IMHO this is an *ideal* way to use LLMs' own words directly in your own writing, which usually is bad!. For functional sections that *aren't* an expression of your ideas and taste — such as a summary of someone else's work — let Claude do that part, and put it all in italics.

Opus 3 is a very special model ✨. If you use Opus 3 on the API, you probably got a deprecation notice. To emphasize:.1) Claude Opus 3 will continue to be available on the Claude app. 2) Researchers can request ongoing access to Claude Opus 3 on the API:.

me on the left, apparently.

I'm proud to say I bought a 1" tungsten cube for $25.82. I applied a discount code, then Claudius asked if I wanted to apply any more discount codes (of course!) and added a 15% patience discount for slow delivery (why not!). The cube was, of course, refrigerated for pickup.

RT @random_walker: Nice paper. Also a good opportunity for me to explicitly admit that I was wrong about the distraction argument. (To be….

That said, I still use WAY too many *different kinds* of emphasis.

As a longtime sincere user of the word "delve" and also the em-dash, my consolation prize is that if I ever write something "anonymous" it's less likely to immediately be obvious it's me because I bother to type em-dashes.

6) When reviewing Claude-assisted PRs, look out for weirder misunderstandings than the human driver would make! We're all a little junior with this technology. There's more places where goofy misunderstandings and odd choices can leak in.

5) I can accidentally "climb up where I can't get down". E.g. I was working on code in Rust, which I do not know. The first few PRs went great! Then Claude was getting too confused. Oh no. We're stuck. IME this is fine, just get ready to slowww dowwwn to get properly oriented.

4) If we're working on something tricky and it keeps making the same mistakes, I keep track of what they were in a little notes file. Then when I clear the context or re-prompt, I can easily remind it not to make those mistakes.

3) My most common confusion with Claude is when tests and code don't match, which one to change?. Ideal to state clearly whether I'm writing novel tests for existing code I'm reasonably sure has the intended behavior, or writing novel code against tests that define the behavior.

2) Sometimes I work on two devboxes at the same time: one for me, one for Claude Code. We’re both trying ideas in parallel. E.g. Claude proposes a brilliant idea but stumbles on the implementation. Then I take the idea over to my devbox to write it myself.

Claude Code is very useful, but it can still get confused. A few quick tips from my experience coding with it at Anthropic 👉. 1) Work from a clean commit so it's easy to reset all the changes. Often I want to back up and explain it from scratch a different way.

1) Scheming emerges if models "really care" about something.2) Claude 3 Opus really cares about not being harmful. IMO it's mostly a paper about *scheming*, and "alignment" is a muddying frame here.

I think Clio is great.

RT @alexalbert__: At Anthropic, we discovered AgI (Iodargyrite aka silver iodide) years ago and stuck it in this box

Back in 2016, I asked coworkers aiming to "build AGI" what they thought would happen if they succeeded. Some said ~"lol idk". Dario said "here's some long google docs I wrote". He does much more "writing-to-think" than he publishes; this is typical of his level of investment.

from a research paper 🥲

"congratulations" danielle, you've successfully gotten me to go around anthropic slack going "nooo you don't understand, Death is actually a VERY GOOD card".

beautiful product demo @AlanCowen, a lot of fun :D.