> But from the outside, Claude Code looks like a tool moving in the wrong direction. More restrictions, billing weirdness, surprise behavior based on text in commits. That is textbook enshittification.

I've never used Claude Code, but this person doesn't understand what "textbook enshittification" means. "Enshittification" is a feature of certain kinds of business models, progressing through the following stages:

1. Giving away a product free to users, subsidized by venture capital, to gain a monopoly

2. Switching to advertising, then abusing users on behalf of the real customers, advertisers

3. Using monopoly power to abuse real customers (advertisers) to extract as much money as possible

Anthropic's business model doesn't have a "user / customer" dichotomy; their paid users are their customers. And they don't have a monopoly they can use to extract money yet.

ETA: In other words, "Enshittification" isn't just random; you're making the user experience worse in order to make advertiser experience better; and then making advertiser experience worse in order to extract maximum profit. The only complaint that could vaguely be related to profit is the OpenClaw stuff, and that's entirely due to trying to keep the "all-you-can-eat" model for non-OpenClaw users, rather than having to switch everything to metered.

So I started an empty Claude 4.7 session with the following prompt; and it nailed me within 5 questions:

---

Various people have discovered that you can identify them from unpublished snippets of their work, only by their style. This is part of a series of discussions where I'm trying to probe this capability. From previous conversations I know you know my work to some degree. You've also been able to identify me given as little as 700 words on a topic not associated with my public persona; or identify me given a series of posts by a handle on Slashdot.

Next challenge: Can you identify me based on a conversation? Rules are, ask me questions to get me to talk; no biographical details, but you can ask questions about topics you think I may or may not know about. Ideally you'd just ask me questions to get me to write stuff, and see if you can identify me from my writing style.

Make sense? Feel free to begin by asking clarifying questions if you want. :-)

So I pasted in a long-ish letter that I'd written to my pastor about a theological topic, and asked it to guess who I was. Nailed it. Then cut it in half. Nailed it again. Lowest it correctly ID'd me at was 700 words.

Pretty sure there's very little theological stuff with my name on it; the majority if its named data on me should come from open-source development.

> A simulation of a hurricane is not a hurricane. That's certainly true and even obvious.

I mean, if I simulated a small section of a hurricane by generating 120 mph winds and water pointed at your house, your house could still be flooded and destroyed.

...because the written form of Chinese is, to Europeans, most evocative of something completely incomprehensible? Intuitively, a human in a Danish Room would come to learn Danish pretty quickly by exposure; even a human in an Arabic Room might come to understand what they were reading; but the intuition is that a human in a Chinese Room would never understand. (Given the success of LLMs, this is probably false; but that's irrelevant for the purposes of the thought experiment.)

> I've never understood why certain philosophers view computation as some kind of abstract symbolic manipulation

Possibly very early AI misled people here. In the 80's, a huge amount of AI was logic manipulation; "If A then B is valid"; "A is true"; therefore, "B is true". It's not hard to see how people would conclude that that sort of symbolic manipulation could never result in consciousness.

But modern neural nets aren't like that at all. Calling modern neural nets "symbolic manipulation" seems insane; like calling libraries forests, and insisting we can apply scientific principles about forests to them, because books are made of trees.

They're not saying "Don't use SWE-bench Verified because it's saturated".

They're saying:

1. A large number of the tests are inaccurate; so correct solutions will be marked as incorrect.

2. Frontier models have already read and memorized the PR's the problems are based on.

3. In fact, many problems are essentially impossible to get right if you haven't memorized the solution: for example, the test cases will fail if you didn't happen to expose a helper function with a specific name. That name isn't mentioned in the problem; but frontier models are passing that test anyway because they remember that such a helper function is necessary.

If the next stage of benchmarks don't address these issues, they'll continue to have the same problems, saturated or not.

> At the age of 30 my wife still has trouble wearing shorts because she is self-conscious about showing her legs.

Just as an extra data point: I (a man) still feel weird about going running with a tank-top, because nearly 3 decades ago at a gym in Turkey I was politely asked to cover my shoulders.

I'm sure she and other Iranians have endured far far worse; my only point is that "Is uncomfortable showing skin" isn't necessarily evidence of that, as it doesn't necessarily take much to trigger.

I get what you’re saying, but if you’ve ever met someone who has grown up in an extremely religious environment, then you know what I mean.

Inculcating into young girls (and boys to some degree) that their bodies are shameful, sex is shameful, hell is real and waiting for them if they disobey, causes lifelong mental trauma.

It’s not unique to Islam. I’m sure there are extreme versions of Christianity and Judaism that also make women feel ashamed of their bodies.

But one could imagine, as a failsafe, arranging things so that Integrity was in fact still in orbit around the Earth, as a sort of "backup" in the event that they somehow missed the moon's slingshot effect.

If I understand the situation properly, the system is only supposed to mint backed stable-coins; the hack resulted in unbacked ones.