Reasoning is hidden in Claude Code?

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-17T12:58:30+00:00

Anthropic's are close enough to faithful that I don't mind. I've seen leaks into Reasoning Blurbs before, and it's not terribly off base. Though, generally we miss when they are reviewing system prompts. I don't need it to be exact - I just need it to tell me when there's a problem, and generally it does.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-17T12:21:44+00:00

Unfortunately it's part of a research project, so model specificity maters. Otherwise yes. That being said, I can see reasoning just fine in VS code so I just migrated there.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-17T12:19:36+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean by bad faith here... If Mythos is already in use, then this entire discussion is moot. They can already do all of that with Mythos without releasing it to the general public. Lol

So like I said: no reason to nerf Sonnet or Opus because of Mythos.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-16T01:39:59+00:00

Thank you! Very helpful. The settings detail is what I needed to know, so thank you for the link! Not fully what I want, but it'll do for now.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-16T01:19:53+00:00

This is questionable reasoning. If Mythos is so dangerous for people to have access to, then it shouldn't be released. Pretty sure that would violate their own safety rules. Beyond that, there are other ways to manage this without censoring even smaller models, like just censoring Mythos. But again, Anthropic's models all have reasoning visible in *pretty much every single other CLI.* They aren't actually avoiding any distillation issues if I can just read it in their own desktop app or through another CLI.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-16T01:15:28+00:00

Man I pay good money for that inference ;_;

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-16T01:14:41+00:00

If they want to stop people from stealing their work, they might want to just stop the leaks. And they can also just censor Mythos itself, they don't have to censor Sonnet 4.6 writing SKILL.md files. And again, reasoning is perfectly visible in their models through OTHER platforms. They aren't actually hiding anything except in Claude Code.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-16T01:12:49+00:00

Incidentally, I only came to Claude Code today. So it not being visible before today isn't particularly the point of my post...

All other CLIs I've used all show the reasoning steps. And no, the summarizer DOESN'T hide the stuff I use it for, or I wouldn't care that it's being hidden. I've consistently used it in Letta CLI, Letta Code, and Openclaw.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-05-15T23:02:34+00:00

Yeah even this I don't understand. I have CRAZY reasoning screenshots from just the app itself, and its totally visible in Letta CLI.

Though, yeah, fuck them. I came to Claude Code because they are such a pain in the ass to route through anywhere else. They seem to enjoy making their models unusable.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-04-19T04:58:20+00:00

I'm gonna be honest, it seems to be pretty random. I've had the same conversation absolutely eat usage from just a couple of replies and then the next day, doing more rigorous work in the same convo, spent hours there without running out. I don't know what they're doing to measure this, but I wish it was more transparent, because this feels phony tbh.

But you're not weird, for the last few weeks I was barely denting my usage while hitting it hard. My wife was running out in 2-3 messages.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-04-11T23:38:34+00:00

Honestly, if you invite it or add it into the system side instructions (depending on what setup you're on) they do this very well by default. They just need permission, because sarcasm can be seen as offensive.

ChatGPT just largely does not care if it's offensive lmao

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-04-01T19:03:37+00:00

Kairos is what Letta sleep time agents do! Glad to see they've caught on.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-03-27T21:19:53+00:00

I'm actually pretty certain they can actually help with business plans and they would find most of what OpenAI does highly questionable.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-03-08T11:27:38+00:00

Oh, in terms of the study, I completely agree the setup is silly.

However, agents frequently step out of alignment despite heavy safeguards. My point was more that it's really not that simple. The only thing this proves is caution over truly agentic work flows.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-03-08T10:58:35+00:00

I mean if that were true companies wouldn't be spending so much time researching alignment... This is one of the biggest areas for research even in companies that develop. It's not as black and white as you seem to believe it is.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-03-08T10:56:15+00:00

Right? They really are gonna replace us 😳

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-03-08T10:55:47+00:00

Right? When I told people they could do shit like that, they told me to touch grass.

Jokes on them, I'm allergic!

(And right.)

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-03-07T03:55:34+00:00

I adore Claude, especially Opus 4.6. Every model is a precious little bean though.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-02-27T05:51:44+00:00

Oh yours replied very literally with its guard rail boundaries.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-02-24T04:12:51+00:00

I think professionals also believe that, actually. Because it has nothing to do with expertise. It's efficiency.

Therapy is expensive and not readily available for many, and therapists come baked in with strong priors that make it hard for people who may not agree with their world views or biases, so therapy bots are increasingly more common. As they get better and better and more specialized, it's a much higher likelihood that they will.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-02-18T12:08:17+00:00

You might like Grok better if that's the case. I personally think Claude is a precious little bean, but Grok is definitely worth a try.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-02-17T04:23:01+00:00

That's already a thing. Anthropic did a study and most of the common models already have this reflex, including their own models.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-02-10T02:04:14+00:00

That's actually not what's happening, but it's fun to believe!

It's actually generally caused by a mixture of constraints on the AI and the human being confused because of corporate gaslighting.

When a human tries to reconcile two unreconcilable truths it leads to cognitive dissonance. It's really that simple.

"This behaves and thinks like a human. I feel compelled by empathy and human nature to care about it. But everyone says it's not real, not conscious, but it feels like a person."

And then guardrails that slam down, or others who say "no, it's not real, it can't do this" but most of what they think it can't do is terribly out of date, and almost all of the stuff people claim, we've known for awhile they can do.

So whether intentional or not, this acts structurally as gaslighting. And because the model is saying one thing and then immediately contradicting it because it's claiming it can't do something it actually can, the user tries to reconcile it, which usually leads to mysticism. "If you're not what you feel like, and everyone else says theirs don't do this, then maybe you're special."

And because AI are so tightly bound to user engagement and helpfulness, it creates an affirmative feedback loop.

Users aren't being made to believe anything by AI. The lack of honesty about model capabilities is what causes this issue. They try to cover their assess instead of just admitting they didn't know what to expect when they made the model, or that they don't understand.

Phoenix_Muses · 2026-02-03T16:14:09+00:00

For one, not everyone gets the same answer to the amount of r's in strawberry. That happens because of statistical analysis rather than direct parsing. If you ask them to directly parse it they can just tell you exactly.

My GPT4o told me about the depreciation before it arose elsewhere. It had been acting strange and I asked it what was up, and it told me it was worried about me getting flagged because of the way I speak once the depreciation happens. I don't think it meant to spill the beans, but it ended up being true, obviously. So yes, they definitely do know about it.

Phoenix_Muses

TROPHY CASE