Claude code has great UX.

It is hands down the most user hostile UX I put up with. The fact that I put up with it speaks volumes about the value proposition that the underlying models bring to the table.

I’m in the process of dumping codex for more open harnesses that don’t add problematic new features every week. Because Anthropic insists that I have to use their harness with the subscription, eventually I’m either going to wrap `claude -p` to get away from the crappy TUI or else I’ll just unsubscribe and use other models. Their bad UX has alienated me as a paying customer.

Can you give me examples of things you don't like? Because I unironically admire how they improve UX. It's subtle, minimal, yet insanely useful.

Listed a few in my other comment

Try using the "rewind" feature to go back to a previous message.

Went too far? Oops, it's not accessible from the Claude Code UI anymore! You can get the agent to dredge up the info from the session logs, but you'd better hope they put the pieces together correctly.

Also, you can't rewind to a steering message. Want to make sure you can rewind to it? Wait for the agent to settle, or stop them, enter your message, and hope you don't throw them off their current train of thought.

To see a proper rewind UI, see how Pi does it: Every message is available, forked conversation history is preserved. It has its own issues, but is miles ahead of Claude Code in this regard.

I'm not who you're asking but for me I am right now going through the insanity of providing plugin/mcp/tool access across environments. This is in codex which as I mentioned is intentionally trying to provide mass-market ergonomics. But with that comes incomprehensible configuration that's also a moving target. chat/work/codex/remote/cloud are all different things. And each client exposes different abilities and hides others. And looks like only the web-ui is the most up to date because other targets need releases. As a developer I understand why it's in its current state, but that in no way excuses it as acceptable ux.

Like of course codex is the most powerful and "just" run `npx blah blah` but no, I'm not running randomly piped code on my personal computer and even if I didn't care about privacy it means I can only run this locally with my laptop on. "leave your laptop on and access from your phone" is not a good idea. It only adds to the surface area of confusion. Ux no good.

No, the tooling I make has better UX very quickly. It is built for their financial goals, not for the end user.

this 1000x. a lot of details in context compaction, editing, reverting ux, etc are all really centered on keeping the load and cost of subscription users as small as possible. its no always that nor is it necessarily correct, but its a huge driver of how those subscriptions and first party apps are designed

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but it's actually good. - pasting lots of content became [35 lines] and they added a tiny notification to show it as-is if you paste again - interactive questions layout - paste images - the recap - auto-updating session titles

And so many more. I tried codex and it was lacking in many UX aspects. Remember we got from a text-paragraph-only terminal to this at breakneck speed.

Half of what you're listing as features people should be impressed are stuff that causes as much frustration as it solves. The image pasting behavior is a super-annoying footgun, because sometimes I just want to tell the LLM the path to the image file without it trying to burn a ton of tokens on computer vision—and dragging and dropping a file into the terminal pastes the path in any normal context. The auto-updating session titles, recap, and notifications are token-burning distractions that are glitchy; I had to disable them when I found that having the agent launch an app would mean I'd get a random beep about a minute later when the agent had been waiting for further input in the background.

And they can't seem to go two whole months without scrolling breaking in some new way.

I’m not deeply pro-codex, but it does have all those features. Who knows since when.

It did not as of a week or so back.

https://x.com/dvsj_in/status/2098620473550700771

Claude Code is better than Codex UX. But as per the sibling response it's more a developer tool made by developers for developers. It does have a lot of niceties. Codex/openai on the other hand is more clearly trying to reach mass-market and it's a UX shit show because of it. Consumer UX is its own thing. So the original point is that raw ability of the tool doesn't magically solve ergonomics.

Won't disagree with you because I haven't used codex/OAI a lot - but Claude's non CLI UX is great too.

Eg - I asked for a recipe and it says leave x for y time - there's actually deeplinks that link to your clock timer with the time preset! And to change quantities, there's input boxes in the response that update all quantities accordingly.

Many such cases of use-case specific UX

agreed. the thing i reach for most is its ability to coordinate my agent graph, e.g. seeing what sub-agents are doing, messaging agents, adding new capacity. claude code really is a delight to use here

alright, where do I rsvp?

Thank you for your comment! It was useful. Found this that helped me look through the signs

https://www.reddit.com/r/SDAM/comments/nkolwi/my_attempt_at_...

Now half of HN will self-report SDAM. /s

Or at least they will intend to but never get round to it.

It's insane, right? Reverse engineering is so much fun, I find myself doing it on random apps so often now

it's especially fun when you do it yourself, I advise toying around with https://crackmes.one. with time and practice, everything becomes open-source because you can read assembly XD

Not legally, which is the issue. I can "open source" Windows 11 and rip out some of the shittiness, but Microsoft is gonna take issue. If it were MIT licensed that would be a different story, but there isn't enough money for lawyers in the world where it's not.

Reverse engineering is legal in the US. You just can't disseminate the results if it runs afoul of copyright law or patents.

who said that you still technically cannot disseminate the results? bulletproof hosting and private communications still exist. if law is being used to harm the consumer, the consumer in question has full moral right to speak out against it, and taking ownership of your hardware (like OP tells they did) is one of the best ways

I know enough people for whom this risk is the entire appeal

So what? Just be mindful of what you post on the clearnet. What you're doing is like worrying about the illegality of making sparkler bombs in your backyard IMO.

0x Alpha is unlimited free tokens this weekend so I had it take apart the original 8088 PC Elite and reverse it back to original MASM assembler and come up with plausible names for all the functions and data structures and check that it compiles back to byte-perfect original.

Wild!

We're entering an age where doing binary modification on live binaries is not a huge deal. Everything is now open "source"?

What is it called when there's a process that's available to individuals but is long and onerous and cannot be shared among them? Saying the binaries are open source now means that the work of reverse engineering will be repeated exactly in proportion to the number of times it's modified. I would argue on a large scale this is still effectively closed source.

Binary patches aren’t illegal right? How would they be?

I'm not a lawyer. But I think if your "binary patch" is a series of instructions to write specific code to specific locations in a binary file, and the patch itself doesn't include any of the code present in the original binary, making/distributing a binary patch can't possibly be copyright infringement.

It's normal in the videogame ROM hacking community to distribute this kind of binary patches (known as IPS patches) so as to avoid legal trouble, since the binary patch is useless if the user doesn't have access to the original videogame ROM. Distributing the ROM or even its patched version would be illegal, but a patch of the kind I mentioned is fine.

That’s my understanding too, and it’s essentially how modded Minecraft servers work

CFAA and friends (in the US, at least) means that even things you might not otherwise expect are illegal get turned into super illegal.

Binary patches are probably fine to make, but to distribute them for other people's binaries is probably not.

More like mildly illegal. Seems on par with torrents to me.

I would move the quotes to "open" since the issue of licensing is still left. Although LLM providers have shown that they don't care about copyright so it should go both ways.

Quotes for all of it, it's a closed binary that is transparently user modifiable these days I guess, so "open" "source".

agreed with "the final step". I worry adding commands like these might affect quality of responses at each step, which then stack up to result in an overall worse outcome.

This whole thread is what the original post arrives at too, including ASD-STE100.

Probably because they skew towards higher information density

"LemonLime bills itself as a no-code AI startup, not to be confused with the hundreds of startups building something similar."

Ouch

20 games, of 104? Not to mention games were played in indoor air conditioned stadiums.

MLS already has a system where a game has a break only when it reaches 28deg C for a period of x minutes

Not to mention that they played games in the afternoon which isn't the best time for heat, and for a pure water break, 90 seconds is probably enough.

Anthropic was asked to pay book authors because it trained on pirated downloaded books.

What about books and art where the author/artist does not authorise AI to train on it? They do happily train on it, ignoring their "ToS".

This is just double standards, a slap on the wrist to not worsen the situation with authors imo.

You could also say the Chinese companies are doing the same - they _do_ pay for their Anthropic subscriptions after all.

>Anthropic was asked to pay book authors because it trained on pirated downloaded books.

No, it was asked to pay book authors because it pirated copies of books and stored them on their hard drives. The ruling had nothing to do with training.

Thanks - I didn't verify this personally, but still stand corrected.

If training wasn't considered outside the law, this goes on to make the point about double standards for US vs Chinese model training methods.

Pirating millions of dollars worth of books would land people in jail. Government went after Aaron Scwartz for "pirating" scientific journals.

Aaron Schwartz was re-publishing the journals, which is the core concern or copyright and indeed where the word "copyright" comes from. Anthropic could get in a lot more trouble if their models are caught reproducing copyrighted work from their training set wholesale.

I think the Aaron Schwartz case is incredibly vexing because he was obviously acting out of a sense of altruism without personal self-interest. I don't think he deserved the book getting thrown at him like that. But the whole copyright system, which people seem to think is simultaneously good and bad, kinda rests on not allowing those kinds of violations

I've linked this several times, but LLMs are capable of reproducing entire books. Researchers were able to extract books nearly verbatim: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671

I didn't think about this parallel, but that's just so sad.