Qwen3.5-Plus is the largest variant of the open weight Qwen3.5 model, expanded with a 1M context window and fine-tuned on the Qwen-native harness’ specific tools.
At this point, I’m pretty sure saying “I’ve done my research” is more of an indicator that someone hasn’t done their research but would like to be taken seriously anyway by pretending they did. The kind of person who’s both smart enough to realize that an issue might be more nuanced than they present it, as well as intellectually dishonest enough to… not care.
I never use an LLM to paraphrase my own voice as a matter of principle, but I’ve still been repeatedly accused of doing so because I happen to always have written structured posts, used “smart quotes,” and done that negative comparison thing (it’s genuinely not just fluff, it’s a genuinely useful way to— ah god damn it). Sigh.
Right. The LLMs' quirks aren't bad in themselves, they're bad when they're in every damn paragraph. They're mostly things that in moderation actually improve writing, and that if you see them once (without the knowledge that they're things LLMs do) would rightly tend to make you think better of the author. And so, of course, in RLHF training they get rewarded, and unfortunately it's not so easy for an LLM to learn "it's good to do this thing a bit but not too much.
The structured thing you mention is the one that bugs me most. I genuinely think that most human writing would be improved by having more of the "signposts" that LLMs overuse. Headings, context-setting sentences, bullet points where appropriate, etc. I was doing "list of bullet points with boldfaced intro for each one" before the LLMs were. But because the LLMs are saturating their writing with it, we'll all learn to take it as a sign of glib superficiality and inauthenticity, and typical good human writing will start avoiding everything of that kind, and therefore get that little bit harder to read. Alas.
I feel ya. I've never been accused of using an LLM, fortunately, but depending on the context I do use “smart quotes” (even in „Dutch” or »German«) and the em-dash obviously… (And that ellips fella there. It's just so simple to type with a compose key set up.)
Same here, I've always used em dashes and have been called out on negative comparisons – I didn't even know they were an LLM thing. Should I read more LLM to know what phraseology to avoid, or will doing that nudge me towards sounding more LLM? :-(
It's absolutely shocking how many people think that inverting all the quality metrics that we've traditionally used "because LLMs" will lead to good things. Nothing about this will end well.
> Yes, I’m going to refrain from airing out my dirty laundry. I made a bad decision, now I’m living with it, and more context doesn’t actually change the intent behind my message
That’s not entirely true, as it’s currently impossible to actually gauge the severity of what the LLM seemingly enabled you into doing. There’s a difference between “I uncritically accepted everything it told me because it lined up with what I was hoping to hear” and “it subtly nudged me towards a course of action that was going to be obviously unwise after some consideration, but managed to convince me to skip this”; and also between that and “I took a risk, which I knew to be a risk, and which I knew to potentially expect to go bad, and the LLM convinced me to take it where I otherwise wouldn’t have”, and ALSO between that and “I took a risk, which I knew to be a risk, and which I knew to potentially expect to go bad, and if I’m perfectly honest, I might’ve taken it anyway without the LLM”.
Without any indication as to how your situation maps to any of these (or more), the warning is, functionally, not particularly useful.
> Someone approves a PR they didn’t really read. We’ve all done it (don’t look at me like that). It merges. CI takes 45 minutes, fails on a flaky test, gets re-run, passes on the second attempt (the flaky test is fine, it’s always fine, until it isn’t and you’re debugging production at 2am on a Saturday in your underwear wondering where your life went wrong. Ask me how I know… actually, don’t). The deploy pipeline requires a manual approval from someone who’s in a meeting about meetings. The feature sits in staging for three days because nobody owns the “get it to production” step with any urgency.
This is the company I (soon no longer) work at (anyone hiring?).
The thing is that they don’t even allow the use of AI. I’ve been assured that the vast majority of the code was human-written. I have my doubts but the timeline does check out.
Apart from that, this article uses a lot of words to completely miss the fact that (A) “use agents to generate code” and “optimize your processes” are not mutually exclusive things; (B) sometimes, for some tickets - particularly ones stakeholders like to slide in unrefined a week before the sprint ends - the code IS the bottleneck, and the sooner you can get the hell off of that trivial but code-heavy ticket, the sooner you can get back to spending time on the actual problems; and (C) doing all of this is a good idea completely regardless of whether you use LLMs or not; and anyone who doesn’t do any of it and thinks the solution is to just hire more devs will run into the exact same roadblocks.
That would be a lot easier to believe if this law in question actually, you know, helped society. Or did anything to affect how it runs, let alone “effectively.”
As it stands, it reads more like “I’ve used my free will to decide to suspend all critical thinking and accept that anything that anyone with authority decides should be a rule must be unquestioningly accepted.”
> so that when the subsidies end and subscription costs shoot up
Subscription costs are capped to API rates as their ceiling (and, realistically, way lower than that - why would you even subscribe if you could just go pay-what-you-use instead), and those are already at a big margin for Anthropic. What still costs them a fuckton of money comparatively is training, but that is only going to get more efficient with more purpose-built hardware on the way.
Basicallly, I don’t see much of a reason to hike subscription prices dramatically. I don’t think they’ll stay at $100/$200 but anyone who’s paying that already knows how much value they’re getting out of that and probably wouldn’t mind paying more.
I'm not sure what you mean, if you max out your subscription perhaps? If you pay $100 and don't use it, you don't get refunded $100 because it's 'capped to API rates' which would've been 0.
He means that anthropic cannot increase the price of the sub because the users can just switch to the regular API pricing which consequently puts a ceiling on the cost of the sub.
Nobody would use a $1k sub if using the API pricing would only cost $500 for comparative service.
For the record, I'm only explaining what he put forward.
I don't agree with the opinion, mainly for two reasons:
The API cost can be increased in conjunction, hence the ceiling is just as variable
The harness is even more important then the model ime, and Claude Code is getting better every month. Even though the alternatives are getting better too, they're at least currently significantly worse IME - I'd say at least 3-6 months behind (compounded by the model, ofc).
And as a third point, unrelated to the original argument: there is no way anthropic is actually treating the sub as a loss leader. It is not cheap. It's only cheap compared to their API pricing, which they can freely set however they want. Compare their pricing to free models like Kimi k2.5 etc. I sincerely doubt anthropics model costs more to run then theirs, and they're profitable at 30% of the price anthropic charges.
> He means that anthropic cannot increase the price of the sub because the users can just switch to the regular API pricing
Not that they cannot increase the price, just that there's a cap on how high they realistically can go. Sure, they can always hike API prices to compensate, but I think people are seriously sleeping on open models these days, because…
> *The harness is even more important then the model ime*, and Claude Code is getting better every month.
…I fully agree with this, and that’s actually the other reason why I don’t think we’ll approach predatory pricing. Right now, the moat is still mostly the model, but as open models improve and become more capable, this is quickly going to shift.
And the truth is that Claude Code just isn’t that great of a harness. Anyone who uses an open-source harness and optimizes it for their personal, individual workflow will quickly realize this. And I’m not even blaming Anthropic or the CC team or calling them incompetent; they are in the unenviable position to have been trailblazers. There weren’t any comparable tools before CC that they could’ve learned from.
The future lies in harnesses that are multi-model, extensible, and have full access to and control over the model’s API, context, and system prompt. Claude Code has none of those things. You can only ever bend it into a shape that approximates your workflow; you can never use it as a tool that natively supports it.
Oh, on that we can agree on! I was using opencode for the last few months, the main reason I went back to cc was for opus, and me preferring the sub over regular API pricing as I'm not using it professionally, only as a hobby. (At work I'm constrained to Copilot. Which is fine at this point, not great but definitely improving - esp. when run as CLI)
I am still hoping for a local first model approach with voice command to generate the main prompt which starts of the plan mode.
Like interactively going through the project while pointing at files or in the UI and possibly browser via the mouse and explaining while "talking" with a dumber but super quick model that acts as a questioner, to wrap things up with higher latency over the wire with the highly capable models.
I suspect that approach is still a few months to years away from viability for latency reasons, but I'm definitely looking forward to that UX
Now huge amount of investment pays for training. This investment expects some returns, to be able to both turn profit and continue the training, rates must be much, much higher.
reply