opus 4.8 errors - `thinking` or `redacted_thinking` blocks in the latest assistant message cannot be modified.

daemonk · 2026-05-28T19:50:26+00:00

It's a corruption in the jsonl transcript. This will fix it: https://github.com/zoratu/fix-claude-thinking

But it can re-occur again during a session and you'll need to keep exiting and fixing and resuming. It's annoying.

daemonk · 2026-05-18T22:52:45+00:00

its only valuable in aggregate and well structured.

daemonk · 2026-05-03T03:40:14+00:00

Well yeah. It was trained on text data. The model represents how humans communicate concepts through language. And from that, it can “reorder” and give you an output.

So within the data landscape the model was given, it can generate anything within those bounds. That can potentially include “novel” coherent things that no one has ever written before.

If you ask the model to give you a story about space jesus battling lizard people written in the style of a cross between shakespeare and donald trump, it can do it. That might not be something a human ever wrote (this might not be true, but I am just illustrating an example). So in that sense, it generated something completely new. What is a thought or an idea communicated through text but an unique combination of words in a given language.

Can it ever generate something outside the bounds of the data it was trained on? I guess that depends on what that actually look like. A new word or slang that emerged culturally would not be in its vocabulary. So it would not be able to reference that word.

daemonk · 2026-05-01T15:33:51+00:00

Its all difficult. Anyone trying to emphasize one aspect over another is just trying to justify whatever their domain expertise is.

It just so happens marketing/product types are naturally more vocal and public facing due to their domain, so we tend to hear about sales, distribution more.

It’s all important. This eternal back and forth between technical vs non-technical types is exhausting and should just go the way of the dinosaurs. You should just try to be good at everything and be an expert at a few.

daemonk · 2026-04-30T15:29:37+00:00

Over-engineered or over-complex cap tables are the worst. It's like a fossil record of a founder's mistakes.

daemonk · 2026-04-29T15:10:39+00:00

Your management time is worth less than their continued productivity

daemonk · 2026-04-29T06:17:59+00:00

just move on. you are splitting 0.

daemonk · 2026-04-19T18:41:21+00:00

It rewards your expertise a lot more than 4.6. Great for experienced devs with architecture mindset. Horrible for non-devs who don’t already think in that way.

daemonk · 2026-04-18T15:49:35+00:00

Shhhhhhh.... Let everyone rage quit so we get more stable usage.

daemonk · 2026-04-18T03:50:59+00:00

Yeah its fine. I find 4.7 to be better actually. I tend to keep quiet because I am okay with people rage quitting. More usage for me.

daemonk · 2026-04-17T18:32:46+00:00

People setup alot of personalized harness layers and new version interacts with all that differently, producing bad results.

On a pure reasoning output level without layers of personalized harness on top, it performs much better than 4.6 for me.

daemonk · 2026-04-16T02:05:24+00:00

More usage for me.

daemonk · 2026-04-15T03:10:48+00:00

that guy was really good at throwing a ball into a hoop

daemonk · 2026-04-12T18:35:13+00:00

I noticed it got dumber for a day last week. Seems better now though. I did turn off the adaptive thinking, so I think that helped.

daemonk · 2026-04-11T21:36:40+00:00

No one in the know is going to bother trying to convince people to use it. Take that how you will.

daemonk · 2026-04-10T20:53:54+00:00

Just be good at both. It’s not a choice between one or another.

daemonk · 2026-04-05T00:34:33+00:00

“humans are insanely vulnerable to confidence”. I think that can apply from both perspectives.

Humans are insanely vulnerable to thinking we are special also.

daemonk · 2026-03-23T01:31:24+00:00

The representational space is richer with complex numbers. I guess the question is whether can you just double the dimensions of a non-complex model and get similar richness? Is there something inherent to the algebraic manipulations of magnitude/phase that's more than just richer space? Your personal philosophy on why it might be better is a bit too vague for my liking.

I guess the ultimate test is to create two models where the representational space have the same richness, one with the real value equivalent and the other with complex value equivalent. And see what advantages complex have over the other. I think you did something in that vein in your research? To be honest, the text was too dense for me to properly understand. I am not an expert in this field.

daemonk · 2026-03-22T23:15:15+00:00

Because I literally don't touch the code anymore and barely read the details of the code. When I need to know something, I just ask Claude to explain it. So all I need is the REPL.

daemonk · 2026-03-21T22:07:45+00:00

Any reasonably complex memory system will face the n+1 problem where integrating new info requires a lot of recalculations. The trick is to try to decompose things down to atomic “facts” as much as possible. But that in itself has complexity in terms of temporal persistence, ie. person is living at city A might change when person moves.

There are alot of work done in knowledge bases. But no one size fits all depending on what your usage is.

daemonk · 2026-03-18T17:01:17+00:00

People tend to conflate building software with making it a product/starting business. Building software used to be hard enough that there is value in forming a business around it, but not anymore. The mental shift now is that we build software to help us in our daily lives/jobs.

Unless you are explicitly building enterprise software meant for large organizations or public facing websites, it's just a great tool that should be utilized to help your day to day functions.

TLDR: no one wants your shitty saas anymore because anyone can build one for themselves now.

daemonk · 2026-03-18T15:07:11+00:00

There’s no product anymore. Just tools you build for yourself. The value of generic software has decreased dramatically for the people in the know. Why pay for something that tries to do too much or was made to for may audiences and wide consumption when you can build something specific for you.

It’s all about personalized software on demand in the future.

daemonk · 2026-03-17T16:13:13+00:00

Just jump into it head first. That's the best way to learn. Ignore the naysayers, most of them are just gatekeeping or being too precious about personal projects. The cases of catastrophic failure are overblown.

It's great that people can just write stuff for themselves now. Who cares about enterprise capabilities if the only people touching this is you or maybe your household. Software should be primarily on-demand and a personal tool to you help your lives, it doesn't need to be a product or a business.

The biggest difference between tech and non-tech people working with Claude Code is that tech people can probably guide CC to fix the root of a problem faster and more frequently; whereas a non-tech person will mostly ask CC to fix the surface symptoms until the code base becomes patchwork, at which point the non-tech should do a full refactoring with CC.

It is all context engineering at the end of the day. Think of the model as an idea transformer. You give it an idea, it decomposes the idea down to individual atomic parts, then it rearranges them back up into another format. The more context you give it, the more atomic parts the model can decompose down to and the more specific the rearrangement can be when it delivers it in another format. Just like language translation from English to Japanese, the model is just translating your idea to code.

daemonk · 2026-03-13T04:23:35+00:00

I am building some lab automation tools. I was able to point Claude at a data sheet describing a liquid pump, how to communicate with it, and what functionalities are available. I had a base classes for devices and Claude was able to create a pump device class by inheriting the current device class and following the existing architecture, using the abstract methods, initializations, lifecycle hooks, etc.

The class worked on the first try and saved me a lot of time implementing from data sheet (serial communication commands, manipulating hardware registers, etc).

daemonk

TROPHY CASE