← Back to context

Comment by CuriouslyC

21 hours ago

I throw Anthropic under the bus a lot for their lack of engineering acumen. If they don't have a core competency like engineering fully covered, I'd say there's a near 0% chance they have something like security covered.

16 comments

CuriouslyC

Reply
fredoliveira  21 hours ago

What makes you think they lack engineering acumen?

  • CuriouslyC  21 hours ago

    The hot mess that is Claude Code (if you multi-orchestrate with it, it'll start to grind even very powerful systems to a halt, 15+ seconds of unresponsiveness, all because CC constantly serializes/deserializes a JSON data file that grows quite large every time you do stuff), their horrible service uptime compared to all their competitors, their month long performance degradation their users had to scream at them to get them to investigate, the fact that they had to outsource their web client and it's still bad, etc.

    • saagarjha  12 hours ago

      You think Anthropic’s engineering talent for infosec is possible to determine because…you’ve used Claude Code? Am I understanding this right?

    • weird-eye-issue  17 hours ago

      > The hot mess that is Claude Code

      And yet it's one of the fastest growing products of all time and is currently the state of the art for AI coding assistants. Yeah it's not perfect but nothing is

      3 replies →

    • fifhtbtbf  16 hours ago

      I have the opposite perception: they’re the only company in the space that seems to have a clue what responsible software engineering is.

      Gemini Code and Cursor both did such a poor job sandboxing their agents that the exploits sound like punchlines, while Microsoft doesn’t even try with Copilot Agentic.

      Countless Cursor bugs have been fixed with obviously vibe-coded fake solutions (you can see if you poke into code embedded in their binaries) which don’t address the problems on a fundamental level at all and suggest no human thinking was involved.

      Claude has had some vulnerabilities, but many fewer, and they’re the only company that even seemed to treat security like a serious concern, and are now publishing useful related open source projects. (Not that your specific complaint isn’t valid, that’s been a pain point for me to, but in terms of the overall picture that’s small potatoes.)

      I’m personally pretty meh on their models, but it’s wild to me to hear these claims about their software when all of the alternatives have been so unsafe that I’d ban them from any systems I was in charge of.

      3 replies →