Fable 5.5 probably definitely tomorrow. Rumors: - Better at reasoning and intuition - Infers intent rather than taking instructions literally - More ambitious. Ask it to fix a bug and it fixes the deeper root cause - Does creative, “out-of-the-box” thinking - Can invent algos to predict stocks - Bestows complete and eternal enlightenment on first response AND I’d bet it has major efficiency gains like Opus 5.5. Icing on the cake would be usage for all subs. Prepare yourself in mind, body and spirit.

We keep improving performance across Claude, and you may have noticed it starts responding sooner! Claude Code now gzips the conversation it sends on every turn, so it reaches the model faster. Cloud sessions also start up as soon as you start typing.

Using Claude Code in the terminal is mostly an ego thing. The desktop app looks better and does the job. Prove me wrong. What does the CLI do that the app can’t?

To create my claude.md, I had it read: - my favorite programming books + blogs - the best oss projects - the code of the engineers I respect the most Claude (when given proper instructions, constraints, and context) now writes better code than me, almost always.

Why are you still using pull requests? Is it for code review? If so, do you really think your or your colleagues catch bugs and mistakes that an Opus 5.5 or Fable or Astra won't find? You can literally spawn all three of them and have them check four times each. (Also, don't tell me you don't have a "stamp plz" Slack channel or group chat somewhere.) Is it for knowledge sharing? Surely there's better ways for that now than the PR, no? We have models that can generate explainer videos, presentations, podcasts, games, quizzes, walkthroughs, ... for any piece of code it can reach. Is CI the reason? Well ackshually, CI means continuous integration and its original meaning is the *opposite* of having long-lived branches and PRs. But, leaving that aside, your agents are hopefully already running the tests before they push something, and hopefully they can run as long as they want and don't block you so they can run the whole test suite and generate "irrefutable proof" and end-to-end demo videos and so on... And so they run the tests and confirm and then you push to a branch and everything runs again and then you merge and then it runs again? That doesn't make sense, does it? Maybe you work in open source and you accept contributions, in which case I can't speak to the value of pull requests. It's been 2 years since my last OSS contribution. But from what I heard, the time of the PR is coming to an end in OSS too? I honestly don't get why people still stick to PRs. With agents you can now move 10x faster, you can finally do real continuous integration, and get more confidence in the changes the agent made. Don't slow yourself down by having all the changes pile up in a PR.

Roadster event livestream xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1yKAPwNgg…

Anthropic actually loses far less than I imagined off the $200 subscription. It’s likely that the subsidized plans are actually very sustainable and may never go away. It's widely said that inference is quite profitable. This turns out to be true, and can be computed from first principles by estimating out cost of GPUs, electricity, datacenters, etc. On paper it might cost something like $0.10–0.30 per million input tokens and $0.50–2.50 per million output to serve Opus 5.5, and they sell it for $4 and $20. The problem with coming to the defense of AI economics by saying inference is profitable is that it makes no sense to decouple inference from training. Afaict, no company has yet recouped training costs for a model from profits generated from serving that model. A model today is served for a month or two, maybe less, before the next one replaces it. If only the AI companies could serve these models for a little longer before having to race to train the next one. They would get filthy rich off inference. If only they could all agree to slow down…