What public figures publish and believe, in their own words.
About this feed
Highlights: posts that did unusually well for the person who wrote them, everything
they published at length, each release and new project, and every belief — at most
two a day from anyone. Day by day, newest
day first; within a day, the people with the most beliefs on this site come first. Nothing
else orders it. Show everything instead.
The quoted blocks are what people actually said; a beneath one is
the belief those words support, in korrents' wording. Nobody here wrote their own page.
Top people are the people in this feed with the most beliefs on this site, then the
most here. Choose an area and the row leads with the people whose beliefs are about it;
tap a face for their feed.
With Claude, I've built a host of software like this. Mostly small tools for myself — programs that instantly append copy buffers to text files (I keep a running file of nice things people write to me called notapieceofshit.txt) or quickly perform live currency conversions.
At Anthropic, we don't build for the model of today, we build for the model of six months from now. And that's still my advice to founders that are building on LLMs.
It is, it is powerful, but in many ways it's not much different than if I run cloud code with dangerously skipped permissions or codecs in YOLO mode, and every, every attending engineer that I know does that, because that's the only way how you can, you can get stuff to work.
My daily drivers now include Amp, Cursor, and Claude Code. I still enjoy notebooks, but only for data analysis, machine learning, or other exploratory workflows where the iterative, visual nature of notebooks shines.
My daily drivers now include Amp, Cursor, and Claude Code. I still enjoy notebooks, but only for data analysis, machine learning, or other exploratory workflows where the iterative, visual nature of notebooks shines.
Even more recently, we’ve begun to use mechanistic interpretability techniques to improve our safeguards and to conduct “audits” of new models before we release them, looking for evidence of deception, scheming, power-seeking, or a propensity to behave differently when being evaluated.
you write murder is good on a piece of paper and you put it in a photocopier and you press go and you say my god the machine says murder's good. Well, no, you told the machine to say that. And that's what these anthropic studies are. They're basically you tell the machine to say a thing and then it says it like well you haven't proved anything.
Like it seems to me right now you could do like a double blind test of the same prompt given to Grock Claude Gemini um Mistral Deep Seek. Do a double blind test. I bet most people wouldn't be able to tell which is which.
Even removed my last MCP, since Claude sometimes would go off spinning up Playwright unasked when it could simply read the code - which is faster and pollutes the context less.
I exclusively use the cheaper Sonnet model. It’s perfectly adequate for my needs, and in fact, I prefer its outputs over the more expensive Opus model.
As a Python and JavaScript programmer my favorite models right now are Claude 3.7 Sonnet with thinking turned on, OpenAI’s o3-mini-high and GPT-4o with Code Interpreter (for Python).
We know that a lot of the American companies are very invested in safety, and that is the central culture of a place like Anthropic. And I think Anthropic sounds like a wonderful place to work, but if safety is your number one goal, it takes way longer to get artifacts out.
First and foremost, I use this to talk to local models hosted by Ollama, but secondarily I also use it to interface with other remote services like OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepSeek.
and really only has one model you care about - Claude 3.5 Sonnet. But Sonnet is very, very good. It often seems to be clever and insightful in ways that the other models are not.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.