Hacker News

points by jrmg 3 days ago | 0 comments

I used to think this way too, and I believe myself to have high standards about this kind of thing.

But with the very latest models (like, Opus 5.5 class and up), I am now of the opinion that the output, in non-creative situations like code review and most software development, is fine. Great, even. Better than the reviews a lot of humans generate.

Honestly, if you’re at all open minded about this, get a $20 Claude Pro subscription for a month (they are easy to cancel) and ask Claude Code with Opus 5.5 to review your codebase or a PR or two. I was very (pleasantly? unpleasantly?) surprised.

I have complex emotions about this (‘sad’ on balance I think - although it’s definitely not all simply in that direction), but I can’t deny it to myself.

I still bristle at reading articles and even documentation that’s not just ‘reference’ documentation written by it - and even that can get a bit weird and circuitous. But for review and coding? It’s great.

[–] hypfer 2 days ago

You've completely missed the point to a degree where you're not even replying to my comment and I am not going to waste time on explaining it. Maybe Opus 5.5 is clever enough to explain the confusion here. I believe it is.

[–] jrmg 2 days ago

You said that the basis for your opinion was “oh damn, I would not want to be at the receiving end of this”. I used to have that reaction all the time too. But I no longer, on the whole, do.

I thought this was the crux of your argument. What did I miss?

[–] hypfer 2 days ago

Just ask claude dude. It might genuinely be better at understanding human communication.