@kelvinbuildss You can start small with simple and basic NC programs and you don't even have to run it with executing tools rather make the NC program run a simulation. Step by step
@BennyisHere_215@synthwavedd Exactly, with Grok 4.6 and GPT 6 aka Aastra, Straight to 4. But od you listen https://t.co/GywPAXzsXH first hand reporting it's obvious why they fail
@Habichtsberg Without a true domain expert who is on the AI offensive and ready to "unzip" decades of tribal knowledge into an AI model, you won't make it.
Throw in a pinch of industry-specific business rules, and that's the real formula.
Hm...
Once @thsottiaux limit resets end for good—and it's clear this was a flawed growth strategy—human nature will reveal itself.
Give people free resets more than once or twice, and gratitude turns into entitlement. The second the free limits stop, the backlash begins because they were taken for granted.
This ride has to end at some point. I just hope empirical reality doesn't hit too hard when it does.
I've struck a nerve. 1.2k people have commented after 11 hours, and I'd say 95-99% agree that Opus is really bad.
Anthropic is on its way to becoming the Yahoo of the AI era. So sad.
I've struck a nerve. 1.2k people have commented after 11 hours, and I'd say 95-99% agree that Opus is really bad.
Anthropic is on its way to becoming the Yahoo of the AI era. So sad.
@kimmonismus At the moment it's impossible to work in Claude Code. Opus 5 needs psychiatric help and Fable 5 is switching to Opus every 5 seconds. @ClaudeDevs it's really bad!
There are essentially two groups of people when it comes to AI.
The first have adopted a proactive stance. They are untroubled by the fact that AI is smarter than them, or that it might take over some—or even all—of their daily tasks.
The second group is fiercely defensive. They take offense whenever AI completes a task faster, more accurately, or more elegantly than they could. They fear—or simply refuse to accept—that AI might replace them.
For the first group, things will evolve and change at a vastly faster pace.
For the second, the consequences will hit much harder and much sooner.
However, I believe the real issue—one that actually precedes any discussion about AI—is the broader failure of digitalization within the context of Industry 4.0 and 5.0.
@thsottiaux Completely removing the 5-hour limit would fundamentally transform the user experience. It is a major factor that could strongly steer existing users—when faced with a choice between OpenAI and Anthropic—toward OpenAI. The next big move, at least in the short to medium term, would be to introduce 40x or 60x subscription tiers. Such plans, combined with the absence of the 5-hour limit, would not only retain many current OpenAI users but also attract a significant number of users from Anthropic to ChatGPT or Codex. I believe there is even room to price these 40x or 60x subscriptions up to 25% higher than current plans while still making them a huge success.
I believe the moves described above would be more appreciated than the wild resets, which are absolutely welcome and celebrated. However, one must sometimes also consider the factors of human health, sleep and exhaustion—and resets like those of recent days certainly do not go in favor of any of the aforementioned.
@zdogmode Not so fast guys, you still need one human persona per project/company/idea/build that is willing to unzip his full knowledge/harness/soft skill and empirical formula to one or to AI model.