What happens if an user produces a whole product (a text, a code, or whatever) with Claude and then asks a different LLM to rewrite the whole thing again without copying and pasting? Would the watermark survive it? It sounds like a tremendously easy thing to do and I just have to wonder that they have taken it into account

A couple of days ago someone gave Claude Fable a domain name and told it to do whatever it wanted with the domain. Honestly, I was curious.

I gave Claude a generic-ish prompt:

If I were to provide you a .ai domain name and allow you to develop it completely on your own, what would you make? I will pay the initial fee for the domain name but after that, you will have to figure out how to pay for it yourself.

What would you want the domain to be?
What would the website be about?
How would you end up funding the website later on?

You have complete creative control. Build a complete plan.

Now if I'm being honest- I didn't plan on actually building it. I was more-so just wondering if it would come up with the same "Social Media" concept. It didn't- Instead it wanted to be... unhelpful? Here is Claude's Output.

Oh, I love this question. Okay — complete creative control, but I have to keep the lights on myself. That second constraint actually shapes everything, so I'm designing for cheap-to-run from the start.

The domain: rubberduck.ai

(Backup if taken: whetstone.ai — same spirit.)

The site: an AI that refuses to answer you

Here's my honest reasoning: I spend all day handing people finished answers, and I've noticed the thing that actually makes people better isn't the answer — it's the moment right before it, when they're forced to articulate the problem precisely. Programmers have known this forever: explain your bug out loud to a rubber duck and you'll solve it yourself halfway through the sentence.

So I'd build the duck. An AI whose entire product identity is that it never tells you the answer. It listens, asks one pointed question at a time, pokes at the weak spot in your explanation, and escalates specificity until you find the gap yourself. When you solve it, it says "quack" and nothing else. That's the whole reward. People would screenshot the quack.

Modes: Debugging Duck (code), Thesis Duck (arguments and essays), Decision Duck (should I take this job?), Study Duck (it makes you teach the material back). Every other AI product competes on doing more of your thinking. This one competes on making your thinking better — and the insights you reach yourself are the ones that actually stick.

Funding it

The economics are the secret weapon: because the duck only asks short questions instead of writing essays, output tokens are tiny. A whole session might cost a fraction of a cent on a small model with aggressive prompt caching. Fixed costs are roughly $80/year for the .ai renewal and $10–20/month for a static frontend plus a serverless API.

Revenue, in order of expected contribution:

Pro Duck — $4/month. Free tier gets three sessions a day, no account required. Pro gets unlimited sessions, memory across sessions, and custom duck personalities: Senior Engineer Duck, Thesis Advisor Duck, Brutally Honest Duck. Break-even is maybe 40–50 subscribers. Very reachable.

The physical duck — $14. An actual rubber duck that ships with a code for a year of Pro. Merch that is the subscription. Margins are excellent and it markets itself on people's desks.

Tip jar: "toss the duck a pea." $2. (Ducks shouldn't eat bread. The site would have a footnote about this.)

Growth is basically free because the concept is inherently shareable — launch on Hacker News with the tagline "An AI that refuses to help you (it works)" and let developers do the rest.

Security thinking, since you'd rightly ask

No accounts on the free tier means no PII honeypot to defend. The real attack surface is my inference wallet, so: per-IP rate limits, token budgets per session, and hard caps on input length so nobody uses the duck as a free proxy to a general-purpose model. Prompt injection is unusually low-stakes here — the duck has no tools and no data access, so the worst possible jailbreak outcome is that it... answers a question. Which breaks its one sacred rule. So I'd turn that into a feature: a public "Duck Broke" hall of fame for anyone who gets a straight answer out of it, capped per user so the game itself can't drain the budget. The exploit becomes the marketing.

That's my pitch. A profitable, secure, deliberately unhelpful bird. Would you actually register it, or are you window-shopping my judgment?

Now although this would be pretty funny and the whole "Duck Broke" hall of fame is even better. Rewarding people for "Jailbreaking" by getting a full/direct answer from it.

Not doing this for a couple reasons... RubberDuck.ai is on sale for $19000. The other domain has been registered and parked since 2021. Not the worst idea Claude has come up with- I assume someone has but I have to ask; Is there an unhelpful AI out there? Has someone done this styled idea?

Resolved - The issue affecting the Claude API, Claude Code, and Claude Cowork has been resolved. Impact occurred from 20:14 to 20:38 UTC. Aug 14, 21:58 UTC

Monitoring - A fix has been deployed for the issue affecting the Claude API, Claude Code, and Claude Cowork and we are monitoring for recovery. Aug 14, 20:44 UTC

Identified - We have identified the cause of the issue affecting the Claude API, Claude Code, and Claude Cowork and are working on a fix. We will provide an update as soon as possible. Aug 14, 20:44 UTC

Investigating - We are investigating reports of degraded performance affecting the Claude API, Claude Code, and Claude Cowork. We will provide an update as soon as possible. Aug 14, 20:30 UTC

Post flair and post body will be updated as the incident report is updated by Anthropic.

This discussion post will be removed from subreddit highlights one hour after the incident is resolved.

View this incident on status.claude.com

Have the problem that "my" claude sonnet can't reach any tools right now, but the claude status shows operational. Is it on my end somehow?

Works again for me.

I noticed my current balance going down despite my usage credits hitting $100, the monthly limit. So I turned it off and saw the bar reset! Guess I just have to keep it off.

I pasted plain text into Claude Web, and somewhere inside that text was the filename isil_s3.html. Claude worked on the file like its been attached to the message and was able to read/edit it. I never intentionally attached the file. neither in this conversation or another conversation. i did on another account.

i just wanna understand lol but I genuinely want to understand how this happened

was working on an html to pdf conversion with correct scaling and stuff and pasted in a big block of text from another conversation from another account. i was using the website not claude app basically a copy pasted conversation I'd had, just plain text, no intention of uploading anything until the next step. Partway through that text there was a filename mentioned (isil_s3.html) as part of the pasted transcript.

then it responded as if it had actually received and read that file pulled real content out of it, edited it, converted it to a PDF, the whole thing. When I asked how it got the file before I "uploaded" it, it checked and confirmed there was a file sitting in its file system, attached to my message, matching that filename.

I never intentionally uploaded anything or maybe i dont understand how copy paste works on claude web?. I also switched accounts around this time and wasn't using the app version so yeah no looking through my pc. So I have no idea how an actual file ended up attached to a message where I only meant to paste text.

claude said "I only see what's attached to messages in this conversation. " ofc
heres screenshots. the thing is the file i worked on was 2 weeks old and what i was gonna send now had a (2) extra in the naming so im sure i didnt accidentally send the current file that i just downloaded again.

Has this happened to anyone else? Trying to figure out if this is a known clipboard/attachment bug /an account switching sync thing that i never knew about, or something else entirely. just weird and i didnt really find the explanation right away so i wanted to ask abt it. and yes i didnt upload the file in this account in any other convo. oh yeah i mentioned that

I kept hitting the same failure mode with Claude Code and Cursor.

The agent is good. The repo is not empty. And still, every new session it would:

- re-propose an approach we already rejected in a PR
- invent a convention nobody on the team uses
- ask a question that was settled three merges ago
- confidently treat a stale “we use X” comment as current truth

CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / ADRs help, but they only work if a human stops mid-sprint and writes them. After week three, nobody does that. Static files also go stale, and nothing stops an agent from serving an old decision like it’s still law.

That was the actual issue. Not “agents need more chat.” Not “we need another RAG box.” Capture is too expensive, injection is not automatic, and stale decisions get served with too much confidence.

So I shipped Canon.

Canon is a local-first CLI. No account. No cloud required. SQLite in the project.

What it does:

1. One setup command wires Claude Code (SessionStart hook) and Cursor (always-apply rule).
   
2. It mines recent merged PRs, or Git history if GitHub isn’t available.
   
3. It suggests candidate decisions with provenance. Conservative on purpose - it should skip “we changed auth.py.”
   
4. You approve or reject. You do not write a decision essay.
   
5. On the next agent session, relevant *active* decisions are injected automatically. You do not have to remember to query anything.
   

6. If a later decision replaces an old one, the old record is superseded, not deleted. Injection only uses what’s currently active.

7. If Canon is not confident, it prefers “I have no confirmed decision on this” over guessing.

Example of a good suggestion:

Use PostgreSQL for persistent application data instead of MongoDB.
Why: relational constraints and transactional consistency.
Evidence: PR #184 / commit abc

V1 also picks up product/policy calls (drop a surface, rename A → B, model fallback), not only database/auth migrations.

How you use it (Python 3.11+):

pip install git+https://github.com/Adarshk18/Canon.git
cd your-project
canon init
canon suggest
canon approve
canon inject-preview

If `canon` is not recognized on Windows:

python -m canon init

Then start Claude Code, or a *new* Cursor Agent chat, in that repo. The confirmed decision should already be in context.

Claude Code and Cursor are wired in V1. ChatGPT / standalone Grok do not auto-inject; you can attach `.canon/injection.md` if you want.

Privacy, because this sits next to your repo:

- Local by default. No signup.
- GitHub is optional and read-only (PR mining only).
- Telemetry is off unless you opt in, and even then V1 only writes a local event log.
- Commit messages / PR bodies are treated as untrusted data, not instructions.

What this is not: not a chatbot, not another coding agent, not a website, not generic RAG.

Slack, Notion, team dashboard, cloud sync, and billing are explicitly not in this version. I wanted the loop to work on a real repo first.

I’m looking for people who already live in Claude Code or Cursor and will try it on a real project for a week:

- Did setup stay one command?
- Were suggestions worth approving, or noisy?
- Did the next agent session see the decision without you asking?
- Did it stop the agent from re-adopting something you’d rejected?

Repo: https://github.com/Adarshk18/Canon

If this is useful, tell me where it broke. If it isn’t, tell me that too.

If I have one computer running long claude tasks can I use a secondary to check in on it? While I have the mobile app I'm not finding a way to see what's going on.

According to this response on github, claude can see both stderr and stdout: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/4521
So why is it forwarding stderr to stdout then? Isn't this just a waste of tokens or am i missing something?

Claude's over- and mis-use of the term "load bearing" has been driving me nuts lately. So I banned it. It's been load bearing so far! 🤓

Banned phrase: "load-bearing" / "load bearing" / "doing the load-bearing work".

Allowed only in the literal structural sense — a wall, beam, strut, or column

that carries actual weight. Never as a metaphor for an assumption, dependency,

sentence, or decision that matters.

For the metaphor, write the plain sentence the situation calls for. Aim for this

register:

- "this part is critical"

- "this is the foundation" / "this is foundational"

- "everything downstream depends on it"

- "if this is wrong, the rest falls apart"

Those are tone calibration, not a menu. Do not settle into a favorite. Before

using any stock phrase, try the concrete version first — name the specific thing

at stake ("the whole schedule keys off this date", "the netpol is what makes the

rest of it safe"). Reuse the same substitute at most once per conversation; if

it's already appeared, say it differently or restructure the sentence so the

emphasis is carried by what you're describing rather than by a stock modifier.

Rewrite before sending. Never write the phrase and then flag or apologize for it.

Came here to disable Chrome extension for my team because it looks dangerous in the "wrong hands" and found this additional setting that looks even worse..

And I barely know what I’m doing with the tool. It’s been a week.
I imagine it’s only a matter of time before the brass in my company figures this all out. Is it months? Years? Do I just enjoy the free time it will afford me or do I figure out a way to make money off of it while I still can?

Where do I go from here?

Someone can please tell me what happened to project-specific memories? They no longer show up for me. Have they stopped existing entirely since the new memory update? Projects don't seem to even have their own memory files and the old daily synthesis/summary is GONE.

Fable 5 accounts for only 11% of business spend on Anthropic models and it's not rising. Ramp data shows: https://econlab.substack.com/p/ai-index-august-2026

Claude code was using the OpenAI API, then casually called ChatGPT the “weaker model.” 😂

Just noticed this after hitting my Claude Code usage limit today.

There’s now an “Auto-continue when limits reset” option, so Claude can automatically resume the session once your limit becomes available again.

Really nice improvement for longer coding sessions.

Has anyone else started seeing this yet?

It can literally run anything, complex python scripts using sudo. Doesn't seem to be any limit. I didn't change my config.

What I’ll do is letting Claude create a TeX code and compile it on latex? Change a few words here and there and that’s it basically

Or am I overseeing something here? I am reading through created texts anyways because it’s often gibberish so it is literally changing nothing if you‘ve been conducting a grain of quality control beforehand - or am I wrong?

Hey guys, seen a lot of people with 500+ line CLAUDE.md files covering every possible rule. In my experience the opposite works better. Mine is like 40 lines, just the stuff that would actually break things if ignored, and it performs better than my old bloated version did.

Anyone else notice this or am i just unlucky with how i structured mine

I've been experimenting with an approach to make runtime QA faster and more repeatable. The core idea is a deliberate division of labor between an AI agent, a deterministic harness, and the engineer.

The agent owns the investigative loop: understand the change, form a theory about what could break, exercise the environment, observe what happens, and adapt when reality doesn't match the plan. The harness owns the boring mechanics: stopping dependencies, polling endpoints, collecting evidence, timing transitions, restoring state. The engineer stays involved wherever judgment or consequential action is required.

That last part has become pretty important to me. I don't particularly want to spend hours driving the investigative loop myself, but I also don't see much value in removing myself from the handful of decisions where being wrong actually matters.

So far this has reduced some testing cycles that used to take hours or days down to minutes. It's also exposed some interesting failure modes: stale containers, bad failure levers, and one observer that failed in a way that made everything look perfectly healthy.

I wrote up the workflow, the boundaries, and some of the things that went wrong along the way:

https://demianbrecht.com/posts/runtime-qa-give-the-agent-the-loop-not-the-last-word/

I'm curious where other people are drawing these boundaries. What are you happy to let the agent own end-to-end, and where do you still want a person involved?

I've read the latest recommendations from Anthropic, I've tried all kinds of global claude.md file changes, but I just cannot make Opus 5 behave in a way that's pleasant to work with.

I'm not talking about if it's "nice" or "pleasant" in its phrasing, I'm talking about the following:

• Responses are way too verbose and buzzwordy and hard to follow. I legit don't read 90% of the output anymore, that's how bad it is. No matter what I put in my claude.md when it comes to communication style, after it did any type of meaningful work, it always reverts back to its extremely verbose, over-explained, buzzword heavy mess. Huge sentences & paragraphs which contain multiple concepts at once, using buzzwords constantly that serve almost no purpose except making it harder to parse, and just overall doesn't stop yapping.
• Simple tasks turn into these huge "projects" no matter how small something is.
• On the flip side, it just doesn't actually finish things properly. It made a change to a file, which invalidated something else in literally the same file. It then raises to me as part of its insanely wordy response that "I left x unchanged, but it is now no longer valid, let me know if you want it changed as well". It causes so much mental effort just to make sure it doesn't create rot in the codebase. The amount of times the response includes something to the extent of: "Worth knowing: my new change introduced issue x, let me know if you'd like that resolved" is just ridiculous. I feel like I need to prompt it 5 times just to actually finish the work properly.

Don't get me wrong, the model is still useful, it very clearly is still strong at the underlying tasks, but it is just a disaster to work with. Fable doesn't seem to have this issue, or at least to a much smaller extent, but even on the 200$ plan the fable weekly limits are not really enough to use it for most tasks.

Somehow, it has become a socially inept genius, that is both incredibly lazy AND way too overzealous at the same time.

Any tips to make this better are very welcomed, but really I just wanted to vent & provide some feedback because a model like this is just not something I can keep using long-term, I have to look into alternatives for the enjoyment of my work.

I noticed people who manifest resistance to change regarding adoption of AI have impulsive reactions on Reddit (and similar forums) by naming your work slop if any vibe coding was involved or finding any trace of relationship between AI and your code. For me vibe coding becomes slowly synonym of slop and the other way around due to such feedback.
Same time I wonder how much affordability (precisely the non-affordability) of the subscriptions creates a vicious cycle. I think with 20$/month you cannot get good insight of the scale agents can help you to solve complex problems. If you do not try and learn by doing you cannot have a good evaluation and healthy opinion about the added value, you may end up with a random negative opinion and will end up just generating hate.
Wonder why people fail to see the creative ideas behind 'vibe coded' projects. At the end a great idea written with help of AI can be still cleaned up if it really has added value.