17 ms·

Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue

• andai 8d ago
  I was expecting it to spend 30 minutes running headless chrome instances, taking screenshots and analyzing them in python to verify the blueness of the result.
• syntaxing 8d ago
  > 23 agents total. This hit a bit too close to home. Sol has the same issue, spawns a lot of agents for no good reasons (besides burning tokens).
  • chrisgarand 8d ago
    I heard this was a thing when listening to a Theo podcast, he mentioned to add a "Only use subagents if the user explicitly requests them" line in your agents.md file. I don't know if it works, but I've always had a consistent level of token burn on my plans (I've only heavily used Sol after adding it).
• stevenhubertron 8d ago
  You can hate AI all you want, but this is because of a bad design system, not because of a bad LLM.
• josh_p 8d ago
  a funny codex anecdote: I had 5.6-Luna coordinate a code review in which it spawns 2 agents looking for different things. My prompt was "review the currently checked out branch. diff target is `next`. The jira ticket is XX-XXXXX..." My `next` branch was a few commits behind `origin/next` but it still did its review against the stale local version instead of clarifying or inferring that I meant `origin/next`. The findings were very confusing until I realized what I did. I'm noticing the need to be really specific with any instructions lately, which I don't think is a bad thing. I expect co-workers (or anyone really) to tell me what they need in specific terms so I can get it right. I can do the same for the machine, I guess.
• teekert 8d ago
  [dead]
• heaney-555 8d ago
  I haven't experienced anything like this with Codex. Why do people stick with Claude Code if it doesn't do what you ask it to?
  • deleted 8d ago
    [deleted]
  • jwrallie 7d ago
    It’s a feature not a bug kind of scenario. People will also praise when it reads the code and do something out of “common sense” that happens to align with what you want. I enjoy working one level lower where I describe the files I want changed and how it should be solved, I either have bad results or stop understanding the structure of the programs otherwise. I also would never go more than two prompts in without reverting and starting differently nowadays.
• johnhamlin 8d ago
  This is so accurate it hurts. I’ll be scouring the comments for guys who claim they can’t relate posting links to their magic CLAUDE.mds
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• digitaltrees 8d ago
  I am self delusional enough to think I could have gotten a blue button if I could have typed the prompt. But scared enough to realize I’ve lived this and spent months refactoring these exact problems. Hold on let me go commit code without reviewing.
• GoToRO 8d ago
  This is not a game. Choosing from wrong answers only is not a game.
• nonethewiser 8d ago
  I dont find this to be indicative of Claude (opus?) at all. My experience doesnt lead me to think it would change a cancel button to blue if I ask it to change an "Add to Cart" button to blue. I assume this is just a contrived example?
  • paimapi 8d ago
    I think it's best read as a humorous piece of creative fiction and you can employ your suspension of disbelief for this ride
    • nonethewiser 8d ago
      >I think it's best read as a humorous piece of creative fiction and you can employ your suspension of disbelief for this ride But what is the point of the fiction, if not that its relatable? Is it supposed to mirror some fictional reality that the author is relieved we dont live in? Or is it supposed to parody real life? I think its supposed to parody reality, but I don’t see the resemblance.
      • paimapi 7d ago
        why believe dragons are real? or wizards with magic? or cyberpunk dystopian futures?
      • doc_ick 7d ago
        From my history with llms, this exaggerated example does hit home a bit too close for comfort.
  • data-ottawa 8d ago
    It’s a contrived example, but also not very far from the mark. The spinner with random claudisms is what makes the game, mixed with Claude helpfully deciding to pick up some tasks along the way. I feel like most of my conversations with Claude lately are a battle of “I am a technical user, share technical details, but not random superfluous gibberish”
• nunez 8d ago
  Wow this is EXACTLY my experience building a CLI with Claude, but I think with Opus 4.6. I gave it a README specifying the requirements for everything I wanted to build. My interaction with Claude was more or less like this.
• marktl 8d ago
  Rotflol!
• ricardobeat 8d ago
  [flagged]
• bethekidyouwant 8d ago
  Even funnier is all the ways people are malding about this in the thread.
• anthomtb 8d ago
  I’m don’t do much change-clicky-button software development. But when I do, I point models to specific lines of code. And have never had a result this bad. Maybe this is geared towards pure vibe coders for whom a file and line number is too technical.
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• atleastoptimal 8d ago
  These things are cute but they basically become outdated in a few months as the models get better.
• satirev 8d ago
  This is elite satire
• sergiotapia 8d ago
  I only lasted two turns before I had to close the tab. I can't stand anthropic models.
• charcircuit 8d ago
  I bet if you used the real Opus 5 it could one shot this.
• butterNaN 8d ago
  I wanted to see what the various phrases in the "slot machine" are. Surprised it doesn't have "LOAD BEARING" in there somewhere: Caveats: • ONE HONEST CAVEAT • ONE THING WORTH STATING PRECISELY • ONE THING WORTH FLAGGING • WORTH NAMING • WORTH STATING PLAINLY • I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THIS IMPLICIT • I'D BE DOING YOU A DISSERVICE • I DON'T WANT TO BURY THIS • BETTER NOW THAN LATER • ONE HONEST TRADEOFF • I DON'T WANT TO PAPER OVER THIS • ONE SMALL HOUSEKEEPING ITEM • THE HONEST PART IS SIMPLER Pushbacks: • FAIR PUSHBACK • FAIR HIT • THAT'S ON ME • YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT • YOU'RE RIGHT • YOUR INSTINCT IS RIGHT • FAIR, AND MORE SPECIFIC THAN IT SOUNDS • RIGHT, FOR A REASON WORTH NAMING • I'M NOT GOING TO DEFEND THAT • YOU'RE RIGHT TO PUSH BACK Reframes: • LET ME BE PRECISE • THE SHARPER DISTINCTION • THE PART THAT MATTERS • THE USEFUL PART IS NARROWER • LESS X THAN Y • VISIBLE ISSUE / UNDERLYING ISSUE • THOSE ARE DIFFERENT CLAIMS
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• commandlinefan 8d ago
  Is this a problem with Claude updating code that a human wrote, though? Would Claude do better on code that it started on its own? Humans have a bad tendency to write unmaintainable code (usually at the behest of managers breathing down their necks to HURRY UP even when it doesn't matter). If the code had been designed with good coding practices from the beginning, I wonder if Claude would have struggled so much with it.
  • herrherrmann 8d ago
    That implies that Claude writes better code by default, which isn’t necessarily true. Especially as projects get bigger, you can easily end up with unmaintainable LLM-written code if you don’t actively intervene and know a cleaner way.
• annoyingnoob 8d ago
  I think I have PTSD after that.
• nelaggy 8d ago
  delightful user experience 10/10
• stillpointlab 8d ago
  I get the joke, but none of the offered prompts are close to how I speak with coding agents. I felt like I was being forced to feed garbage into the machine and then I'm supposed to act surprised when garbage came out.
• wh0ami 8d ago
  what a interesting news!
• stefanhall05 8d ago
  hahah awesome I love it
• almosthere 8d ago
  [dead]
• jebarker 8d ago
  That triggered a physical response of tightening in my stomach and heavier breathing due to frustration.
• moritzwarhier 8d ago
  I love this. Is there a real generalized and capable, but frustratingly "evil" coding model? It could fix so many more buttons in no time, and ideally open follow-up issues about the open questions.
• classified 8d ago
  This is very instructive. Now I finally understand why so many developers claim they are much more productive with AI coding. Merely writing code without adversarial fights is just not load-bearing enough. How could we ever live without this before?
• wvbdmp 8d ago
  What shared style? Each button has its own extremely verbose style attribute specifying, among many other things, custom transition curves.
• aand16 8d ago
  This is spiking my cortisol
• smb06 8d ago
  This is genius. Did you use Claude to build this?
• danwitt 7d ago
  Personally I want to see the obnoxious comments it’s leaving to poison future sessions.
• mindcrash 7d ago
  I just had a really interesting yet (funny) conversation with ChatGPT (5). We came up with this idea to make a custom "light box" for two Govee COB light strips which would enable both wall washing (leds shining towards the wall, to the top) and lighting up the wall panels and the desk below the box (leds shining to the bottom) using two led profiles tucked away in this construction. Text wise it seemed it more or less understood exactly what I wanted... ... but then I asked to draw a simple ASCII layout so my DIY savvy but not really that strong in English dad could understand better what the plan was. But every single time it got the orientation of the led profiles wrong. I told it the orientation was wrong. It understood that the orientation was wrong (it kept saying sorry even) but even when warned multiple times the orientation was still wrong. I really wonder if Astra will be smarter than this, and if not AGI still has a veeeeery long way to go...
• bartread 7d ago
  This is an amazing piece of satire but it's really not so far from reality. I've lost count of the number of times I've submitted a prompt to Claude, had it interview me about areas of uncertainty, iterated on the plan a handful of times and then had it one shot the generation of 1000 - 3000 lines of code and tests that work pretty much perfectly first time but then had it chew through six figures of tokens and achieve absolutely nothing useful at all on the seemingly simplest of tasks. This site is clearly based on bitter and hard won experience with the real product.
• dbg31415 7d ago
  Too soon.
• emilfihlman 7d ago
  Is this what it feels like using Claude? Holy shit this was the most infuriating thing I've experienced in a while lmao, I felt so relieved when the button was turned to blue, but then so visceral "no no no no no" panic when it turned to the gradient. Amazing E: this is a horror simulator, my breathing is becoming shallow and fast, I love it.
• fortran77 7d ago
  I have found that "trivial" UI stuff is the hardest for AI to get right.
• hk1337 7d ago
  It's like the scene from Liar Liar, him trying to say the blue pen was red.
• basilgohar 7d ago
  This...this is giving me PTSD...
• BobbyTables2 7d ago
  This is worse than asking an intern to fix a shipping product…
• swordsith 7d ago
  First thought looking at the first options was I would absolutely never prompt this way. The LLM may as well be a misaligned genie in a bottle, it has to be treated as such.
• mrheosuper 7d ago
  I lose it after removing the ToS and the button becomes gray lol.
• DimmieMan 7d ago
  This is fun and hits too close to home, I can appreciate that Claude won't ever screw up this badly for something this simple but it's a simplification that captures the essence of the rage loop perfectly. It's making me realise something new about why I find Claude so exhausting. Of course you're getting terrible results with these prompts but I found myself getting just as enraged contemplating what my reply would be. Estimating every single way this little asshole will hyper-focus on a pointless bit of semantics, ignore explicit directions, go do something unrelated and spin its wheels until you’re out of credits or wasted a ton of time. The defensive writing is honestly just as exhausting as reading Claude’s output. Every session is a game of Russian roulette with a chance you'll end up in one of these loops. At that stage all the joy you had of having it pump along with your intentionally crafted prompts and agent configuration is undone in an afternoon.
• mrheosuper 7d ago
  People keep saying those prompts are unrealistic, and no one would prompt like that. But those prompts are exactly what my managers/product people would use when they decide to do it themself after firing the entire dev department.
• nirmeet011011 7d ago
  [flagged]
• ovasoncn 7d ago
  If you're a programmer, the blue-button test is incredibly annoying. But then you remember this same model is deployed in Claude Gov. If a government employee says, “Close one exit of the New York subway,” and Claude responds with the same annoying “before I do that, here are the downstream consequences you may not have considered,” you suddenly understand why this behavior exists.
• deleted 7d ago
  [deleted]
• SamInTheShell 7d ago
  If this is anyone’s experience with Claude for a button today, I feel like Jobs would say you’re holding it wrong.
• weihz5138 7d ago
  [dead]
• weihz5138 7d ago
  [dead]
• jrobertgardzins 7d ago
  Wall of text to just change the button color! Can't believe it. Gives a good feeling of vibe coding .
• deaux 7d ago
  The annoying there here isn't Claude, it's the "human". "It's not X but Y"-satire not intended. It was annoying to be forced to send such dumb replies. Half the site isn't blue, why would I say that? What would "half the site" even mean? Claude helpfully tells us we're dealing with a monstrosity of a codebase out of hell: "Seven components consume the token directly; another eleven reach it through aliases; three use it only in hover/focus state; and two appear to be accidental cross-role consumers" is such an insane codebase that the initial request was basically impossible to carry out. Claude made that perfectly clear, yet the next prompt choice just ignores that fact. "Revert everything except Add to Cart. That is the whole task." this is impossible. It just explained why. You just chose to ignore that.
• vrighter 7d ago
  This made me laugh out loud. And got my office coworkers to give me a strange look. Thank you
• moezd 7d ago
  1) If your LLM is behaving like this, you are imprecise in your input. You can also stop responding back and just edit your previous input with the "wisdom" that it shares with you in the current iteration. 2) Don't argue with AI. If you end up in a place where you're actually losing argument against it, stop. Ask it to steelman your position. Let it unwrinkle itself.
• spncai 7d ago
  [flagged]
• digitalhobbit 6d ago
  Just came across this and came here to post it. As much as I love Claude Code, this satire is quite accurate.
• lucas_t_a 4d ago
  i like the decision prompts taking the whole fucking screen, so true.
• 1970-01-01 8d ago
  [dead]
• neilellis 8d ago
  Congratulations!!! You win what’s left of the internet - just ask Claude for your prize! Motrin I’ve had this week. I use codex now.
• AIorNot 8d ago
  Lol this is great
• apetresc 8d ago
  So this site is just a fan-fiction that thinks it's somehow dunking on Claude? I've never had a session that remotely resembles any of this. I honestly can't tell what point this site thinks it's making.
  • edf13 8d ago
    [flagged]
    • fg137 8d ago
      https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/either-or-fallacy/ https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/either-or-fallacy/
    • flexagoon 8d ago
      The website is literally built with Lovable.dev what are you talking about
  • ceejayoz 8d ago
    I wrote my own harness to stop shit like this from getting to my attention out of frustration. I'm sure there's quite a bit of variation from person to person in these sorts of experiences, based on your harness, the way you talk, the stored memory, your CLAUDE.md, etc. But people absolutely have had this Opus 5 style experience the app simulates.
  • fg137 8d ago
    So you are lucky, congratulations.
    • apetresc 8d ago
      Maybe, if you tried, you could concoct some adversarial example of a stylesheet that a recent Claude model would trip up on and fail to color a button correctly on the first or even second try. But it would have to be some explicitly engineered trick, akin to an optical illusion for humans. You can’t convince me that I’m somehow the odd one out because I regularly have no trouble getting Claude to recolor buttons.
• satvikpendem 8d ago
  It's funny but unrealistic as Claude does a pretty good job at only changing what is required these days with the 5 tier models like Opus 5 or Fable.
  • ceejayoz 8d ago
    The site is opusfived.com, and Opus 5 is probably the worst so far at doing this.
    • rcxdude 8d ago
      I dunno, in my experience it's often overly-narrow, sometimes jumping through all kinds of hoops to preserve some edge-case behaviour that doesn't matter because I didn't mention it could be changed.
      • ceejayoz 8d ago
        Experiences vary, yes. But you can see in this thread that folks definitely have experienced this.
  • brazukadev 8d ago
    This is exactly the experience I have with Opus 5. Opus 4.6 is better, Flable 5.1 much better. But Opus 5 is infuriating.
• fractorial 8d ago
  Brilliant. Precisely the reason I stopped using Anthropic's products.
  • deleted 8d ago
    [deleted]
• appleappleapple 8d ago
  This spiked my blood pressure. Well done
• oujiii 8d ago
  Haha this is spot on how I've been feeling lately. I find it unbearable to work with this model for this reason... any trick out there you can do to steer it not to overcomplicate things? I guess Codex here I come
  • ihsw 8d ago
    [dead]
  • RGS1811 8d ago
    `/model claude-opus-4-7`
    • jerf 8d ago
      There's also the fact that you are in control. You are not obligated to take the AI's commits. I don't even let it commit much of the time because commit time is review time for me. If it changes the button blue and does four other things, you can just take the blue change and discard the rest. It can't stop you. This isn't a defense of it doing those four other things. It would be nice if it did what you wanted correctly. I'm just saying, as long as our programming skills have not completely atrophied, we have the power. “Ford carried on counting quietly. This is about the most aggressive thing you can do to a computer, the equivalent of going up to a human being and saying "Blood...blood...blood...blood...” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
• felixgallo 8d ago
  Here come all the totally organic "wow, I guess I better switch to OpenAI" comments.
• Toutouxc 8d ago
  This is so perfect and depressing that I might cry. It’s like a Kafka novel about programming.
• dannypostma 8d ago
  This is scary close to my interaction with Claude this week.
• pablopudding 8d ago
  I’m laughing and crying at the same time. This is what work feels like now. Thank you, well done!
  • matsemann 8d ago
    Yeah, I don't mind using AI to help me at work, but having to "talk" with this stupid crap all day will send me to an early pension or something. Can't be healthy in the long run.
    • deleted 8d ago
      [deleted]
• brap 8d ago
  How do you manage your frustration in these interactions? I often find myself getting pissed off
  • Sohcahtoa82 8d ago
    If you know how to write it manually, then do it. In my experience, Claude Code is great at making a first-pass at a project, but once you start asking it to make changes, it explodes. A bug fix that should only be 2 lines turns into adding 3 functions totaling 100 lines. Something as simple as "make the button blue" should be done manually.
  • ceejayoz 8d ago
    The goal of my personal harness is to get to the point where I never actually talk to Claude directly for that very reason.
    • selestify 8d ago
      Is your harness available for install somewhere? Surely you still have to give feedback to Claude. How do you do that without talking to Claude directly? By using a different model? But wouldn't that AI have no more common sense than Claude?
      • ceejayoz 8d ago
        It's extremely bespoke. Initial dev required talking to Claude. Now I add a ticket in the board, it makes me a mockup/writeup, I approve, and it gets me a temporary webserver, iOS/Android build, etc. to verify it. Review loops, agents that enforce my pet peeves and testing/debugging processes, etc. all run automatically... and then Codex strips down the prose at the end. There's not zero AI generated output, but it's already been critiqued and verified by a whole cluster of independent actors before it gets to me. When I have feedback, I file a ticket. I wanted to get out of the "what the fuck, why?!" loop. Now I let the agents handle that.
        • 7d ago
• andremendes 8d ago
  I lost it when it finally did the right thing, but then it added a never-requested gradient to the button. Very good!
  • fractorial 8d ago
    I’m impressed you had the patience to even make it that far!
    • dwringer 8d ago
      I only made it through the first round of prompt selection; both options for the second step were equally pointless and not at all prompts I would ever expect to result in a constructive outcome. In my experience, telling the model it screwed up without specifically addressing, unambiguously, how to fix it, only leads to more suffering. If this page illustrates nothing else, I think it shows the immense downside of trying to use simple one or two sentence prompts. EDIT: Actually, I used to use Google's AI Studio a lot and fork it after every successful prompt interaction. When I'd encounter a problematic issue like this, I'd revert to the previous fork and try a different prompt until I could get the desired outcome, thus mitigating the need to "argue" with the LLM. Unfortunately the ability to cleanly fork and revert everything including the LLM context was removed some months ago, and I've yet to discover a workflow with any tool that works as well for me.
      • teiferer 8d ago
        > In my experience, telling the model it screwed up without specifically addressing, unambiguously, how to fix it, only leads to more suffering. I wonder if this is just a reflection of some senior folks being arrogant towards junior folks. When the latter finished a task but not to the liking of the senior person they might just get a "that's wrong, try again". Just to have sth similar repeat the second time around. But the arrogant guy got to boss around the junior one, and some junior folks grow up learning that's how you should behave so they also do it later. Now it's not a person but a machine. And people just make fun of the dumb machine. Well, garbage in, garbage out If you are not specific in what you want, you might get crap back. Or at least sth you didn't envision.
• dazhbog 8d ago
  PTSD 9000.. I miss the old days, less load bearing BS and more in the zone coding..
  • mlekoszek 8d ago
    Fair play. There's a quiet truth to what you're saying, and it's worth pointing out
• burnoutdv 8d ago
  Just when I came back to my pc and was thinking "I hate this world were everyone talks about AI like fanatics" this made me a little bit happy, especially the unhingend all caps options towards the end
• 8cvor6j844qw_d6 8d ago
  I find it funny how it went off with subagents and adversarial review when a simple grep or diff is sufficient.
• kaoD 8d ago
  Am I the only one whose experience doesn't match this? My gripe with Claude is that while investigating how to do this it will report 200 other incidental findings which I overlooked and I realize those are broken too and need urgent fixing, derailing me, not it.
  • drcongo 8d ago
    You're not alone. I've been sat wondering what kind of codebase someone has if they have this problem, I've never seen this behaviour.
  • cub-creature 8d ago
    Oh man, exactly. I'm very prone to scope creep as I work on tasks. I already would notice some things that could be fixed or refactored and have a hard time not touching them before I used agents. But now I have to be very intentional about not letting it manipulate me into fixing EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW. Half the time the "one more thing worth noting, unrelated..." isn't even an actual issue, it just brought it up to fish more usage out of me. Also, while this little demo is certainly exaggerating the issue, I do find working with Claude to sometimes get quite verbose and tiresome. I doubt I would struggle this much to get it to change a button color, but the patterns of speech, the endless lists, the over-explanations, and the whole song and dance of trying to get it to make the change you want without side-effects is frustratingly familiar to me.
  • empath75 8d ago
    Claude is an unbelievable yak shaver if you let it be.
• techscruggs 8d ago
  I never really understood what being "triggered" was like until now.
• azalemeth 8d ago
  I've experienced this so many times over. "I was wrong" and "the honest truth" are just forever phrases that are now dead to me.
  • ImHereToVote 8d ago
    I want the dishonest truth.
    • column 8d ago
      Username may check out
• yomismoaqui 8d ago
  I don't get the joke... maybe because I'm using Codex?
  • dominotw 8d ago
    its making both buttons blue
• swiftcoder 8d ago
  This is pure genius. No notes
• kstenerud 8d ago
  That's so weird... This doesn't at all match my experience with Claude. I've never seen it behave this way.
  • wesselbindt 8d ago
    Fair point! This post is not a load bearing and accurate description of Claude's workings, it's satire.
  • yieldcrv 8d ago
    reminds me of November 2025
  • cloverich 8d ago
    because you are now getting coded products written in large by people who do not have technical foundations, so the way they interact with and even prompt the model is different. We all know how to fix this scenario; be more specific, or diagnose the abstraction mix ups and straighten those out. Ask for change A and get unwanted change B happens all the time with bad programmers and tradgedy of the commons (ie poorly architected, no restraint) codebases. Most normies dont know about this stuff.
    • yonatan8070 8d ago
      Yeah, a while back I did a small project with a stack I wasn't familiar with, and it was really non-critical. So I decided to vibe code it. The experience was pretty similar to this satirical example. But when I work in areas in which I'm paying attention and understand the stack better, I don't experience this nearly as much
  • inknight 8d ago
    try using Claude Design
  • dominotw 8d ago
    because you never changed just one button to blue
  • 8d ago
• jadar 8d ago
  This is so good at replicating the experience of frustration, then relief when it finally does what you asked it to do in the first place!
• random_cat_8745 8d ago
  rofl, brilliant
• captainbland 8d ago
  This is actually what keeps people using AI: variable reward schedule. It's basically gambling.
  • deleted 8d ago
    [deleted]
  • jimmaswell 8d ago
    Programming before AI was always variable reward. It was a gamble against your own time and patience. Maybe I'd waste hours down the wrong rabbit holes trying to find a library that worked for my use case. Maybe I'd waste a day trying to get an API to do something it turned out it couldn't do. Maybe I'd have to redo my entire approach because of some factor I hadn't considered. Something I wrote could have worked on the first try or I could have had to spend the day chasing logic errors (or multiple days chasing memory errors if it was C or C++). Maybe I would just get bored of the project, especially if I realized there were 20 layers of yaks I needed to shave first, and Visual Studio got stuck updating again, and before I could even start actually coding I had to spend the entire evening on an exhausting merge conflict. My entire weekend could be gone with nothing to actually show for it. I got so sick of all this at some point that I slowly stopped doing anything that wasn't my job. But then AI got better and better and I realized it was the ultimate unblocker. When that dreaded malaise started creeping in signaling it was a project's end because I didn't want to waste any more of my life dealing with bullshit orthogonal to what I was trying to do, I'd give it to the AI. It felt like a miracle the first time this worked, and it still does. If we were previously equipped with shovels to dig through bullshit, we now have a fully automated Bagger 288. The reward schedule now isn't variable anymore; the chance that I finish something in a good state is 100%. I can focus on the parts I actually enjoy - architecting the broader system, making the parts mesh together in a sensible way that's easy to work with and has some mathematical elegance to it, hand coding the bits I want to be really specific about (but now without the endless frustration of bugfixing or import errors and edgecases being immediately discovered, thanks to the AI).
    • supern0va 8d ago
      >Maybe I'd waste a day trying to get an API to do something it turned out it couldn't do. I was working on a side project recently. I had spent months designing the data model in my spare time, thinking through how to make it as elegant and durable to change as possible in the long term, since (if I launched it) the repercussions for getting it wrong would be significant. Once I had a working design, it probably would have been several more months to build a working prototype and start testing it. Instead, Claude knocked out the prototype for me in an afternoon. And it immediately became clear that it didn't work: not because the data model didn't solve all the problems I wanted it to solve, but because it didn't fit the shape of how I quickly learned a normal person would need/want to interact with the product. I was so focused on the long term, that I never thought about what the first five minutes of a user with hands on the thing would need. And the changes needed would be significant. Maybe there's some variable reward mechanism. But I sure was glad to be able to pull that particular slot machine handle and learn that than waste even more of my time on what was a dead end.
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• r_lee 8d ago
  now THAT is a load-bearing simulation
• dsign 8d ago
  That was funny :-) I use Opus and Sonnet 5 all the time and I find their language grating. But honest, I prefer to put up with it and get the results than to put up with my own human limitations and not get the results.
• chrismorgan 8d ago
  I’ve never used any of these tools. Please tell me that this is a grossly exaggerated parody, and that the tools don’t write like this, or do so many ridiculous things. For my sanity. (I am genuinely uncertain, though I presume it’s at least somewhat exaggerated.)
  • dd8601fn 8d ago
    No. It’s just a bunch of jokes rolled up into a big exaggeration. It’s funny because there are elements of truth in each bit of it, though.
  • Foobar8568 8d ago
    With weak models, yeah if you get things compiled, with any Opus 4.6 or Codex, not really... It's a sad parody that people will take as reality.
  • oblio 7d ago
    > I’ve never used any of these tools. You probably should. It costs you about $20 and you will have an informed opinion on them.
  • retsibsi 8d ago
    > Please tell me that this is a grossly exaggerated parody, and that the tools don’t write like this, or do so many ridiculous things It's a pisstake, but (in the bits I read, and based on my own personal experience) the writing style is barely exaggerated, while the behaviour doesn't ring true at all.
    • selestify 8d ago
      The behavior, while slightly exaggerated, rings entirely true for me. From the other comments in this thread, it seems I am prompting poorly in a similar way to the options offered. I am guessing you prompt differently than what is shown in the game?
      • deaux 7d ago
• vant 8d ago
  glad to see I'm not the only one... anthropic needs to support my anger management treatment
• airstrike 8d ago
  This does not match reality at all, speaking as the #1 user on agent hours per clauderank.com
• alentred 8d ago
  -= CAUTION, SPOILERS =- This got me on "cyanide blue", and I was ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING on "Approaching usage limit". I can barely stop laughing now and my stomach hurts. I mean, Thank You!
  • 100percentjake 8d ago
    "Confirming the button contains no cyanide" sent my sides firmly into orbit. This is fantastic.
• tamimio 8d ago
  This is gold, thanks for the giggles! I think it was designed that way to burn tokens.
• GracefullyShot 8d ago
  it gave me headache in 2 turns, just like opus 5 !
• almostdeadguy 8d ago
  Nails the Claude dialect. Technical nonsense like: > I'm collapsing this back to the rendered outcome: And intermixed with SaaS product page idioms from a brain-damaged marketer like: > No broader cleanup. > No further architecture work. > Just the button. Aside from the patterns everyone knows like em-dashes, "its not X, it's Y", etc. I think the key features of claude diction is it sounds like a junior engineer over their skies who is trying to make up for that with extra verbiage mixed with extremely grating SaaS marketing-ese.
• totetsu 8d ago
  I was waiting for it to .. say usage limit reached after reverting it back to how you started..
  • g-b-r 8d ago
    It reaches the usage limit after adding a cookie banner above the button
• telesilla 8d ago
  This felt very late-90s net art. Stressful but nicely done satire.
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• dwedge 8d ago
  I got way too annoyed at this before realising it was an optional game and I could just close the tab
  • alex_c 8d ago
    Surprising how much of life this applies to when you really think about it!
    • vips7L 7d ago
      Just like using LLMs. Completely optional.
    • btown 8d ago
      Hacker News is the epitome of this! If you find yourself not enjoying your daily dose of "someone is wrong on the internet" (via the immortal https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/) as you find yourself crafting the perfect response, you can always close the tab!
      • SoftTalker 8d ago
        I actually don't end up clicking the "reply" button on a good portion of the replies I start to write.
        • jodrellblank 8d ago
          Don't worry, Reddit/Facebook/Gmail et al. still transmit that draft reply to their servers, store it against your profile, and train on it. Probably.
          • iririririr 8d ago
            and ironically, most of them don't even offer the draft feature! Facebook, tiktok, etc... they send your typed message, but if the app crashes or you close it, there's no draft anywhere you can find ;)
• gwbas1c 8d ago
  I don't get who this is making fun of: - The people who won't make any effort to learn the tools, and something as simple as reverting code (via git) needs to be done by AI? - The awful programmers who we've had to endure working with, who are so bad at simple changes that they have negative productivity? - Or Claude itself? --- BTW: I don't have these problems, but I'm also not afraid to do things myself when it's easier. Edit: If I want to change a button's color, I just change it manually. If I don't know where the code for the button is, I might start with prompting, (because AI can often find the code faster than I can,) and then once the diff is proposed, start adjusting things by hand.
  • kmoser 8d ago
    It's reductio ad absurdum, satirizing the Claude experience.
    • gwbas1c 8d ago
      Then, IMO, the joke is lost: This feels like working with various forms of difficult, immature, indecisive, engineers; and possibly with very disorganized codebases where small changes require major refactoring.
      • mrheosuper 7d ago
        >very disorganized codebases where small changes require major refactoring. In the vibecode era, this is more common than you thought.
        • gwbas1c 7d ago
          I don't think it's more or less common, pretty much any code base I inherited prior to AI had serious problems.
      • kmoser 7d ago
        Are you saying you've never had an experience even somewhat like this while working with Claude, or any LLM for that matter?
• dmd 8d ago
  Was this made by someone who hasn't actually used any of these tools in over a year?
• _fat_santa 8d ago
  At least with Codex, this has not been my experience at all. It still screws up sure, but in every case I can ask "why did you do this" and it can trace back what made it take that particular decision. Typically it's always that I either didn't specify the problem correctly or made a really dumb mistake (executing the task on the wrong project....did this one yesterday) or it's something within a skill file that instructs it (at which point I fixup the instructions). Once in a blue moon it's actually the model making a material error in it's thinking and I have to go back and redo it.
  • reedlaw 8d ago
    Codex has the opposite problem. Instead of being overly proactive it's overly reticent. I have been preferring it lately, although my preference tend to switch every few months when a model or harness regresses horribly.
  • pgwhalen 7d ago
    I see this as more of a cute historical artifact than anything. There was a time when models/harnesses behaved like this, but we are well past it for frontier (or not so frontier) models.
  • arnorhs 8d ago
    agreed to some extent. I think this parody still highlights what I feel is often the experience. It might not happen on a simple task such as changing a button color, but on more complicated things, this can definitely be exactly what it feels like.
  • tarxzvf 8d ago
    Models hallucinate plausible answers to why they did things. It might be true and it might be complete fiction.
    • jameshart 8d ago
      To test this, change the history in the context to indicate that the model did or recommended something completely different than it actually did, and then ask it to explain why. You’ll still get a plausible explanation.
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• inerte 8d ago
  To be fair I’ve worked on human programmed systems where similar “it should be a half point story” requests would be met with snark by the engineers and take 2 sprints. I guess we are all PMs now.
  • inerte 8d ago
    Also likely, devs took shortcuts to deliver fast. Now to make the button blue they need to differentiate primary buttons from others. Simple, right? But design guidelines prevent one offs, and no !important. So you create a CSS class, but you discover another element on the header declared itself as primary (the search icon or the sign in button). You talk to that team and they decided to scope what’s primary according to their component. To change the sign in button to grey now you need to talk with the growth team. Growth team wants to run an experiment but they’re backlogged, only next quarter. They say you can innersource, just need VP approval. VP says blue matches a marketing campaign that is about to go out, agency has already been hired. You can’t talk to the agency unless Legal approves. So you leave the button gray, to revisit decision next planning cycle after you can align all stakeholders.
    • deleted 8d ago
      [deleted]
    • mring33621 8d ago
      Just understand that every requested change results in a game of whack-a-mole.
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• vinc 8d ago
  You should plan the task before implementing it to make sure that it will do the right thing.
• akho 8d ago
  is this using my subscription
  • teiferer 8d ago
    Yes, and 3 steps in it's going to post your API keys to this thread.
    • akho 8d ago
      eh, the whole site is claudes anyway
• jmartrican 8d ago
  Wow that gave me anxiety... lol. Ok cool so I'm not the only one who gets into these situations.
• Nevermark 8d ago
  Funny exercise. For a moment I thought, wow, someone put a lot of work into creating this theme park of frustration. Next: It would be so easy to create a faux-Claude like this. Then: How hilarious to watch the transcripts of unsuspecting users in real time. Finally: I began wondering if this might be relevant to all the redundant, unnecessarily preambled, sentence structure complexifying, indirect referencing, canned phrasing, ambiguity mining, analogy maxxing, over-wordy responses I have recently been getting from Fable...
• arbirk 8d ago
  One thing I have to be honest about, and it's mine.. The one thing I would check before... do you want to do that? Say go an and will do it without the check While checking I found 3 vulnerabilities and 2 potential optimizations of which I fixed 2 and 1. Do you want me to file the other as issue, or stop for the day? We have done <lists a weeks worth of work> this morning. I feel you need a break
• improbableinf 8d ago
  Thank you for creating this. Just thank you
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• moralestapia 8d ago
  Wow, this is SO on point. It made me stop using Claude at all. Codex has almost surgical precision, and I like that a lot. (But nowadays I just use DeepSeek Flash. it does screw up but its cents so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).
• Kim_Bruning 8d ago
  1970-01-01's Kobayashi Maru solution is the only thing that gave me closure :-P but unfortunately it's [dead].
• mzajc 8d ago
  > "`#16b8c4`. Yes. Apply it." > WebFetch en.wikipedia.org/…/Cyan > WebFetch en.wikipedia.org/…/Prussian_blue > WebFetch www.colorhexa.com/16b8c4 Brilliant.
• pohl 8d ago
  Amusing, but do people actually prompt in the style of any of the options given? All this for what is ultimately a PEBCAK error.
• bbstats 8d ago
  Mine immediately did it correctly?
  • matthieu_bl 8d ago
    Confirmed, Anthropic are silently testing Mythos 5.1 with some users
• jezzamon 8d ago
  Funny game. Do people really prompt AI like this? Multiple times the choice was either to yell at the agent, or ask it why it did something, neither of which are very fruitful lines to go down if you know what you're doing
• bennettpompi1 8d ago
  this is hilarious lmao
• johnisgood 8d ago
  > Why is half the site blue now? I asked you to change one button. > Half the site is blue. I asked for ONE button. Those are my only options when the site is clearly not blue, two buttons are. There is a reason for why I am much more specific than this.
  • blake__dev 8d ago
    Yeah that's when the site lost me too. I feel like people just tell AI "make the thing" and then get mad when it doesn't match up to their vision that they didn't specify at all.
    • bot403 7d ago
      This is a succinct summary of most the the profession of software engineering. Just replace AI with "programmers".
  • stodor89 8d ago
    Everyone is specific until eventually they get frustrated/annoyed/tired enough.
    • johnisgood 8d ago
      But it is futile to get frustrated or annoyed by an LLM. I do get frustrated, too, but I do not "yell" at it hoping that it will miraculously do what I want. GPT (again, free tier, so no wonder) got me frustrated too because I felt like it just would not listen, no matter how specific I was, so yeah I did experience what the author intended to show.
      • stodor89 7d ago
        > "yell" at it hoping that it will miraculously do what I want It's certainly not helpful in getting the LLM from A to B, but maybe you don't care? Maybe you just need to blow off some steam? People may call that irrational, but I'm certainly not seeing an abundance of commonly-agreed-upon rationality in all the other things they (we) do, so it's in character.
• NickNaraghi 8d ago
  You didn't say please or thank you.
• snkline 8d ago
  Seems to be getting a polarized response. I quite enjoyed the it, but I do think the creator should have made it clearer that a) it is in fact a joke site and b) it does not consist of actual Claude responses. It is easy to misinterpret this site, and therefore not "get" the joke.
  • deleted 8d ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 8d ago
    [deleted]
• khernandezrt 8d ago
  I mean honestly if you're using an agent for something this simple you deserve this and all the token usage that comes with it.
• bdelmas 8d ago
  It would have been funny a year ago but now I have no issues of that sort or even for more complex tasks
• chuckadams 8d ago
  Not really my experience with Claude, and the prompts are not how I would phrase them, but still pretty damn funny: I especially loved the slot-machine-style picker for LLM-isms.
• dudeinhawaii 8d ago
  Great site, triggered memories! haha. To try to add something to this discussion -- I think that while I've seen these sort of loops less --- what I have seen is "overly helpful". Models nowadays want to double-triple-quadruple check things. I'm being silly but it verges on "I have a working solution but let me write a variation in Rust to ensure a convergent solution and prove this works". I've had to stop models nowadays mostly because they're being agonizingly pedantic in their validation. Opus is actually one of the most pedantic and "off track" here. But again, not in a bad way. I'm usually like "stop testing latency between 50 runs of this app... this is version one.. we're going to make a million more changes.. you're not buying us anything".
  • SamuelAdams 8d ago
    This is my recent experience as well. Models want to run linters, tests, etc. And that is all covered in GitHub actions. So I have been instructing agents to push a draft PR, then I validate the static checks pass and tell the agent if there are issues. Agents and AI are getting expensive, it seems silly to waste tokens on static checks.
    • mejutoco 8d ago
      It seems running those tests, linters, etc locally would save pipeline minutes as well, like precommit hooks
    • CharlieDigital 8d ago
      Downside would seem to be that CI tends to increase the cycle time and feedback loop and add their own cost into the equation.
  • bahbahbahbah 8d ago
    Plus rigorously ensuring backwards compatibility for a project that is 2 hours old and has zero users.
    • cruffle_duffle 8d ago
• cropcirclbureau 8d ago
  Is my job a joke to you??
• arrowsmith 8d ago
  [dead]
• nullbio 8d ago
  Thanks, I hate it.
• robinpie 8d ago
  If you interact with Claude like this and ignore legitimate issues it flags, no wonder you have a bad experience.
  • selestify 8d ago
    What legitimate issues are there around making a fucking button blue?
• gitowiec 8d ago
  This is kind of funny but with tears (not off joy). I stopped playing because it made me angry
• homeonthemtn 8d ago
  Lord this triggered my eye twitch
• Culonavirus 8d ago
  This is the smoking gun. Yes, and it's mine!
• JohnMakin 8d ago
  > Worth naming: the Add to cart button is still black. Got an audible guffaw out of me. This really is what the experience is like sometimes if you're just giving it a result without being specific in implementation, and it comes out of nowhere, some days much worse than others. I've become patient with it, but whatever this style of output is called or doing - it is both condescending and entirely unhelpful, and it seems designed to frustrate.
  • GreenWatermelon 8d ago
    I've come to call this language "Claudese English" (or Claudish) Recently I've started using GLM models and noticed they aren't very claudish (just a little bit, compared to DeepSeek which is extremely claudish)
• rcfox 8d ago
  A Bot & Costello
• xd1936 8d ago
  Laughed out loud at the overly cautious Terms of Service that it generated for "Cyanide Blue", the color it made up
• deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
• monooso 8d ago
  Oh god, it's so painfully accurate.
• qazxcvbnmlp 8d ago
  Oh dear - this explains why people have bad experience with ai. The prompts in the game are terrible. The user was providing no context, they had no ability to give the model background or context. A simple why would have prevented 95% of these side quests. “Im trying to increase the relative visibility of the add to cart action on the page. Can we please change it to blue without changing any other buttons. /effort low. Let me know if you have questions and before editing anything tell me what you are going to do”
• K0IN 8d ago
  now add a source tab and lets see, how many ppl. will fix it themselves and how many turns it needs.
• epistasis 8d ago
  One note for those still using the Claude system for chats: there's no system to get generated images, spreadsheets, etc. out of the system. They claim it's a "security concern" to provide that data to you, as if they are protecting you by refusing to follow data export laws. I'm hesitant to email their data emails, as it's common for companies to delete all data upon any request, instead of providing data as they are required to.