HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | fromlogin

I feel like I am taking crazy pills when reading the other responses, but come on, this seems like normal human psychology when being exposed to a new thing over and over. It feels new, it solves everything, but then over time you get bored with it. Attempting to proxy it with "account freshness" just masks the problem. It's the reason why people tried to quantify it with stuff like https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf because the pattern you are referring to is a known bias.

They claim they've used the same cli version, but don't publish their methodology (maybe I've missed it), eg how do I know they didn't accidentally turn on claude code auto update after all? At least https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf seems unchanged so far and is much more thorough...

I dunno there are some other nerf trackers that aren't showing a regression: https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf

Anyone with evals picking up a real signal? I've learned not to trust "vibes".

The only one I'm familiar with testing Opus 5.5 specifically over time is https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf and it's not showing anything.



https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf Livenerf results for comparison

You’re thinking of: https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf

I’ll ask the same question as when it came out: if you don’t trust the provider how are you trust them not to look for and cheat on repeat benchmarks like this.



there are some efforts to track it: https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: