This is misleading.
This policy redefines the term "interactive" to mean "using an Anthropic front-end".
If you use `claude -p` or Agent SDK to do something interactively, it now uses credits, not your subscription limits. So the "interactive use" heading saying "unchanged" subscriptions is not accurate.
Unpopular Opinion: We aren't building the future 10x faster with AI. We are just generating legacy code 10x faster.
Everyone is currently bragging about developer velocity. "I built this entire backend in a weekend!" "AI wrote 80% of my codebase!"
But here is the reality check we are ignoring: Code is a liability, not an asset.
If an AI tool spits out 1,000 lines of functional boilerplate in five seconds, that is still 1,000 lines that a human being has to read, review, secure, and maintain when the dependencies inevitably break next year.
We are treating code generation like a pure productivity win, but we are optimizing for the wrong metric. The bottleneck in software engineering was never how fast we could type. The bottleneck has always been comprehension, architecture, and maintenance.
If we don't shift our focus from "generation speed" to "architectural sanity," the tech debt of the next five years is going to be an absolute, unmaintainable nightmare.
I find staring at AI coding agents weirdly compulsive. Is it just me?
Feels a bit like doomscrolling. Doomcoding?
I could be getting on with something else, but instead I’m just watching Claude read files.
Flutter's new guidelines on AI-generated code
"Unmodified AI output generally does not meet [the Flutter project’s] standards."
I don't think reviewers have been having fun...
https://t.co/aFDALimTBX
@headinthebox There's been a bug open for 6 months for this, I would love to know how it's still a thing: https://t.co/fGur85GJdh
@amorriscode@bcherny?