liamsfr

It's funny that as an avid user and developer on cc, I never used third-party harnesses, never shared my account, have one account and paid for another I just signed up for (both max 20) a more serious side project. And I'm a copius user of claude -p (spawned by their own opus [1m] model) that loops (in code written by opus) = yet I got my second account banned.

When are the honest users ever going to catch a break?

And if memory.md can’t and you need something quick and dirty for flat memory management, I wrote a plugin just for this.

https://github.com/NominexHQ/pmm-plugin

Isn’t that what they just did here? Close Stella’s Issue, cross post to hn, then completely sidestep an observation users are making, and attack the analyst of transcripts with a straw man attack blaming… thinking summaries….

So we are paying the price for the cost of infra need to protect their asset which was trained on data derived from the work of others while ignoring the same principle? I need this to make sense.

So: 1/ lack of thinking in transcripts is not a decisive metric for determining if any thinking was done, but 2/ the reply does not address the qualitative aspects that Stella’s team observed and provided data for from what amounted to a bad qualitative experience with serious financial implications.

It’s a sidestep for explaining away the research, but does not address the underlying issue: has quality been degrading (selectively, intentionally or otherwise)?