I am sure the company is going to get very upset at people no longer paying who were using their product in a way that they did not intend. Just going to be heartbroken. I will never understand the people that make a big deal about "I will never support this business again because of x" when X not something the company ever officially said they cared about.
In all seriousness, I really don't think it should be a controversial opinion that if you are using a companies servers for something that they have a right to dictate how and the terms. It is up to the user to determine if that is acceptable or not.
Particularly when there is a subscription involved. You are very clearly paying for "Claude Code" which is very clearly a piece of software connected to an online component. You are not paying for API access or anything along those lines.
Especially when they are not blocking the ability to use the normal API with these tools.
I really don't want to defend any of these AI companies but if I remove the AI part of this and just focus on it being a tool, this seems perfectly fine what they are doing.
To me it's very easy to understand why people would be upset and post about it online.
1. The company did something the customers did not like.
2. The company's reputation has value.
3. Therefore highlighting the unpopular move online, and throwing shade at the company so to speak, is (alongside with "speaking with your wallet") one of the few levers customers have to push companies to do what they want them to do.
Sure, it is perfectly valid to complain all you want. But it is also important to remember the context here.
I could write an article and complain about Taco Bell not selling burgers and that is perfectly within my right but that is something they are clearly not interested in doing. So me saying I am not going to give them money until they start selling burgers is a meaningless too them.
Everything I have seen about how they have marketed Claude Code makes it clear that what you are paying for is a tool that is a combination of a client-side app made by them and the server component.
Considering the need to tell the agent that the tool you are using is something it isn't, it is clear that this ever working was not the intention.
> So me saying I am not going to give them money until they start selling burgers is a meaningless too them.
Sure, but that's because you're you. No offense, but you don't have a following that people use to decide what fast food to eat. You don't have posts about how Taco Bell should serve burgers, frequently topping one of the main internet forums for people interested in fast food.
HN front page articles do matter. They get huge numbers of eyeballs. They help shape the opinions of developers. If lots of people write articles like this one, and it front pages again and again, Anthropic will be at serious risk of losing their mindshare advantage.
Of course, that may not happen. But people are aware it could.
It's mostly a made-up issue to begin with - so this would be a popular policy, easy to pass because there won't be much opposition, and it'll be easy to point to and say "We fixed that problem."
The R party has changed so radically that it's hardly recognizable any more. As a result, "not republican" is no longer a very meaningful description.
I think the most likely explanation is pretty simple. Whenever people are unhappy with their economic situation, at the ballot box they take it out on whoever is currently in power, logic be damned. Politicians know this.
All of the reporting about Apple being behind on AI is driving me insane and I hope that what Dell is doing is finally going to be the reversal of this pattern.
The only thing that Apple is really behind on is shoving the word (word?) "AI" in your face at every moment when ML has been silently running in many parts of their platforms well before ChatGPT.
Sure we can argue about Siri all day long and some of that is warranted but even the more advanced voice assistants are still largely used for the basics.
I am just hoping that this bubble pops or the marketing turns around before Apple feels "forced" to do a copilot or recall like disaster.
LLM tech isn't going away and it shouldn't, it has its valid use cases. But we will be much better when it finally goes back into the background like ML always was.
Right! Also I don’t think Siri is that important to the overall user experience on the ecosystem. Sure it’s one of the most visible use cases but how many people really care about that? I don’t want to talk out loud to do tasks usually, it’s helpful in some specific scenarios but not the primary use case. The text counterpart of understanding user context on the phone is more important even in the context of llms, and that what plays into the success of their stack going forward
are you really asking why someone would like a much better siri?
- truck drivers that are driving for hours.
- commuters driving to work
- ANYONE with a homepod at home that likes to do things hands free (cooking, dishes, etc).
- ANYONE with airpods in their ears that is not in an awkward social setting (bicycle, walking alone on the sidewalk, on a trail, etc)
every one of these interaction modes benefits from a smart siri.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Why can’t I have a siri that can intelligently do multi step actions for me? “siri please add milk and eggs to my Target order. Also let my wife know that i’ll pick up the order on my way home from work. Lastly, we’re hosting some friends for dinner this weekend. I’m thinking Italian. Can you suggest 5 recipes i might like? [siri sends me the recipes ASYNC after a web search]”
All of this is TECHNICALLY possible. There’s no reason apple couldn’t build out, or work with, various retailers to create useful MCP-like integrations into siri. Just omit dangerous or destructive actions and require the user to manually confirm or perform those actions. Having an LLM add/remove items in my cart is not dangerous. Importantly, siri should be able to do some tasks for me in the background. Like on my mac…i’m able to launch Cursor and have it work in agent mode to implement some small feature in my project, while i do something else on my computer. Why must i stare at my phone while siri “thinks” and replies with something stupid lol. Similarly, why can’t my phone draft a reply to an email ASYNC and let me review it later at my leisure? Everything about siri is so synchronous. It sucks.
It’s just soooo sooo bad when you consider how good it could be. I think we’re just conditioned to expect it to suck. It doesn’t need to.
I doubt that anyone is actually suggesting that Siri should not be better, but to me I think the issues with it are very much overblown when it does what I actually ask it to do the vast majority of the time since the reality is most of the time what I actually want to ask it to do are basic things.
I have a several homepods, and it does what I ask it to do. This includes being the hub of all of my home automation.
Yes there are areas it can improve but I think the important question is how much use would those things actually get vs making a cool announcement, a fun party trick, and then never used again.
We have also seen the failures that have been done by trying to treat LLM as a magic box that can just do things for you so while these things are "Technically" possible they are far from being reliable.
We have a home pod, we use it a lot for simple things like timers when cooking or playing a particular kind of music. They are simple and dumb, but they have become part of our lives. It's just a hands free way to doing simple things we might do on the phone.
We are looking forward to being able to ask Siri to pipe some speech through to an AI
Are there insurance plans that won't cover it? I know that a lot of plans love not paying for things but vaccines seem to be the one thing that they all at least seem fairly good at (at least in my experience).
I am currently getting the HPV series and I only had to pay my copay for the first appointment have nothing for the second one (I am assuming it will be the same for the third)
There is a part of me seriously considering making a bookshelf dedicated to all of these banned books.
I don't understand the logic of banning these books, do they act like the internet doesn't exist? Kids will find this information, I found plenty of information about being gay 20ish years ago in high school.
Then again being short sited is one of their strong suits.
(Not downplaying banned books, I just can't understand thinking it is a good idea)
You don't need to as they aren't banned and your local bookstore likely already has a shelf right up front of all of these books for purchase.
I am against the banning of books from purchase or from public libraries, however banning books in schools is not that. It is gatekeeping this information from young and impressionable minds, just like we do with movies, games, drugs, all sorts of things. Things that may have negative consequences on developing minds.
You may disagree with what books are banned or why, but allowing unsupervised exposure of elementary aged children to sexually explicit and graphically depicted books such as Gender Queer is not appropriate. If a child wants access to this, their parent or adult can buy it for them or rent it from the public library.
> There is a part of me seriously considering making a bookshelf dedicated to all of these banned books.
That's great idea, many stores have them!
This is not about bookstores but about school. So then, would you put that bookshelf in a second grade class. How early do kids need to hear about "Five troubled teenagers fall into prostitution as they search for freedom, safety, community, family, and love". I mean, a lot of those kids still believe in Santa maybe telling them about teenage prostitutes is a bit early.
The reason to ban books is so that people that wouldn't normally cross paths with that book will never be affected by it.
Book bans are not designed to stop people that know about these books and the ideas they contain. They know that those people will still find them and read them.
> I found plenty of information about being gay 20ish years ago in high school.
Lots of kids didn't and they don't know they didn't and that is the point.
I mean I get that point and I get what they think they are doing.
But (well until the last couple of years) you would have still seen "different" people on tv and in movies.
And I get that the point is to make it so the kids are not being exposed to different ideas and beliefs. I am just struggling to understand how that is actually a realistic idea in todays world.
Because they aren't stopping here. Project 2025's discussion of age restriction for pornographic websites spends all of its time talking about websites with LGBT content, not actual porn. This is a movement to hide all queerness from young people. School libraries are just a foothold.
You should do that, and afterward, add some Funkos to accentuate it, especially for the #1 title on the list, Looking for Alaska, by John Green. His multi-talented brother Hank made this, BTW (the music, specifically, not the animation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItBDepGyfK0
Something I have been very curious about for some time now. We know the quality of the code is not very high and has a high likelihood of bugs.
But, assuming there are not bugs and the code ships. Has there been any study in resource usage creeping up and an impact of this on a whole system. The tests I have done with trying to build things with AI it always seems like there is zero efficiency unless you notice it and can put it in the right direction.
I have been curious about the impact this will have on general computing as more low quality code makes it into applications we use every day.
That would be my guess, I know personally yesterday I finally setup Forgejo and today I plan to evaluate its runners or even just using a dedicated CI like woodpecker.
Not fully sure what I will do regarding any open source repo's yet, but at least anything private I am already in the process of moving away.
This was something I already wanted to do for privacy concerns (especially possibility using private repo's to train AI) so this was just the push I needed.
So I have never actually tried, but could you not just have multiple SSH keys in your .ssh folder and run the same command in the article telling git specifically which one to use instead of one within the git directory?
That seems like it would fix the issue here without introducing a major security issue.
To be blunt... If I was security at a company and found out someone was doing this, I would question why they have the right to use git frankly.
Edit: I should have clicked through to the superuser article which answered my question that this is perfectly fine with git and having multiple in .ssh.
So honest question... why did you think this was a necessary "twist" worth the risks of copying those files to a location it should not be?
You don't even need to do that. You can just put each set of repos in a directory on a per-account basis and set up git-configs for each. The top of my `.gitconfig` looks like
where `Work` is where all of our repos associated with our GitHub EMU go and `OpenSource` is where I clone all of the open source repos I need to contribute to for work. Our EMU policy doesn't allow us to use our EMU accounts on other repos (or maybe this is just a general restriction of EMU) so I have that set-up to use my personal GitHub.
This is exactly what I have set up for a pair of personal accounts. Allows for a nice clean split between the two. As long as the code was initially cloned into the correct directory there's no way for me to accidentally use the wrong email address or GPG signing key.
You can also use your ssh config to set identities for any "host" you want, and the host doesn't need to be the real hostname. So you can do something like:
I have a ssh-switch script that runs `ssh-add -D` and `ssh-add $KEY_FILE` so I can do `ssh-switch id_github`, etc. This is coupled with a `/etc/profile.d/ssh-agent.sh` script to create a ssh agent for a terminal session.
yes. ssh keys can be named whatever and you can have as many of them in your .ssh dir (or any dir) as you want. "id_ed25519.pub" is just a default/convention.
run "ssh -vvv" and you will see how ssh client decides to look thru that directory. it will try all of them if none are specified.
My question was more the git command in the article I was curious about, I have never used that command myself and I was not sure if there was a weird limitation (possibly related to the git context) that it only worked with files within the git repo.
I am just trying to figure out how we are jumping from storing in ~/.ssh to storing in the repo here.
(I believe replacing "/home/your_user" with "~" works too)
I use this all the time as my main key is ed25519 but some old repositories only support rsa keys.
The sshCommand config is, as the name says, the literal ssh command that is used by git when operations that call a remote with ssh (usually push/pull). You can also put other ssh options in there if you need.
Another option to achieve the same effect is to setup directly in your ~/.ssh/config:
Host your_custom_alias
HostName git.domain.com
User git
IdentityFile ~/.ssh/your_custom_key
then instead of "git clone git@git.domain.com:repo.git" you clone it with "git clone your_custom_alias:repo.git" (or you change the remote if is already cloned). In this case you don't need to have to change the git sshCommand option.
> This setup is localized to that repo and is entirely self-contained, i.e. you can move the repo to a different path or place it on a thumb drive to a different machine and it will work without reconfiguring.
The obvious solution is just to throw more LLM's at it to verify the output of the other LLM and that it is doing its job...
\s (mostly because you know this will be the "Solution" that many will just run with despite the very real issue of how "persuadable" these systems are)...
The real answer is that even that will fail and there will have to be a feedback loop with a human that will likely in many cases lead to more churn trying to fix the work the AI did vs if the human just did it in the first place.
Instead of focusing on the places that using an AI tool can truly cut down on time spent like searching for something (which can still fail but at least the risk when a failure is far lower vs producing output).
In all seriousness, I really don't think it should be a controversial opinion that if you are using a companies servers for something that they have a right to dictate how and the terms. It is up to the user to determine if that is acceptable or not.
Particularly when there is a subscription involved. You are very clearly paying for "Claude Code" which is very clearly a piece of software connected to an online component. You are not paying for API access or anything along those lines.
Especially when they are not blocking the ability to use the normal API with these tools.
I really don't want to defend any of these AI companies but if I remove the AI part of this and just focus on it being a tool, this seems perfectly fine what they are doing.
reply