> I read the V1 code this time instead of guessing
replyDoes the LLM even keep a (self-accessible) record of previous internal actions to make this assertion believable, or is this yet another confabulation?
Yes, the LLM is able to see the entire prior chat history including tool use. This type of interaction occurs when the LLM fails to read the file, but acts as though it had.
replyThis seems like the experience I've had with every model I've tried over the last several years. It seems like an inherent limitation of the technology, despite the hyperbolic claims of those financially invested in all of this paying off.
replyOpus 4.6 pre-nerf was incredible, almost magical. It changed my understanding of how good models could be. But that's the only model that ever made me feel that way.
replyThat was better, but still not to the point that I just let it go on my repo.
replyYes! I genuinely got a LOT of shit done with Opus 4.6 "pre nerf" with regular old out-of-the-box config, no crazy skills or hacks or memory tweaks or anything. The downfall is palpable. Textbook rugpull.
replyIf it isn’t working for you why don’t you choose an older model? 4.6
replyMatches what I am experiencing. Makes incredible stupid mistakes.
replyThe weird stuff is yesterday I asked it to test and report back on a 30+ commit branch for a PR and it did that flawlessly.
The docs suggest not using max effort in most cases to avoid overthinking :shrug:
replyThey've jumped the shark. I truly can't comprehend why all of these changes were necessary. They had a literal money printing machine that actually got real shit done, really well. Now it's a gamble every time and I am pulling back hard from Anthropic ecosystem.
replyIt seems clear that it was a money spending machine, not a money printing machine.
reply