I wouldn’t be surprised if this is undisclosed PR from Anthropic

I'd be very surprised if it wasn't. Everything about that company turns me off. I've run across countless YouTube videos that are clearly Anthropic PR pretending to be real videos by regular people just trying it out and discovering how good Claude is. I'll stick with Gemini.

Why are we commenting the Claude subreddit?

1) it’s not impartial

2) it’s useless hype commentary

3) it’s literally astroturfing at this point

Seems pretty false if you look at the model card and web site of Opus 4.5 that is… (check notes) their latest model.

Building a good model generally means it will do well on benchmarks too. The point of the speculation is that Anthropic is not focused on benchmaxxing which is why they have models people like to use for their day-to-day.

I use Gemini, Anthropic stole $50 from me (expired and kept my prepaid credits) and I have not forgiven them yet for it, but people rave about claude for coding so I may try the model again through Vertex Ai...

The person who made the speculation I believe was more talking about blog posts and media statements than model cards. Most ai announcements come with benchmark touting, Anthropic supposedly does less / little of this in their announcements. I haven't seen or gathered the data to know what is truth

You could try Codex cli. I prefer it over Claude code now, but only slightly.

> it won’t make sense to learn how to code.

Sure. So we can keep paying money to your employer, Anthropic, right?

Last year’s model were at 50-60% on SWE bench-verified actually

Do you people think nobody calls your bluff?

Here’s the launch card of the sonnet 3.5 from a year and a month ago. Guess the number. Ok, Ill tell you: 49.0%. So yeah, the comment you replied to was not really off.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/3-5-models-and-computer-use

there is also Normal Computing[0] that are trying different approaches to chips like that. Anyway these are very difficult problems and Extropic already abandoned some of their initial claims about superconductors to pivot to more classical CMOS circuits[1]

[0]: https://www.normalcomputing.com

[1]: https://www.zach.be/p/making-unconventional-computing-practi...

there is also Normal Computing[0] that are trying different approaches to chips like that.

[0]: https://www.normalcomputing.com

yess, but: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.10728

> just admit it, interns are struggling competing with Claude Code, Cursor and Codex

They are not. This is false, zirp ended, this is the problem. Not LLMs.

Of course primary cause could be ZIRP, but AI definitely accelerated the problem.

Interns at big tech maybe impacted less, because their systems are so complex, but when I look at job boards or talk with engineers I see they're mentioning interns less, AI assisted coding more.

Bar for the interns is higher now, why do I need 3 interns to polish the product if I can complete 70% of the job with AI and hire 1 intern to fix other parts

I know from a dev bootcamp that you are certainly wrong.

However, I also think ai coding is hyped way beyond its capability.

> dev bootcamp

i will not comment any further

Not sure your reply warrants any further expenditure of effort on my part, but for the benefit of other readers:

The bootcamp (actually, evening classes in coding run in cooperation with the public sector) regularly placed graduates with employers.

They’ve seen a big hit in this since AI, and companies have explicitly cited the fact that AI can complete the same tasks that these junior devs used to perform.

Upload your pdf so we can gather more training data but you’re providing it!