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.
Yeah I don't disagree, ChatGPT/Claude both could really stand a UI/UX pass (and a perf pass for Firefox's sake lol). I was more expressing the perennial fear of power user features being jettisoned in favor of the lowest common denominator.
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
This depends on your users and doc corpus. On finance docs and with users that use jargon and acronyms heavily, BM25 can fail on trivial queries... you end up encoding a masters in economics into the query re-writing logic.
Double hard if you're dealing with private market finance customers with their own ideas on what "common" terms mean. I tried to replace the embedding/ingestion pipeline multiple times and nothing I tried was better over a large amount of documents. Performance sucked, the agent was re-writing and re-trying queries over and over until it found what it wanted, and vector search with a little work up front was worlds better (though it was expensive)
I work on a really similar scenario. We ended up having to create a so-called "semantic layer" containing metadata (table and schema descriptions) and glossary terms. Still, there is a lot of work involved maintaining glossary terms since some of them are ambiguous and people have different understanding/interpretations for some of them.
A frontier LLM based query rewriter has atleast a masters in economics, and a pretty good understanding of finance informal language. How long ago did you try this? I'd be curious if you find this still to be the case.
> the most damaging part of direct combat is watching people that you consider to be family die or be maimed.
I've heard from various places over the years (documentaries, friends) that soldiers really fight for their comrades at the end of the day. As in when asked "why are you here fighting" if they are in front of a news crews or something where they have to say "we're bringing democracy to ..." they'll just say something like "those fuckers blew my buddy up and I am here to pay them back".
That's a well studied topic in military history/science called unit cohesion. The saying goes that morale gets the soldiers to the battlefield, cohesion is what keeps them there. In order to withstand the psychological horrors of combat, soldiers need that comradery otherwise they'll run off at the first chance they get. There needs to be some anchor keeping the soldier in the way of danger, whether that's social pressure or years of intense training together.
Brett Devereaux has talked about it multiple times on his blog in various different contexts (most recently two weeks ago)[1][2][3]:
"Bringing democracy" is a very weak ideological motivation. I would rather call it plausible deniability. As in "we're doing this to bring democracy" and people might be left with the doubt that it's true.
It is a very weak ideological motivation for people who would never enlist in the first place.
However, I think people are generally too cynical towards a very real belief system.
There are multiple examples of US pushing for democracy against its own interest. Bush with the Hamas Gaza elections, Obama with the Egypt Muslim Brotherhood government and Carter with pre-revolution Iran are such examples
Bush knew what he was doing - Hamas has the influence it has because the US wants it to have it. When Trump decided he wants them to release Israeli hostages he forced them to do it rather quickly, all things considered, showing who really controls Hamas. Restraining American "allies" is key to how America understands its interests and Hamas is an excellent lever to pressure Israel, or Hamas-controlled Gaza wouldn't be flooded with American and European money.
Similarly, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood because he did; in Ukraine for instance the same admin supported a coup against the elected government (this is not to say that Russia's actions in Ukraine are "justified", it's just a fact.) Democracy has nothing to do with any of this
> Hamas has the influence it has because the US wants it to have it
I doubt this is backed by US intentions and actions historically
> Similarly, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood because he did
That seems like a tautology to me, care to expand? I vividly remember Obama throwing his autocrat ally under the bus
> in Ukraine for instance the same admin supported a coup
The protests in Ukraine hardly seem like a US coup and were organic according to my understanding, but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement
"In the late 2010s and early 2020s, Israeli officials encouraged Qatar to support Hamas, especially by approving the transfer of large sums of financial aid by Qatar to the organization. Several Israeli intelligence officials have cited Qatari money as a contributing factor to the success of Hamas in leading the October 7 attacks in 2023; Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the notion that Israel strategically propped up Hamas "ridiculous", and stated that Qatar's aid transfers to the Hamas government had been approved for humanitarian reasons."
I'm not sure how is that related to the original topic.
The events I am describing are a decade to two before the ones you are describing. Back in the early 2000s Qatar was already financing Hamas as well as Al Qaeda (including involvement in 9/11 financing) and Hezbollah in some extent.
Saying Qatar needed Israel's request to start financing ideologically close Islamist terror organizations is certainly the Qatar government line for their involvement, but it's a very shallow analysis of what happened
>The protests in Ukraine hardly seem like a US coup and were organic according to my understanding, but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement
Most coups are organic. The US involvement in the Iran coup of 1953 was not very much, but the signal of support was meaningful. Ditto Chile in 1973. Ukraine's overthrow was not like those coups. It relied on popular support from the region near the capital. However, this support was not uniform across the country, and support for the protests hovered around 50% and never reached 60%.
>According to a January poll, 45% of Ukrainians supported the protests, and 48% of Ukrainians disapproved of Euromaidan.
>In a March poll, 57% of Ukrainians said they supported the Euromaidan protests.
The polling variation was large. The government was overthrown in February. But the western regions were massively in favor, and surrounded the capital, while the southeast was mostly opposed. Well-functioning states rely on political processes instead of simply overturning the government whenever a majority of citizens opposes it.
Given the polling data and the division of public opinion, I don't support what happened in February 2014. But that doesn't make it a coup -- a coup is a transfer of power that originates specifically within the government, and Ukraine's protests weren't like that. Nor does it justify Russia's invasion. What happened was more like a feudal power struggle. It doesn't help that before new elections could be held, the interim government banned several political parties. Maybe they were "pro-Russian", but democracy means voters deserve a say in a country's geopolitical alignment, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason to ban a political party to me.
>but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement
Now this sounds like a joke. US politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden and several senators, attended the protests. This makes American support pretty obvious. US media at the time also tended to minimize domestic opposition to the protests, even though this was a significant position within Ukraine.
OP alluded to the Euromaiden protests being an orchestrated Obama-led coup. I still don't see how this is the case. There's some difference between diplomatic reactions to proactive overthrow
I was in the military and in my experience people that chose to go into war zones, it's optional, are fucked in the head and literally enjoy killing people, I've seen it a dozen times. They want to kill.
Not sure what military is being discussed. In the US military, you do not choose to go into combat zones. You receive orders to deploy you to a combat zone.
True, not everyone has such a choice, but I volunteered for the organization I wanted to work for and then I volunteered for multiple deployments I didn't have to go on. Many of us have that choice and make that choice.
I’ll never understand why LinkedIn is making these product choices. They have a legitimate moat, I and basically every other tech worker is exclusively on LinkedIn. They devalue their product by chasing engagement in service of ads, while allowing things like juicebox to scrape and steal their most valuable asset.
This is short term, make it to next quarter thinking. You couldn’t pay me to use their AI product, they should focus on making that actually work, get the slop out of the feed, and be professional and distinct from TikTok, Facebook, instagram etc.
Flex tier is just as cheap but you don't need to deal with batching or waiting. I see it completing in about ~3x-10x the latency of normal calls, so in seconds. You can always route back to regular if you're getting 429'd on flex too.
Flex is also easier to get caching to work, there is a little futzing around with OAI's implicit caching but if you do the upfront work you can get haiku quality responses with caching in close to realtime for 1/7th the cost and you don't need to design a polling loop to check for batch completions
Haven't worked in AWS but as a customer of AWS, GCP, and Azure there is a quite a difference between running workloads that are doing long-running computations on AWS (on demand is so rock solid that loosing a box is a rarity, I run on spot and still complete almost all of my runs) and running on Azure's "on-demand" style offering feels like spot (or worse) on AWS.
> on demand is so rock solid that loosing a box is a rarit
Maybe this really depends on region, but I can't say this is true. I've experienced tons of hardware failures that have caused instances to throw weird errors, instances to randomly stop, instances to randomly disappear (along with their corresponding EBS volume).
Standard EBS volumes are only 99.8% durable. If you run a lot of instances on EBS, some of them will disappear.
GCP meanwhile has balanced zonal PDs (not even regional, zonal) at >99.999% durability.
I've never lost a disk on GCP, I've never even had an instance stop once without me telling it to stop.
Azure is absolutely a hot mess though. Had a VM a client was paying for backups on. Couldn't restore the backup because they changed generations of VM platforms too many times, literally no way to restore it. Had to get their support to eventually give me a .vhd that magically appeared in a OneDrive share a few days after asking about it.
Great news, the fine is so small doesn’t matter, but curing the wrong does. My hope is this standard will apply to modern cars as well, repair manuals and the software tools to interact with the cars are also heavily restricted by the manufacturers.
If you haven’t talked to Anthropic support yet you’re in for a surprise. I’m an engineer at a company with an enterprise contract, Anthropic people in our slack and it took me a month to get a response on my support request, I just decided it wasn’t worth it and bought a second phone number rather than wait.
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
reply