the model, etc.
I solved this with task management and got work trees.
The downside of course is branching in got, but I usually don’t go of course more then a handful of tasks.
I had to engineer my own ticket management to keep opus on target. It’s been great for managing work, history, audit trails and commits are tagged with the task id.
I implemented subtasks to deal with the way Claude likes to stage its own objectives.
Then I made enforcement logic in the task manager so tasks can’t be closed out until reviewers have consensus on the same sha.
The adhd that is Anthropic demanded I build it and now I’m knocking out issues faster than Batman.
Before OpenAI dropped ChatGPT, nobody knew chat would be such a hit. Several labs had versions of these things, Google engineers were getting finessed by a rudimentary model just like in the movie Ex Machina that came out 10 years prior which was satirizing Google
But I don't agree that they aren't product-ized. There are many applications doing calls to LLMs behind the scenes and are hits, leveraging structured data very heavily and not having conversations with users at all. I would say that there is a predictable scope creep from executives to surface a conversational aspect though. We need to bring representation to that so we can point to some other best practice to push back
API calls are expensive and slow, so I’ve shied away from integrating them into my personal projects. And of course there’s always the risk of hallucination.
I very intentionally have all memory turned off for chat. The amount of times I want to discuss an approach for it to pull memory out and have that steer the decision making is so obnoxious
Reminds me few months ago I asked it about a TV model specs, then later I was doing a UI for something, response was “I modified xyz and now should works perfectly with the HDR in your TV model!!”
When casually a friend asks you to ask your Claude something about topic you chatted about earlier and then Claude brings back a secret you didn't want anyone to know yet.
Yes you can set up a project and then ask a question, but this is tedious.
I turned off Anthropic properly and switched all of that over to OpenAI yesterday. (I use other models for other things too, especially DeepSeek in Pi).
Honestly aside from the voice it uses you wouldn't notice a difference. Switching costs are low, vote with your wallet.
> I turned off Anthropic properly and switched all of that over to OpenAI yesterday.
Same, just a while longer ago.
I much prefer how OpenAI models write to Anthropic's, will probably revisit Anthropic in a generation or two. Context size is more limited, but no critical forgetfulness due to compaction so far, though I also like having plan files around both for future reference and improving chances of success at long form work.
Also tried out Kimi K3, was nice but slow (and apparently routed some requests to Claude anyways), GLM 5.3 was faster and still pretty good but the token allowances were kinda limited.
I would like to have alternative to chat - model and provider agnostic (BYOK), but with history, project, maybe memory, with good search and quality tools.
I know openwebui and i dont want to host it.
codex (their app) is pretty good and lots of banked resets, luna is cost effective and Astra seems better than Fable for many tasks. Most important one is less refusals and I can use it the way I want without the fear of getting banned. I do like Claude Code a lot when it comes to pure coding use cases but the work often touches outside code and I don't want to keep switching
> I do like Claude Code a lot when it comes to pure coding use cases
The harness is great, but opus is such an arrogant little prick that spews out unintelligible word salad. Opus 5 is so bad at communication it amazes me that somebody green-lit it. It's absolutely awful.
The fact that this isn't an acknowledged regression (and Fable 5.1 isn't much better) leads me to believe that people at Anthropic actually like Opus 5's output.
I really hope ChatGPT doesn't follow suit. Chat and Work serve 2 distinct tasks, and unifying Chat and Codex limits will cause the users to avoid using Chat in order to save the tokens for Codex.
The problem is that knowledge workers just need the simplest way possible to automate their work. Currently I feel like Anthro is overcomplicating this. If I'm an accountant, I want to open Claude App, describe my workflow for balancing some books, then have Claude design a reusable WORKFLOW that it runs whenever I ask. The workflow only needs 2 primitive skills to do anything: /work, and /review. Compose these together with guidance docs into workflows, then workflows and call other workflows. It's all just callable skills.
/balance-books hey claude here's the books. Go balance them
Claude then uses the guidance docs and various subagents to review the books, send off parallel workers with cheap models, then review with a more expensive model. Done in the repeatable, correct order with independent review every time. As new models come out, your workflow structure stays the same. You just delete some prescription from the guidance docs.
I still use Google Workspace for personal and work stuff, but for solo agent workflows, I think I have some use cases that would help me personally. I can let agents spin up working documents that I can review, comment on, and iterate over asynchronously.
For example, I’ve spent the last few weeks building an internal ticketing setup for my agents so they stop trying to fix every tangential issue they encounter. I wrote a skill where subagents bubble out-of-scope issues up to a parent orchestrator, which decides whether to log a ticket.
Currently, that setup mirrors between a local SQLite database and an Obsidian vault: agents write to SQLite, which syncs to Obsidian; when I edit notes in Obsidian, it syncs back. Native Claude docs mean I could ditch the Obsidian middleman for remote review—editing tickets from anywhere while keeping the core SQLite state local to where the agents execute.
That makes sense since you treat it as your central productivity manager, but for me all of Claude/Codex/etc are not productivity tools, just heterogeneous compute /for/ the productivity tool :P
I really appreciated that the users that I administrate had an option where Claude was not going to get carried away and orchestrate workslop, I will have to completely re-write my usage guides after testing how prompts are routed now.
Feels like the same "let us do _all_ of the thinking for you" messaging that Microsoft has with Copilot.
Claude has a jagged UX if you support non-devs. The surfaces before today in the desktop app were:
Chat, cowork, Claude code.
Inside Claude code you’ve got cloud environments and local.
Let’s say as a normal desktop user you wanted to just automate something normal in your work, going to a website (maybe some internal app at your company) getting some data. Depending on what surface you used this will either not work, not work well (cowork), or work quite well but possibly be blocked because of bot controls (local Claude code) or again not work (cloud Claude code)
It was nuts. You can clearly tell these were different teams and products mashed into the same app. Super confusing for non technical users. Hopefully it’s a little better today
I would argue they need 1 product owner for the app surface so I can’t see their org structure so clearly. Those jagged edges and users hitting blocks depending on what section of the app they were in are design failures, I know how a computer works and when using the Claude app it wasn’t always clear to me what the right combo of things to press to get my desired outcomes.
For me it’s still jagged, but chatgpt never had the weird “cowork” abstraction with the Linux machine.
I don’t talk to non-technical users that use the chatGPT app for work so I’m not sure if that’s been a positive change for them, but I would imagine if that was put in place for Claude it would be better for them. Chat is instant answers, different model, faster; work is more detailed, thinks more, has access to all the tools. This is what I see the users doing, but there is a third mode they use (deep research, exhaustively find me the right answer to a crucial question) that is underserved right now.
All of this is moot to me as a dev, I use terminal, herdr, pi… so I don’t see the jagged edges myself. But regular users do
That's the natural outcome. AI will eventually collapse into a single, universal entry point, much like Google Search became the default gateway for the web.
Is there a mature centralized platform, self hosted, that sync all your “AI stuff” across multiple devices? So regardless of the harness, it sync the api keys, providers, skills, and seasons for starters with other authenticated machines? Say you used codex on macos_1 through this platform, and later you used opencode on linux_3, it syncs everything to the new machine, no ssh to centralized machine, no git, none of that duct tape solutions, which they work but cumbersome.
The mistake here is thinking or treating AI tools as special or different in any way. We’ve had tooling that does this for decades. Ansible, puppet, saltstack, NixOS/home-manager, and dozens of other solutions. Even better, writing the configuration is extra simple now, since you can just ask your agent to do it.
True but that’s not the same, think of it like a git but for AI related, I just open whatever harness, I authenticate to that centralized server, and it pulls everything and continue from where I was done last time, seamless and secure. Right now personally I have multiple machines, and I use key managers for the secret API, git for the skills, and sessions? Manually imported/exported. The alternative is using ssh (or herdr or others) and remotely accessing a specific machine where it has everything you need, but it’s not always reliable and better to avoid single point of failure too if anything goes wrong.
There are several projects that injest coding sessions from lots of agents, but for the chat side I haven't found much, except replacements for Claude Desktop. Jan, for example.
It's funny how they keep trying to add more interfaces and everything keeps coming back to chat. And of course it would, natural language is the simplest interface there is. Anything they add beyond chat, that isn't placed within chat, that isn't some artifact of chat, is friction.
My point with above is to criticize their strategy, I have been losing faith on Anthropic and feeling like they are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks in a more desperate fashion rather than careful one. This sort of decision to me, alongside all their other initiatives recently with shipping agentic PaaS rather than enabling others to build with their tools has been a miss on thoughtful leadership. Sorry for the snark take, thank you for moderating.
A change for the better. The distinction made it unnecessarily complex for users. The ChatGPT desktop app inherited the same separation. Having to change between ChatGPT for day to day questions, to Codex for everything else always seemed too cumbersome.
How did this new account `vertigoruntime` get three posts on the front page, all in the last day?
- This post
- The DeepMind Institute https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49727659
- Mistral X Mozilla: Private, Multilingual AI Browsing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49723408
based on their account submission history they have a 25% hit rate (!) Seems very, very weird.
It would appear no one else submitted the posts in question, so the most obvious answer is the account is finding interesting articles that no one else has found. It would be one thing if it won out of many dupe posters, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
This is valid.
1. each one is a first-party vendor announcement, submitted very close to the announcement and under the vendors headline.
2. Titles are "verbatim" vendor headlines. No editorializing which follows HN guidelines to the letter.
3. Someone; a script/agent is watching vendor feeds and X accounts then submitting within minutes of the posting.
4. Altman/Navier–Stokes post got [duped] so prob not inside thing.
High frequency karma farming.
You aren't serious about high-frequency karma ("HFK") unless you colocate your equipment with the routing for your sources so you can beat your HFK competition to a submission by at least 200ms.
We will have reached HFK-ception when the bots are fighting to be the first to submit "How I used AI to build a High-Frequency Karma Farming Bot on Hacker News."
Then a week later: "Paul Graham announces a 100000$/month high priority access plan to the HackerNews via YC API." :)
YC already announced something along these lines.
re: https://www.ycombinator.com/early-access
Their scraper is physically really close to the internet building!
I just have RSS feeds of news in AI circles that may be cool, built an entire tracker around it - helps me pick up new stuff on time !
Any chance you could drop the set of feeds? Would be very interested!
What made you just start posting on HN? Welcome and thanks for the links!
this post became a great "Show HN" for it
Totally unrelated but I google'd their username to see if there was a clue, and I had no idea this feed existed:
https://news.ycombinator.com/noobstories
...does noob here just refer to a new (green) user? Or is it something else?
Noob comes from newb, which comes from newbie. Some argue it comes from "nubile" but I don't personally buy that etymology. I distinctly remember "newb" followed by "noob" but that was eons ago.
Always thought it was "new" but made to sound like "boob" because it's funny.
And not related to Safire's "nattering nabobs of negativism," the originals of whom SF's Nob Hill eponymizes.
Technically “new user” I think.
maybe someone wrote a classifier (or LLM wrapper) to find posts that will rank on hn
They are all valid front page submissions by the looks of them and they appear to be the first ones submitted. It wouldn’t be hard to do if you cared enough to configure notifications for frontier announcements. If someone were using technology to influence submissions or misuse HN, that would be a concern but I don’t see any evidence of that.
To directly answer your question, my guess is they have an alert set up for various places on the internet, and are able to post the links faster than anyone else. Maybe that part is automated.
AI product updates probably tend to rank very well here. If you look at the domains the user is submitting, they’re pretty normal: twitter accounts of tech CEOs, big company blogs, etc.
If I saw a bunch of blogs with affiliate links or landing pages for slop products I’d be more suspicious.
> putting my tinfoil hat on and awaiting for replies
You can make your post on top in some services by paying 5 dollars on fiver. I asked before about HN, and someone said it is hard to do... Maybe they found a way?
I question all the time what dictates the posts I see on the front page every day, and whether or not it's truly based on organic interest. i wish i could say i up/down vote frequently but i do not and i wonder if that's true for most people.
People keep asking for this w/ Codex, too, and I really regret that both labs seem inclined to listen.
If you ask a thinking/research type question in 'Chat' versus 'Work' mode in these products -- say, something complex about politics, or do a multiturn business strategy, or want to work thru a new concept, you get very different answers.
The harness, steering, etc. in the chat/reasoning products is so much better for this type of question (that doesn't require code as a primary substrate).
Even as someone who mainlines like, 7 coding agents at all times, I regret that productivity fever will mean the regression of think-first-act-later AI UX.
I hope not Chat is still all you can eat and Work uses Codex tokens. I can see why they would want people to think they wanted this without thinking about how it currently works. If Chat starts eating tokens then there is not much reason to use Chat other than most people don't live in the command line like developers. Claude Chat / Cowork already eats tokens either way so not much of a change really. I have never used Work since if I want access to local files the CLI is a much better interface combined with an IDE, but can see the appeal to non-developers.
This is my main reason for not using Work. I was tempted to use a few "scheduled tasks" in ChatGPT, but once I found out they used Codex tokens I stopped creating new ones.
I already burn through Codex too fast.
I built a terminal control plane and added an MCP server that runs on my Mac. It lets MCP clients create terminal sessions, send messages, read the contents, etc on my Mac.
The terminal sessions are running Luna on XHigh (on Pi) and GPT 6 Pro on ChatGPT.com is the main orchestrator.
Since ChatGPT and Codex have different limits, I can have 6 Pro orchestrate the Luna sessions. Using voice mode to talk back and forth about the software factory is really nice. Will be open-sourcing soon.
I recommend using Work sparingly because sometimes it is the better choice, but I do ration it. With Claude I simply don't use the web/app chat at all (and I have no idea what Cowork even does ngl, never used it) I think there's a Claude Design? No idea why I would need it (mostly, why I would spend tokens on it lol)
I like the web chat UI for quick one off questions where I don’t want it to have the context of a local project I’m working in.
The OpenAI folks have been clear that they are merging them by the end of the year, obviously TBD what they do with quota.
GPT Chat seems smarter for business questions or planning that does not require iteration or wrangling data sources.
But Work gives the model a computer instance it can use for programmatic data access, API munging, etc.
Success cases I’ve had: chat - read the reports in my Gmail and put a counter proposal together.
Work - cross reference all the options with commute time using traffic aware map data. Ground it on drop off / pick up times from each option’s stated rules and hours. Create a table with commute and idle time break downs.
The fact that it doesn't work well today doesn't invalidate the user need. Not everyone wants a terminal style interface. Traditional UX makes more sense especially if say you are accessing existing plugins and say kicking off a scheduling task - no way would I want to do that via a chat interface if I have the option.
Agree, and it allows ordinary users to have a taste of both worlds, instead of being like: "eww, what is this black box and why doesn't my mouse work"
I agree that they should be separate modes, but presenting it as a toggle in the app is a terrible user experience.
The model itself should figure out how much “power” it needs to run the query. I’m just asking a question. Whether you need to do a simple internet search or spin up a VM and run scripts is up to you.
In one of the earlier iterations of this they at least made the UX distinguish Codex vs. ChatGPT which I really enjoyed.
I must admit I spent a little time in ChatGPT this weekend, thinking I was in Codex. After some unexpected behavior (disappointed) I realized my mistake.
I sometimes get very different answers if I ask the chat product the same question multiple times.
Isn't that expected since LLMs are inherently non-deterministic?
LLMs are inherently deterministic. The way everyone deploys LLMs leads to non-deterministic results, but there's nothing† stopping providers from offering deterministic evaluation if they choose.
All the sources of randomness are under the control of the provider, even if today's deployment structures mean providers introduce extra randomness due to the concurrent nature of the evaluation. Serialise the computation, feed it from a pRNG, and you have a fully deterministic result. But providers don't want to offer a deterministic result, and especially not one as fragile, expensive, and inefficient as a full serialisation would be.
†: For variants of "nothing" that include cost and deployment challenges.
This is technically true, but when people talk about randomness, its not only about same input-> different output, like temperature>0 and the things you said.
Its also about very similar inputs -> different outputs. Even with everything you said, yes, same input would result consistently into same output, but sliightly different input and you might get completely different/semantic answer.
LLMs are chaotic pure functions. Their input is usually randomized.
There's deterministic enough, and then there's computer science non-deterministic. If I ask for a Todo app, I'm going to get a Todo app, even if the buttons get moved around and the background color of it is brown instead of purple if I ask today vs 6 months ago. If the AI completes the phrase "the capital of France is..." with anything other than Paris, something has gone more wrong than usual.
The fact that people asked for it means that there is a demand for it. Maybe you aren't the target audience? One size can't fit all. People just have to adjust and go.
Yes the point is that they wouldn't have to adjust unless they are merged into one. Precisely because one size can't fit all, yet they insit on one size now.
Just yesterday I experienced this product weirdness -- oh you're in a chat in this project and I can't do that, you need to open a task.
The product management at Anthropic is pretty... nonexistent?
These kinds of updates always have this romantic scenario of someone having Claude develop a presentation or something on their way to work between multiple devices, which actually feels a little sad and does not align with what happens in my life at all.
This is a nightmare scenario to me.
"Claude, prepare me a presentation on XYZ."
I get to work, go straight to the meeting room, and pull up what it made to present.
It's barely coherent nonsense. Lots of irrelevant details, buzz words, wrong charts or confusing phrasing. Obviously LLM output.
I read it out.
When I'm done, I get a question about one of Claude's incorrectly inferred details.
The shame instantly kills me.
This is a scenario I've seen play out with coworkers. Except that last part, instead of dying or owning up to the mistake of trusting LLM output they waffle. Their shame circuit is broken.
That is incredibly frustrating for a coworker to do that. Even if you do use an LLM to generate all the slides it is your job as a presenter to go through and make edits and actually practice the presentation.
If you are just presenting it for the first time after seeing it you are going to just be reading off the slides, which is a waste of everyones time.
Someone I know does this, and seems to think it's a flex, because he bragged about it being "the first time I've actually seen this presentation" a few times during the presentation.
It was all awful.
I feel like we need to normalize walking out of meetings like that. If you have no idea what you’re presenting why is anyone in the room?
At my previous company, a distinguished engineer did this. Used generated slides he hadn't looked at until presenting to the entire staff+ engineer group. The slides weren't good and he mostly ignored them.
I would immediately stand up and walk out of there. That's my time you're wasting!
It’s not your time anymore. It’s the corporations time ;)
“I came in unprepared. Please hold your applause.”
A Canadian politician did this during a speech in front of the house/parliament or whatever. In the middle of the speech the LLM wrote "Here's a more natural, flowing version of that section that reads like a legislative speech" and he read it verbatim and then continued on, not even realizing what he just read.
This made me laugh out loud.
All the Apple Intelligence commercials were shamelessly this too. Felt like such poor branding for apple
Why on earth would you present a presentation that you haven't reviewed ahead of time?
I wish I knew, but I've definitely seen it happen.
"What does this bit mean?" "I dunno."
Why even have a meeting? That's just a waste of time when agents are much better at reviewing plans anyway. You don't even need presentations anymore. Executive officers can just create a review agent with a "special sauce" prompt (essential to justify their high salary) and auto sign off on a plan if it passes the crucial test: "is this plan good?" Finally we can have true business automation and people can go back to much more important things, like looking at KPI reports and being impressed or unimpressed.
That sounds incredibly frustrating. It's bad enough in code reviews, but is that approach to work being tolerated in meetings these days?
Because you think ChatGPT will do the job for you, and sadly, the quality drop doesn’t universally hurt people
PowerPoint Karaoke used to be a fun distraction; now it's literally people's job.
Previously having a deck was basically a signal that said “I took some time to prepare for this meeting and put together some coherent talking points” even if the deck itself was just a bunch of of text outlining what the speaker was saying.
Now that people are generating decks with AI, they’re basically worthless. I don’t need a bunch of bullet points you didn’t take anytime to think about on the screen while you talk about something you didn’t prepare for.
> It's barely coherent nonsense. Lots of irrelevant details, buzz words, wrong charts or confusing phrasing. Obviously LLM output.
Plenty of that even before LLMs too though.
Because nobody actually knows what anybody else’s job consists of. But everyone is familiar with how jobs work in the ‘romcom job universe’ where workplace stakes are generally driven by ‘I have this really important make-or-break presentation due Friday!’
I suspect it’s because writers don’t normally have jobs and the only time they are ever in offices it’s to deliver a pitch for a project.
I've found basically all of the release presentations are completely irrelevant and seem to target a very narrow subset of the population. They're always reserving something like a restaurant or a sports venue or generating a new slide deck for their business meeting. Perhaps these companies would do better if they could make a use case for regular people. You know, the 90% of the folks out there working normal jobs and not spending infinite money. I don't think I know a single person who has made a restaurant reservation more than once or twice (mostly never) in their entire life. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but I can't relate to any of these demonstrations.
I regularly make restaurant reservations and create slide decks for my work, and both of those seem quite common among people I know. What would be a normal people use case for Cowork in your view?
I'm probably about 90%ile income for my household but live in a HCoL area and have two children in daycare. I rent, don't own, and I have enough that I can buy a coffee without thinking, but will be sending my kids to public school, can't just up and go on a vacation.
I make restaurant reservations 7-8 times a year? My wife and I go on dates and you simply aren't getting a table where I live if you don't. Fyi we typically spend $120 or so on those dinners.
And does having an AI call the restaurant instead of you doing it sound cool to you?
I’m not the person you asked but I’m also confused by this use case.
Most restaurants have a web UI which is very simple and easy to use.
If I'm booking a restaurant I'll probably be discussing the date/time options with the people I'm going with, and I can't see how adding a chatbot to the mix is meant to help?
If it works reliably, sure? But like, it's not something I'd pay for.
"Plan a trip to Italy next month and book the flights"
I see a version of that all the time and would never, ever do it.
These are modern infomercials. Concrete pains ("planning a vacation is hard!"), shallow solutions that don't stand up to real-world use, and, in the end, a promise left unfilfilled. (And a thing in your drawer that takes up space.)
honestly, one day i will understand why these guys go so hard on planning vacations.
one of the best parts of vacations is actually planning it! trying to find restaurants, organizing your days, trying to fit activities -- that makes you look forward to your time off.
really, i want to automate the boring parts of my life (did i really pay rent this month?) not the things that make me happy.
I think they're grabbing at universally-understood frictions that people associate with pleasure or anxiety … or, most powerfully, identity.
We all know the feeling of wanting to be successful, or to go on a great vacation. Showing these scenarios creates strong emotional response in the audience - we're now the people winning at work, going on a great vacation. This is especially important when you're selling something dull. See: insurance.
> one of the best parts of vacations is actually planning it
For some. Others hate or fear it. For others it just feels like work.
Imagine the fear these people will feel walking in to a vacation planned by … a ROBOT!
"Find a primary care physician in my area who is taking new patients and accepts my insurance. Give me your top three candidates, and book an appointment within the next six weeks with your top choice."
Claude: Would you like to go to Bermuda instead?
idk I thought the same until I got personal amex support at work, now it’s my roofline on how useful/trusted an agent could be. Now I book all my travel through them, and it’s an absolute blessing
Exactly! Imagine if it booked like a 3000 dollar 1st class flight because it thought it was providing you with "the most comfortable and hospitable experience as possible."
This is why nobody should be afraid of technologists.
They tend to invent technology and never figure out where it truly belongs.
Failing that - they’ll claim the world is ending.
I'm retired and write code as a hobby, not presentations or docs, but it fits how I use exe.dev to make a code change. I will have a conversation with the AI, then say "Please go ahead" and close my laptop to do something else. Since I use web browsers exclusively for this, I can check on its progress from my phone, tablet, or laptop.
(They have iOS and Android apps too, but I've never bothered to install them.)
weirdly enough, that aligns exactly with my life.
Two years ago, I had no commute, and presentations were tedious ( i was NOT a good google slides user ), I kinda prefer this world for now
I use Claude/opencode and Orca and Hermes across my vpses, Macbook, Linux, and iOS devices. This is exactly how I want to keep working.
Would be interested to hear more about your setup!
You are not the typical office worker.
It aligns with me pretty well. Not exactly presentations, but it’s great to be able to do stuff on the go when an idea or motivation strikes.
I do this pretty regularly. It's great.
Just like every demo is some pathetic one shot trash game that nobody would play, or something equally inane.
Hi, this is my team! Happy to answer any questions.
There's a lot in this launch, but the core idea is to simplify the product while giving users access to more capabilities. You no longer need to know ahead of time how much work a conversation might involve. If you're at your computer, Claude can use your local files and apps. If you close your laptop, Claude can keep working on its own computer.
This launch also lets you use Claude Design, Claude Docs, and Claude Slides directly from conversations. That's possible because we made Artifacts much more powerful: whenever Claude makes you an app, website, design system, or anything else, it can deploy an artifact with multiplayer features and databases.
As many of you probably know from your own work, giving users more power while making the experience simpler is really, really hard. It took many iterations to get to this version. We're far from done, but I expect people will be able to do much more while having to think about it less.
From a user experience standpoint this sounds like a clear win. Congratulations.
With AI safety top of mind so much lately, I can't help but notice the announcement does not address this.
With "Chat" mode, there was a user expectation that session had only limited capability to produce unexpected side effects, read sensitive files, etc.
With "Cowork" mode, it seems like more powerful capabilities have been on by default, requiring deep settings and safety understanding to disable if desired.
Merging modes feels like it is removing a simple and easy to understand risk management tool. How does the combined mode help users understand, manage and feel confident about what risks they are accepting?
How are you determining how much oomph Claude gives a particular question? When I ask Claude Chat to e.g. summarize a document, it does this and returns a summary inline, whereas cowork does a bunch of tool calls and intermediate steps, eventually writing a document to disk. How does new claude know how deep to go?
As part of all the work being done I really hope the sidebar gets more user control. There is a bunch of stuff that I don't intend to use myself but take up first class space (designer is always there, I never need to bring up artifacts, etc). I'd like to reduce the sidebar to what I use most often.
Specifically around the work UX. Trying to bring up scheduled tasks is really painful and required a lot of clicking around instead of just seeing the task results under my project. I hope this is being looked at.
Lastly, and this is a real nit. Let me turn off the "tips" when stuff is being worked on. I'm already paying, you don't need to force a rotating feature advertisement into the interface.
> Claude Design, Claude Docs, and Claude Slides
Why/when would I ever need any of these? Can't y'all focus on useful features instead?
There are a lot of people using this outside of the coding space, most of my friends use these to create decks and things like that to present. Mind you they never double check information and numbers.
> create decks and things like that to present
Not really proving their usefulness there :P
I guess they didn't realize you're their only user!
Why is Claude Code still proprietary, while Codex is Open Source? What would it take to fix that? This is a major reason to pick OAI models over Anthropic (because while you can use an open agent with any model, the AI labs charge much more for that interaction style).
I don't know how proprietary Claude Code really is.
Just wait for the next leak!
That's exactly the point: it's not as if anything is being gained by it being proprietary, because nothing is actually secret.
Will there be a Claude Sheets too? I find myself using Claude to work with spreadsheets more than almost any other document type. It does okay now, but feel like it could be even better, especially with visualizations and formulas.
Oh sheet son.
It's not a bad idea, however if Cowork, Designs, Docs and Slides are still different products, it'd be great for the user to know they are being routed to that particular product automatically because of what they were asking for in their prompt.
In the web interface, are there any plans to support attaching local directories through File System Access API and accessing internal (as in, not reachable over Internet) MCPs, assuming correct CORS setup, of course?
I liked the ability to explicitly only chat, without the possibility of Cowork activating since I have never wanted that. It's unclear how I can still guarantee that now.
This! My use of the web chat/app was already basically 0, now it will be 0.
this is good change for ux. thanks
I'm operating Team accounts, are there changes on how org-wide skill/plugin get loaded and used?
How do you guys have so many resources but no taste? It’s crazy.
imo Claude is ok on taste, just with many sloppy bugs. ChatGPT/Codex is worse on taste.
Most normal users have no idea whether to choose chat or cowork. This makes sense for 95% of customers.
Exactly, a change like this will always be abhorrent to the 5% of technical users (aka this forum), and a net gain for the other 95%
99% of the 5% can use claude code.
A bit meta, but this is one of the first posts in Anthropic's official blogs I've read that has distinctively Claude-style prose, thought less prominent than usual:
And the unnecessary school-project level verbosity:Nobody really knows how to product-ize any of these LLM interfaces beyond just chat.
They don't want a traditional UI with buttons and forms and labels because they want the interface to be "chat". The problem is that "chat" is tedious. And the turn-based, linear nature of the chat interaction model makes it even more tedious and unproductive.
I don't think it's that anyone wants the interface to be chat. I think it's that the underlying technology is inherently words in and words out. It's similar to how devices with capacitive screens are most naturally going to support tapping, dragging, and pinching.
It's funny to me that instead of moving existing tech to a word in word out paradigm, people are dropping millions getting the chat to work with the existing paradigm.
Probably inevitable, but seems like a lot of disruption could happen there.
I mean, that's the first adoption phase where you don't start from scratch but keep using the old tech with the bolted on LLMs. It would take some time for devs to build the primitives around the new tech.
Text based workflows are king
My personal hot take is that the product people (engineers too probably) at these companies are just straight up lazy. Yes, a new UI paradigm is hard, but it's been painfully obvious that chat just absolutely sucks. It's also obvious that some DSL-ish thing is possible, something that just does token juggling and the end-user sees some UI behavior.
I know this all sounds abstract. I've been mulling over it for the past year and it's very hard; and LLMs are super janky and inconsistent so it's 100% not trivial. So in some sense I understand why a lazy bottom-of-the-barrel "chat interface" has become the de facto standard.
Can you elaborate? How in the world would I interface with claude other than sending it messages?
> How in the world would I interface with claude other than sending it messages?
The protocol will of course be `text -> text` for the typical LLM (though some new models are structured, as we saw yesterday with Jev). Even so, the user doesn't need to be exposed to the protocol (almost ever). It's not like I'm crafting a POST request to send this form.
There's a lot of room for window dressing, and I look at AI like I look at the touch-screen. It was a fun technical toy until people (mostly Apple) poured in a lot of serious effort into "ok, how do we make this pleasant to use, intuitive, and genuinely useful?"
For the abstract "you can do anything" product, you want an open ended interface, but if I'm, eg, renting a car, is a free form text box really the way to go? The rental company knows exactly what information they need from me before they'll rent me a car, so a free form text box so the computer can ask me questions one by one vs a traditional form, seems suboptimal.
The great confusion for Anthropic and OAI is how to break out from pure chat without signalling you in fact intend to eat all of your customer's business too.
IMO no one knows what LLMs are capable of yet and the goal post keeping moving every few months that building any specific UIs right now risks rendering them obsolete or too slow.
e.g. We went from somewhat smarter code autocomplete, to asking chatgpt copy paste, to cli agent running inside your project, managing session, to GUI to manage that, to projects where you talk to a "Chief of Staff" agent that manages other sessions, to who knows what's next.
I think the right interfaces for LLMs right now need to be very simple and easy to change/evolve. And chat still seems to be the best default solution.
We have all that? I'm still copying and pasting off the WebUI of ChatGPT.
Traditional and boring works for me.
"Traditional and boring works for me."
I wouldn't call copy & paste code from a webui of chatgpt either traditional or boring. I'd call it tedious, error prone and guaranteed to get poor results. There is much better tooling and harnesses to leverage now.
This has been my ongoing gripe. Someone put chat in front of a transformer model. It exploded like all prior versions of “AI chat” did. Now what?
The moment someone figures out a new modality for LLMs is when we’ll see the next hockey stick.
> The moment someone figures out a new modality for LLMs is when we’ll see the next hockey stick.
Honestly, that fills me with fear. LLMs exist to make money to their companies, and said companies are not gonna turn around and say, "you know what, go are going to make an android for each elderly person, that can not only help them with their medications, but that can actually make their medications, tailored to their biologies." Instead, they are going to go for the low-handing fruit of "you know Bob, the guy who makes jokes in meetings but who is grumpy about delivery timelines? Well, we are going to make an android to replace Bob. MetalBob will make even better jokes. The blue model will be able to explain in excruciating level of detail why timelines aren't reasonable. The red model will walk through the cubicles with a whip to ensure everybody keeps working all the time, and nobody goes to pee."
Perhaps we could see a Yahoo Pipes style interface and feature set, handled by LLM (when simple transforms aren't an option).
We’re working on this problem at my company. All of our competitors have churned out a bunch of generic chat based agents (basic harness with a few tools connected and different system prompts) to do basic stuff you’d used to do from a wizard or even just a couple of buttons in a form. We’re steering away from this by building full ‘surface’ agents with A2UI and an initial surface message. The users just see a normal looking web application but under the hood it’s all driven by a harness. UI updates are effectively just new events received by the client. Events are either generated by an LLM directly, or deterministically - it’s up to the dev.
Why would I want that for a form with buttons?
It sounds painful to debug
It’s not surprising.
Technology folks don’t really understand people and what they need.
This always happens. This is why woz needed Steve.
Steve Jobs is sorely missed tbh. For all the shit he got - he was a true visionary. He lived at the intersection of technology and the humanities… he kept preaching this. And now we are seeing why.
"Chat" makes it feel more like you're talking to a human. They need people to believe AGI is imminent when using the product.
One thing I would like is a tree-like chat structure like reddit / HN. Many times I abandon the direction things have gone but would like to resume at some ancestor or sibling response.
Gemini has something kind of like this. In a chat, click on the "..." icon next to one of Gemini's responses and select "Branch in new chat".
It creates a new chat which has the conversation up to that point and a link to the conversation you branched it from.
The UI isn't tree-like, though. It's more like Git where each branch name is just mixed in with the rest of the soup of references.
GitHub Copilot in VS Code has a similar feature to "Fork" a conversation at any point in its history.
I'm not affiliated, and did not actually try it, but your comment reminded me of the juggler coding agent, discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48883305
>Each conversation is a Yjs CRDT tree. It can branch into sub-threads (recursively), and you can drill down, backtrack, edit, undo/redo, and inspect everything: tool calls, approvals, and the raw context JSON going to the model, etc.
I solved this with task management and got work trees.
The downside of course is branching in got, but I usually don’t go of course more then a handful of tasks.
I had to engineer my own ticket management to keep opus on target. It’s been great for managing work, history, audit trails and commits are tagged with the task id.
I implemented subtasks to deal with the way Claude likes to stage its own objectives.
Then I made enforcement logic in the task manager so tasks can’t be closed out until reviewers have consensus on the same sha.
The adhd that is Anthropic demanded I build it and now I’m knocking out issues faster than Batman.
Yes this would be very useful. Or at least being able to selectively compact a linear part and continue from before.
Often times I just sort of wish to undo.
You can do that right now in ChatGPT? Every answer has a "Branch in new chat" button. You can go back to any point and branch again.
Chat is only tedious because it’s slow. If models responded in 300ms it would be the ideal interface.
Do you know that you can have multiple chats at the same time?
Doubling the tediousness does not solve the interface problem.
Before OpenAI dropped ChatGPT, nobody knew chat would be such a hit. Several labs had versions of these things, Google engineers were getting finessed by a rudimentary model just like in the movie Ex Machina that came out 10 years prior which was satirizing Google
But I don't agree that they aren't product-ized. There are many applications doing calls to LLMs behind the scenes and are hits, leveraging structured data very heavily and not having conversations with users at all. I would say that there is a predictable scope creep from executives to surface a conversational aspect though. We need to bring representation to that so we can point to some other best practice to push back
Can you give examples of wrapped LLM logic?
API calls are expensive and slow, so I’ve shied away from integrating them into my personal projects. And of course there’s always the risk of hallucination.
For converting unstructured data into (more) structured data, they're phenomenal.
Yes, they are expensive, but flexibility has a lot of value.
To Anthropic: I hope you don't merge Claude Code and chat, I like keeping their memory separate.
I very intentionally have all memory turned off for chat. The amount of times I want to discuss an approach for it to pull memory out and have that steer the decision making is so obnoxious
Chat, create a new landing page for the company!
"Sure! And since you were asking me about lobsters yesterday, I'll make it red and seafood themed!"
Reminds me few months ago I asked it about a TV model specs, then later I was doing a UI for something, response was “I modified xyz and now should works perfectly with the HDR in your TV model!!”
> I like keeping their memory separate.
When casually a friend asks you to ask your Claude something about topic you chatted about earlier and then Claude brings back a secret you didn't want anyone to know yet.
Yes you can set up a project and then ask a question, but this is tedious.
I'm starting to explore alternative options because Claude has become an awful value proposition. Any suggestions?
I turned off Anthropic properly and switched all of that over to OpenAI yesterday. (I use other models for other things too, especially DeepSeek in Pi).
Honestly aside from the voice it uses you wouldn't notice a difference. Switching costs are low, vote with your wallet.
> I turned off Anthropic properly and switched all of that over to OpenAI yesterday.
Same, just a while longer ago.
I much prefer how OpenAI models write to Anthropic's, will probably revisit Anthropic in a generation or two. Context size is more limited, but no critical forgetfulness due to compaction so far, though I also like having plan files around both for future reference and improving chances of success at long form work.
Also tried out Kimi K3, was nice but slow (and apparently routed some requests to Claude anyways), GLM 5.3 was faster and still pretty good but the token allowances were kinda limited.
OpenAI is a better value proposition too because they give you effectively infinite image generation + chat usage, which is separate from work/codex.
So you voted for Kodos instead of Kang [1]. Local models are the way out of the rug pulling
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BUAnyVAanac&ra=m
I don't actually disagree, and advocate that for now the thing to do is use both.
You need to use frontier models to understand where the puck is going, but also to use local ones for anything remotely sensitive.
I would like to have alternative to chat - model and provider agnostic (BYOK), but with history, project, maybe memory, with good search and quality tools. I know openwebui and i dont want to host it.
codex (their app) is pretty good and lots of banked resets, luna is cost effective and Astra seems better than Fable for many tasks. Most important one is less refusals and I can use it the way I want without the fear of getting banned. I do like Claude Code a lot when it comes to pure coding use cases but the work often touches outside code and I don't want to keep switching
> I do like Claude Code a lot when it comes to pure coding use cases
The harness is great, but opus is such an arrogant little prick that spews out unintelligible word salad. Opus 5 is so bad at communication it amazes me that somebody green-lit it. It's absolutely awful.
The fact that this isn't an acknowledged regression (and Fable 5.1 isn't much better) leads me to believe that people at Anthropic actually like Opus 5's output.
Of the major providers, Codex/Astra. By far the highest quality model, especially for cross-discipline work.
Opencode Go.
I really hope ChatGPT doesn't follow suit. Chat and Work serve 2 distinct tasks, and unifying Chat and Codex limits will cause the users to avoid using Chat in order to save the tokens for Codex.
The problem is that knowledge workers just need the simplest way possible to automate their work. Currently I feel like Anthro is overcomplicating this. If I'm an accountant, I want to open Claude App, describe my workflow for balancing some books, then have Claude design a reusable WORKFLOW that it runs whenever I ask. The workflow only needs 2 primitive skills to do anything: /work, and /review. Compose these together with guidance docs into workflows, then workflows and call other workflows. It's all just callable skills.
/balance-books hey claude here's the books. Go balance them
Claude then uses the guidance docs and various subagents to review the books, send off parallel workers with cheap models, then review with a more expensive model. Done in the repeatable, correct order with independent review every time. As new models come out, your workflow structure stays the same. You just delete some prescription from the guidance docs.
https://github.com/DanMcInerney/orchflows
Why would anyone install software that the owner himself said is unsafe to use?
Basically DOA in healthcare, even with a BAA I don't want Claude Cowork enabled in our workstations, ever.
why tho? genuinely curious
Really excited to try the gsuite replacements, which seems like the bigger announcement than the title suggest
Why? I only use gsuite for interop between Claude and ChatGPT and other services...so a moat like that is totally worthless to me
I still use Google Workspace for personal and work stuff, but for solo agent workflows, I think I have some use cases that would help me personally. I can let agents spin up working documents that I can review, comment on, and iterate over asynchronously.
For example, I’ve spent the last few weeks building an internal ticketing setup for my agents so they stop trying to fix every tangential issue they encounter. I wrote a skill where subagents bubble out-of-scope issues up to a parent orchestrator, which decides whether to log a ticket.
Currently, that setup mirrors between a local SQLite database and an Obsidian vault: agents write to SQLite, which syncs to Obsidian; when I edit notes in Obsidian, it syncs back. Native Claude docs mean I could ditch the Obsidian middleman for remote review—editing tickets from anywhere while keeping the core SQLite state local to where the agents execute.
That makes sense since you treat it as your central productivity manager, but for me all of Claude/Codex/etc are not productivity tools, just heterogeneous compute /for/ the productivity tool :P
I really appreciated that the users that I administrate had an option where Claude was not going to get carried away and orchestrate workslop, I will have to completely re-write my usage guides after testing how prompts are routed now.
Feels like the same "let us do _all_ of the thinking for you" messaging that Microsoft has with Copilot.
I found out the claude compro crestes a large vm in my fisk which i did not want.
I hope this doesn’t get confusing like ChatGPT made it.
I feel like Claude has some of the best UX, and hope this doesn’t dilute the experience.
Claude has a jagged UX if you support non-devs. The surfaces before today in the desktop app were: Chat, cowork, Claude code.
Inside Claude code you’ve got cloud environments and local.
Let’s say as a normal desktop user you wanted to just automate something normal in your work, going to a website (maybe some internal app at your company) getting some data. Depending on what surface you used this will either not work, not work well (cowork), or work quite well but possibly be blocked because of bot controls (local Claude code) or again not work (cloud Claude code)
It was nuts. You can clearly tell these were different teams and products mashed into the same app. Super confusing for non technical users. Hopefully it’s a little better today
Sounds like they need a "Claude for Normal People" and a "Claude for people who know how computers work" lol
I would argue they need 1 product owner for the app surface so I can’t see their org structure so clearly. Those jagged edges and users hitting blocks depending on what section of the app they were in are design failures, I know how a computer works and when using the Claude app it wasn’t always clear to me what the right combo of things to press to get my desired outcomes.
Do you think ChatGPT UX is better (after they merged everything recently)?
Genuinely curious.
For me it’s still jagged, but chatgpt never had the weird “cowork” abstraction with the Linux machine.
I don’t talk to non-technical users that use the chatGPT app for work so I’m not sure if that’s been a positive change for them, but I would imagine if that was put in place for Claude it would be better for them. Chat is instant answers, different model, faster; work is more detailed, thinks more, has access to all the tools. This is what I see the users doing, but there is a third mode they use (deep research, exhaustively find me the right answer to a crucial question) that is underserved right now.
All of this is moot to me as a dev, I use terminal, herdr, pi… so I don’t see the jagged edges myself. But regular users do
not once did I ever understand what the difference was between Claude Chat and Claude Cowork. I use both and I mostly just guessed when to use Cowork.
That's the natural outcome. AI will eventually collapse into a single, universal entry point, much like Google Search became the default gateway for the web.
Is there a mature centralized platform, self hosted, that sync all your “AI stuff” across multiple devices? So regardless of the harness, it sync the api keys, providers, skills, and seasons for starters with other authenticated machines? Say you used codex on macos_1 through this platform, and later you used opencode on linux_3, it syncs everything to the new machine, no ssh to centralized machine, no git, none of that duct tape solutions, which they work but cumbersome.
The mistake here is thinking or treating AI tools as special or different in any way. We’ve had tooling that does this for decades. Ansible, puppet, saltstack, NixOS/home-manager, and dozens of other solutions. Even better, writing the configuration is extra simple now, since you can just ask your agent to do it.
config is easier than the memory/state/history stuff.
True but that’s not the same, think of it like a git but for AI related, I just open whatever harness, I authenticate to that centralized server, and it pulls everything and continue from where I was done last time, seamless and secure. Right now personally I have multiple machines, and I use key managers for the secret API, git for the skills, and sessions? Manually imported/exported. The alternative is using ssh (or herdr or others) and remotely accessing a specific machine where it has everything you need, but it’s not always reliable and better to avoid single point of failure too if anything goes wrong.
I haven't found this yet but want to.
There are several projects that injest coding sessions from lots of agents, but for the chat side I haven't found much, except replacements for Claude Desktop. Jan, for example.
They could have figured that out before launching Cowork to everyone.
I guess this is a feature worth announcing
One Claude one damn.
I love this
Claude's mobile app wouldn't show any Cowork initiated conversations, even if those conversations didn't leverage cowork specific features
Less is more. Thanks.
It's funny how they keep trying to add more interfaces and everything keeps coming back to chat. And of course it would, natural language is the simplest interface there is. Anything they add beyond chat, that isn't placed within chat, that isn't some artifact of chat, is friction.
[flagged]
"Don't be snarky."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My point with above is to criticize their strategy, I have been losing faith on Anthropic and feeling like they are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks in a more desperate fashion rather than careful one. This sort of decision to me, alongside all their other initiatives recently with shipping agentic PaaS rather than enabling others to build with their tools has been a miss on thoughtful leadership. Sorry for the snark take, thank you for moderating.
A change for the better. The distinction made it unnecessarily complex for users. The ChatGPT desktop app inherited the same separation. Having to change between ChatGPT for day to day questions, to Codex for everything else always seemed too cumbersome.