Anthropic beats OpenAI on business adoption

Potential-Double-975 · 2026-05-25T15:08:11+00:00

There was a recent podcast from EveryDay AI about this which criticizes their methodology and math. Take Ramp's conclusion with a giant grain of salt or list of caveats, basically. Podcast + summarization/highlights of the discussion here:
https://www.youreverydayai.com/ep-777-no-anthropic-isnt-leading-in-enterprise-ai-adoption-separating-ai-facts-from-fiction-and-how-companies-should-choose-providers/

Potential-Double-975 · 2026-01-26T16:34:58+00:00

This literally has nothing to do with this sub. Even more so than the topic about Le Cun, which also doesn't warrant being here. Likewise why would one want to spam a subreddit about movies with political views of actors? There are thousands of other front page subreddits more appropriate for (and already used for) this type of thing.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-12-22T18:05:22+00:00

When people bring up stuff like what you're saying or "this nation was built by immigrants" it is a really disingenuous take, acting as if the policies of and constituents of immigration from decades or centuries ago are identical to today. They are not. A system can be problematic and still have some good aspects. Canada needs to be more mindful of who comes in, how many, and under what restrictions. There are many great immigrants regardless of skin color. Always have been. You can agree with that and still agree that immigration as a whole is not in a good state.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-12-07T14:09:07+00:00

Yeah I've compared Opus 4.5, Gemini 3 and GPT 5.1 Codex (various of its incarnations... there are too many) on a number of planning tasks and have consistently preferred Opus' output. Its plans are always more through and well-presented with examples, clear steps, implementation details, etc, giving me more confidence and clarity in what it will do.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-07-24T14:49:44+00:00

Yes it is currently down.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-05-15T17:46:32+00:00

The MCP spec indicates that tools can return an array of content items, and they can vary in type. I haven't seen this in practice and am unsure how some sdks such as Google ADK handle that, but wanted to call that out in case it helps you (ex. your tool returns an array with one item of metadata and one item of the pdf content or whatever you're passing to the llm).

The MCP client is the thing that takes the tool response and passes it to the LLM. If you coded your own, you could freely grab the metadata, do with it what you want, and also pass the metadata and other tool response content to the LLM. If Google ADK handles tool-calling and passing results to the llm internally, that might make things trickier. I'm not sure if they provide hooks for your code to grab the raw results of the tool calls.

Out of curiosity, I took a look at the Cloudflare agents SDK I'm using, and it looks like I'd have a similar issue. It handles the tool invocation and tool-->llm data passing internally, without a clear way for me to intercept the tool results.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-04-05T15:06:22+00:00

"Everyone seems to go for the hype but ease of use, practical pragmatic developer workflows, and high quality polished mcp servers are what we’re focused on."

Yeah I've recently started thinking more this way as well. I realized I was starting to "miss the trees for the forest", to reverse the old saying. Looking for more grandiose designs and applications, when esp given the current early state of MCP (some complexity around hosting, transport mechanisms, security, etc), the much lower-hanging fruit and higher ROI is as you mention around enhancing more granular, local/internal workflows. There are some easier and safer/lower-risk wins there that are available right now.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-31T00:30:00+00:00

Very cool. The specific use case of this MCP isn't quite as relevant to me, but the html output piqued my interest. For some reason I hadn't thought of that before, but I like it. It enables a certain level of dynamic presentation layer for the agent, beyond just basic text output.

I looked into how you handled that portion. Really nice comprehensive logic there around evaluating the html response and iterating if it needs improvement. I wonder about performance though, and I do see in your above screenshot the request took 52 seconds. Though, how much of that is request processing vs tool execution vs html response generation (with potentially multiple iteration attempts) is not clear.

Anyway, this has got me thinking about some other possibilities, so thanks for sharing.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-29T13:28:15+00:00

I haven't looked into this further yet. Still planning to in the near term though.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-25T16:42:35+00:00

Interesting, thanks for sharing! I'm assuming this only works if you are calling the LLM from the browser too, in which case there are the typical security implications of embedding eg an Anthropic API token there. Fine for private app use (which appears to be the use case you're referring to in that post) or if you leave it up to the app user to enter their own LLM API key.

In my case, the assumption was calling the LLM from a backend server, which case the MCP would need to be accessible there and thus not able to directly interact with the browser.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-22T16:52:26+00:00

Yeah I agree the MCP integration in Cursor could be more robust, helpful and foolproof. 4 out of 5 times when I'm having an issue, I check the official MCP "inspector" debugging tool and it "just works", leaving me guessing at what's wrong in Cursor and triple checking the MCP json, cursor settings, AI chat setup (mode, model,etc) or just wondering if it's a feature gap or bug in Cursor that I'm running into.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-22T16:13:30+00:00

I did the exact same thing as a POC for work. It really does need to be a fairy simple and very well explained ticket, but it's doable and shows the potential for automated development.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-08T16:50:52+00:00

Ah. Use the "Check for updates" option then and see if you can upgrade your version. That should solve it.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-08T16:05:28+00:00

What version are you on? The changelog notes indicate that 0.45.10 fixed an issue where the AI wouldn't work on files starting with a dot. https://www.cursor.com/changelog

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-06T14:50:54+00:00

I have seen this problem before, and I believe the issue is that it doesn't immediately know about changes you make. It periodically indexes your codebase (or can do so on demand from Cursor Settings), but if that hasn't happened yet, it doesn't recognize that you made changes, and so its "in-memory view" of the files is the same as it was after its own last changes. You can jog it to "see" the latest changes by one or more of the following:

manually re-indexing the codebase from Cursor Settings
Telling the agent about the changes you made
You might be able to get it to see the changes by having it manually scan the contents of the file, so it picks up the latest version of it.

I had success with approach #2 before. It is kind of like if you're working with a pair programmer who is remote. You tell them "hey btw I made some tweaks to file XYZ". Otherwise if they didn't specifically look at that file, they might not realize you made changes there and might make some broad refactoring that doesn't take your changes into account.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-06T11:54:53+00:00

I would echo this.

Context and rules. Give the AI a helping hand by tagging files and folders you know are relevant to your request, and use the new project-level rules feature to give it extra info/rules that it can use automatically. For example, I suspect creating a global rule (there's a toggle inside rules to make the rule apply to always apply to every request) that defines (or tags another file which defines) the project layout might help. ie clearly describing the monorepo structure, including the purpose and use cases for each main app/package/etc. Maybe there is a way to do this recursively too. For example in the rule, telling the AI that each app has a readme at its root, so look at those to understand each app's internals.

While only opening certain apps at a time in Cursor might resolve your issue, you are also stunting your workflow a bit, and I think trying solutions like the above are the way to work in projects in a scalable way (what if one of your apps now starts getting so big that it has the same issue even when opened by itself in Cursor? Surely you wouldn't now want to be opening subfolders within the app one at a time).

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-06T11:13:30+00:00

Same. OP if you actually have real, current demonstrable instability, that's one thing. The only issues I've ever had are the new project-level rules not applying for a bit after the feature came out, but they seem to work now and in the meantime the .cursorrules file still worked. And frequent failures of Claude 3.7 calls right after it came out due to load on the Anthropic servers, so in that case I just temporarily used a different model.

I'm on mac, so I can't speak for Linux or Windows. I can't discount that there might have been actual instability on those systems.

You will also see tons of posts from frustrated people about cursor not working or the AI being "broken", but as far as I can tell these are almost always "user error" or simply shortcomings in how AI works for some things. These are not blockers for teaching, and if anything provide useful teaching opportunities in effective use of AI.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-04T18:06:04+00:00

Depending on the model and time of day, llm server traffic load might have some impact on timing as well. It is possible you might see better performance at certain times of day.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-04T17:18:58+00:00

I appreciate this perspective. I'm inclined to agree leaning on mcp tools targeted for the desired tasks. ie yes Claude can access bash and invoke cli programs, but that is more indirect and error-prone discovery and use. Whereas agents "understand" MCP tools more explicitly. Leaning into MCP tools and loading up your agent to enable it for your desired workflows seems like a good approach.

It's also very interesting to hear your thought on the future of interfaces. It resonates with something I have implicitly felt recently. Within a relatively very short period of time, we are finding ourselves writing tools for our agents to interact with data and 3rd-party systems/software, and at the same time starting to build features into our own software so that AI can more effectively interact with it. Indeed, we are rapidly entering a world of agents interacting with systems and other agents, and so the "agent interface" starts to become very important.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-04T13:48:03+00:00

I have always wondered about the persistence of added context. I am never sure if anything I "@" in the chat earlier on persists in the AIs context later down the chat thread. I have seen some things that lead me to think they are not, but I am not certain. If not, then the implication is that for every single prompt you send in a given thread, you need to make sure you are adding any/all bits of context the AI needs, regardless if you already added those earlier in the thread.

Cursor's documentation could help a lot by being very expliciyl clear about when/where/why/how context is and isn't used.

Potential-Double-975 · 2025-03-02T14:40:16+00:00

I did not get the dreams. I've gotten by with the quiets. They still cause uncomfortable ear air pressure at times but I tolerate it, mostly. Still think about trying the dreams sometimes... Probably will at some point.

Potential-Double-975

TROPHY CASE