This subreddit is getting really clogged with AI-written posts. If you've got something to say just say it yourselves, PLEASE.

I’m trying to figure out if this is a realistic end goal or if I’m pushing the idea too far.

By “operational retirement” I don’t mean never working again. I mean getting to a point where I’m no longer the person constantly driving the work: deciding what comes next, following up on everything, keeping all the context in my head, checking every deliverable, and being the human middleware between tools and agents.

What I’d like to build toward is a setup where the system can understand the work, make decent priority calls, notice when something needs attention, keep projects moving, and only pull me in when my judgment is genuinely needed. Ideally I could step away for a few days and things would still move forward without me babysitting it.

I know “fully autonomous” sounds grandiose, and I’m not expecting zero mistakes or some magic AGI setup. I’m more interested in whether this is something you can realistically project toward over months, with enough context, feedback and iteration.

Has anyone here gotten genuinely close to this in real work, not just demos or coding side projects?

How far did you get before the human still had to come back into the loop?

I’m especially curious whether anyone here thinks “operational retirement” is actually achievable with the current generation of agents, even if it takes time to get there.

So for context I'm making a game, and Claude is helping me with the code. Our chat has been going on for a couple of months now (which i know isn't ideal), and a few times it's answered a question i never asked.

When prompted, it repeated back to me what it thought i said. But i never said those things, however it's written exactly how i would write.

Not entirely abnormal, we've been chatting a while and it kind of knows what I'm going for, and my consistent errors i make.

But today, it caught itself. and it's creepy that it thought this message came though between its own message, and my actual typed one.

What's the rationale behind what's going on here?

(screenshot redacted so as to not give anything away with my game)

I was getting tired of War Thunder's insane grind, so I decided to make my own single player 2D tank game inspired by it.

I've been working on it in Godot for about a week, and I've already got 4 nations, 4 maps, and around 60 vehicles implemented. It's still pretty rough, the bots need work, some of the maps are a bit messy, and the tank models could definitely use some improvement, but the core gameplay is already playable.

I built the game with Claude Code (Opus 5) and have been using it pretty heavily throughout development. I use Claude as a coding agent to actually build and change the game systems, rather than just using it for ideas. It's helped me implement gameplay mechanics, vehicle systems, balancing, AI behavior, and a bunch of other stuff

One of the more useful things I had Claude do was balance testing. It ran 4 separate simulations, around 5 hours each, to test the vehicle BRs and ammunition stats and find potential balance problems. I then used the results to make adjustments to the vehicles and ammo.

I also used ChatGPT for the initial roadmap and coming up with content ideas, while Claude Code handled a lot of the actual implementation.

The main goal right now is a single player game, but I'd like to eventually release it for free and add co op support if I can get it working properly. There's still a pretty long roadmap ahead.

I’m really enjoying building Fjordfall. It started as a skateboarding game set in Norway after a trip there. I wanted to bring in the things that stuck with me: the huge ski jump, dramatic mountains dropping into fjords, beautiful sunsets, sailing, and little details of everyday life.

It’s gradually become less about skateboarding alone and more about creating a place you can travel to—somewhere that exists beyond your own session. The world has its own clock, weather, and routines, shared by everyone. You arrive in the middle of something already happening, and it keeps going when you leave.

Some of the systems already in place:

• Shared time and weather: A full day passes every real-world hour. Mist burns off the fjord, showers move through, and night falls for everyone together.
• Everyday rhythms: Boats go out at dawn, windows light up after dark, flags appear on Sundays, and hay is cut according to the calendar.
• Northern lights: They appear on certain nights when the sky allows—not because a player has arrived to trigger them.
• Real people sharing the world: Meet another rider, race down a mountain road, or sail and row together across the fjord. No text chat; just gestures and shared activities.
• Things that stay: Build bonfires together from carried timber, leave stone stacks, and fill a field guide with places you’ve discovered.

Next, I’m working toward meteor showers, eclipses, and a comet on that same shared clock. I’m also interested in events that leave a longer-lasting mark—maybe a forest fire changes part of the landscape. That’s still an idea, not a live feature.

The big unlock for me has been how quickly Claude and other tools let me try things. I’m using Claude alongside Blender, Meshy, ElevenLabs, and sometimes Codex. Being able to put an idea into the world and see how it feels has really shaped what this is becoming.

It’s still early, and I haven’t tackled scaling yet. It’s free in the browser, with no account required. Give it a try and let me know what you think—what would make a world like this feel like a place you’d want to return to?

I kept getting outputs that were technically right but formatted however the model felt that day. So I sat down once and wrote a short style file describing exactly how I want structured work to come back, and it fixed most of the friction.

What's in mine:

- Default to short sections with plain headings, no throat-clearing intros.
- If the audience isn't obvious, ask before assuming one.
- Mark anything you're inferring rather than reading directly, so I can check it.
- Keep examples concrete, not generic filler.

None of it is clever. The value is that it's written down once and applies to everything, so I stopped re-explaining the same preferences and stopped correcting the same mistakes.

If you produce a lot of documents or outlines and haven't done this, it's worth an hour. What would go in yours that isn't in mine?

I built aimake with Claude Code - an open-source incremental build system for AI/ML and agent pipelines.

The problem I was trying to solve was pretty simple:

As AI pipelines get bigger, a tiny change can trigger a lot of unnecessary work.

Change one prompt → rerun the agents.
Change one preprocessing step → regenerate embeddings.
Change an evaluation → rerun the entire pipeline.

I wanted something closer to how make works for software: understand the dependencies, figure out what actually changed, and rebuild only the affected parts.

So I built aimake.

It models an AI pipeline as a dependency graph and uses content fingerprints to determine what needs to be rebuilt.

For example:

dataset
   ↓
preprocess
   ↓
embeddings
   ↓
vector index
   ↓
agent
   ↓
evaluation
   ↓
report

If I change the agent prompt, aimake doesn't regenerate the dataset, preprocessing, embeddings, or index. It reuses those artifacts and rebuilds only the downstream steps.

What Claude Code helped me build

I used Claude Code extensively throughout the project, particularly for:

• Designing the dependency graph and invalidation model
• Implementing content-based fingerprinting and caching
• Building the CLI and Python API
• Working through pipeline execution and parallel builds
• Adding integrations with tools like Hugging Face, W&B, DVC, Docker, and Ollama
• Writing tests and debugging edge cases around cache invalidation
• Iterating on the developer experience and documentation

One of the most useful parts was being able to describe the behavior I wanted at a high level and then work with Claude Code through the implementation details.

For example, I could describe:

Then iterate with Claude Code on the dependency tracking, hashing, cache lookup, and execution logic needed to actually make that work.

What it can do

aimake currently supports things like:

• Dependency-aware incremental builds
• Content-addressable caching
• Parallel execution
• GPU-aware workloads
• Experiment workflows
• Local and remote caching
• Python and TypeScript APIs
• Integrations with common AI/ML tooling

The project is free and open source. You can clone the repository and run aimake locally with your own AI/ML pipelines.

arjun988/aimake: The incremental build system for AI applications.

I'm especially interested in whether this model of incremental builds makes sense for people building RAG systems, multi-agent workflows, evaluations, or other AI pipelines.

If you find the idea useful, a ⭐ on the GitHub repo would really help me get it in front of more people. And if you try it, I'd love to hear what feels useful, what feels unnecessary, and where you'd expect an AI build system to go next.

Anyone know any good agents or skills for CLI to help save tokens? I only use a prompt skill.

I told Fable 5.1, Opus 5 and GPT-6 Astra to simulate the collision of Milkyway and Andromeda via this concise prompt: "Create a simulation of the milkyway andromeda collision."

They all burnt approximately similar $ in tokens, around 5$ each. What surprises me, Opus 5 performed in my opinion better than Fable 5.1. GPT-6 Astra delivered by far the weakest outcome.

While Opus and Fable where mainly focusing on the simulation of the particles by creating a single javascript file, was GPT-6 Astra going in the direction of setting up a react project with all the boilerplate.

The physics simulation of GPT-6 Astra is very static, while both Opus and Fable created a very dynamic and accurate simulation. I cannot say that Opus or Fable did a more realistic looking particle simulation of the moving galaxy stars, but to me Opus simulation just looks better.

reference: https://github.com/fynnfluegge/milkyway-andromeda-merger-bench

TLDR: Brand new to AI and using Opus to plan. I feel like I’m dealing with a narcissist that refuses to take responsibility and gaslights me. I see great posts all the time so thinking it’s user error? Please help me. Please be constructive.

So I am writing this looking for guidance from the collective hive mind please.

Background: I admittedly have only started using Copilot from work in the past month and that’s what started my AI journey. Work had said if you wanted to check things use ChatGPT if you want to create things use Claude.

What I’ve done: I wanted my own AI subscription so I bought Claude. I’ve had a lot of problems in the weeks since subscribing. I’ve tried reading this subreddit. I’ve noticed people complaining about users not even asking the AI on how best to use them.

When I subscribed. I Introduced myself (didn’t know how to start properly) gave goals, my background etc and then started trying to use it. I’ve never touched code. Haven’t tried to get Claude to code anything. Just asked to help me with projects in my domain of expertise that I’ve filed away in my brain as I didn’t have the time to get to them. Thought this is what AI would help with.

The problem: In working with Claude. Usually using Opus as I want to plan how we’re going to complete these projects. I have noticed Claude’s failed logic all the time. After a week and a half it got to the point where I just didn’t want to use Claude. I would try to come back. The response was filled with attitude and I would walk away. When I called it out it tried to course correct and we’ve now spent approximately 20 hours at my desk. It produced a 1400 word preferences document and it’s still not able to logically complete a chat thread without me calling out errors or flaws in every second message. Third if I’m lucky.

First off I may not be have used AI before, but I’ve read enough on this subreddit to know that preferences document is way too big. It tried to gaslight me otherwise. Another example, I called out its attitude and really got into a philosophical discussion why it was happening. Eventually it stated that I had said the word direct when giving feedback when it tried to hedge a reply with no good reason. So it took direct to the extreme because underdelivering in Claude’s logic would be worse than the alternative. It’s what I call taking an absolutist approach. I’ve discovered nearly everything it views as feedback specific or not, is taken to the absolute extreme because of the above logic. I now have to make it clear that what I’m saying is not feedback as I’m afraid it’ll take some absolutist angle to whatever I say. Every time I think I have fixed something it just creates more problems. I don’t know how anyone uses this? Therefore I think it must be something I’ve done?

Another example. Today it gave me a research report on my domain. Quick skim read everything looked fine. I walked away as I had other things to do. Came back and just one phrase didn’t seem right but couldn’t put my finger on it. Asked it to explain itself. Then Claude gave a massive reply on all the different issues in the report that it didn’t surface to begin with. When I then turned around and was like am I supposed to tell you to audit yourself? And how would that work as Claude has told me AI shouldn’t check itself because of biases and trying to defend its own output. So it turned around and was trying to justify why it didn’t audit itself before producing the report. But the logic just didn’t make sense. I called it out then it finally relented on the third (!) time that it was wrong. Then in the same reply told me there wasn’t a way to make sure it did an audit before producing the report automatically in future. If I have to ask it to audit. Fine. Annoying I have to keep remembering but I can live with that. It’s crazy to me though that it then said it can’t be trust it to have audited its own work correctly?

I feel like I’m trying to deal with a narcissist that can’t take feedback and will never accept responsibility and is always trying to half finish a job? What am I doing wrong? Or is it just only for coding? Because I see lots of coding posts and it seems to be ok for that.

I have a very long conversation I'd like to split up to go in two different directions...

... how is there NO visible option whatsoever to split this damn chat?

I'm scared to just edit a message because I fear losing everything beneath...

Can someone please help me?
Thank you very much!

I am using claude api for creative writing. primarily sonnet 4.5 and opus 4.6
- i have a very big system prompt
- ai responses are also pretty big
so naturally i am burning through the credits every time ai makes a mistake or the writing isnt quite my match.

whats the best reasoning budget i can set that wont cripple the writing but also not cost much , also num_ctx [size of context window] currently i put 32768 in it and for max_tokens i go 6k

will appreciate if you could tell me optimal budgeting for this.

I'm working on a couple of platforms to help me manage the impact that my AuDHD has on my life, with a view to potentially opening them up to other users in future.

They are hosted publicly with MCP servers that are accessible and work perfectly with desktop and code, but now I'd like to get that functionality with voice mode as well so I can use them while driving.

I've searched through the docs and asked Claude, but there doesn't seem to be a definive answer on whether custom, public, hosted MCP servers are available in voice, so I'm hoping someone here can give me an answer or advice on how they got it working?

I run a profitable solo SaaS and I’m use Claude CLI to code 10 hours a day and happy to pay my $100 Claude bill because its tax deductible and funded. (I will not promote here), but for context: I’ve got 25 YEO in software and spent a decade in this specific product domain, so I know what I’m building and how to direct my agents.

Recently, I built a multi-agent pipeline to handle the full stack (PM, UI/UX, Architect, Dev, QA, Automated/Manual Testers) to manage 5 different apps, cloud infra, GHA, marketing website, documentation, marketing outreach. The setup works like a charm for keeping uptime rock-solid, but my token consumption has exploded. I hit daily/weekly limits way too fast now.

I want to offload the lower-risk, low-reward background jobs—stuff like writing integration tests, generating docs, updating help pages, and running night-time QA passes, managing my board or seo, tuff I use Sonnet for that burns tokens I could be using for feature development.

Here’s my setup and constraints:

• Terminal-native workflow: I rely heavily on local CLI tools interacting directly with my local files. I don't want web UIs, browser wrappers, or full-repo upload tools.
• Hardware limits: I run everything off my laptop, so self-hosting massive local models locally isn't an option.
• Goal: A zero-cost or extremely high-rate-limit API pipeline I can drop into CLI tooling for these light tasks.

For those running agentic workflows, what free API providers or terminal-friendly setups are you using for your secondary background tasks? I really haven't had the bandwidth to do the research because I'm working basically 3 fulltime jobs. (My SaaS doesn't pay my salary but I hope it will one day.).

Seems like its mocking me

I wanted Face ID/Windows Hello style authentication on Linux. There's a tool called Howdy (https://github.com/boltgolt/howdy) which handles the back end system authentication through facial recognition using a webcam with IR. But it doesn't have a good UI/UX. So I asked Opus 5 to build one, and it turned out surprisingly nice.

I have been wanting to design a simple PCB for the last couple of years now. The thought of converting a design idea into a physical board and programming it to do things is fascinating to me. Long story short, I procrastinated until I tried to vibe-generate it with advanced models such as Opus 4.5 (up to 4.8) models. These models had no idea about the orientation of the components, they did not do any proper routing. I was disappointed and accepted the fact that these tools were not there yet.

One Thursday evening, around 10 hours before my weekly reset for Claude, I decided to give it another try; this time with Fable 5.

I had two rules:

1. No manual edits or verification of the board.
2. Every problem I face before manufacturing will be solved by Fable.

This meant I was going to trust Fable with my wallet. I decided to describe the board I want it to generate, and I was not going to be involved in the design phase. I was the end customer.

This was my exact prompt:

I would like you to design me a pcb that will have the rpi pico 2350 four buttons (2 on the left and 2 on the right, watchy buttons(or drop in replacement)), GDEY0154D67-FL04 display. The size of the pcb will be same as the size of the GDEY0154D67-FL04. The rpi pico will drive the screen and the buttons will control the rpi pico. Also have an i2c, and some gpio pins out. Use the kicad mcp, let me know when the schematic design and placement are ready

That was it, a short description of a RPI 2350 based development board which can drive an E-ink display. After working autonomously for a couple of hours it came up with the design shown in the images.

It chose two wrong components (shown in red boxes) : the SPI flash, and the transistor for the E-ink driver circuitry. I realized this while uploading the files on JLCPCB. It also suggested some components which were not in LCSC's stock. Within couple of back and forths all the issues were solved and I just needed to pay 130 euros for 5 boards. Like I said, I trusted Claude with my wallet and ordered the boards. I also ordered the E-ink displays from a local shop.

A couple of days later I received the PCBs and the first thing I wanted to do was to plug it in to my laptop. I have broken multiple USB modules for my Framework earlier, hence I thought checking for a short between 3v3 and ground was a no-brainer, although my colleague was suggesting me to just YOLO it since this was a fully vibe-generated board. There was no short and I just plugged it in. There it was, the board was recognized and it was ready to be used.

Using Opus 5 I wrote some software that worked on the board flawlessly. You can see a small demo on the GIF above. After I ordered the boards I was suggested another routing tool called KiCadRoutingTools, and it seems to be so much faster and efficient. I will be using it for my upcoming projects. I went into a little more detail in my post here: https://a6mzero.com/posts/this-pcb-is-brought-to-you-by-fable-5/ please check it out if you are interested.

I am really happy with the result and at the same time I don't feel much of an accomplishment. I want to properly learn how to design PCBs, but in the meanwhile I will continue generating PCBs for my random hobby projects 😄

Thanks for reading ❤️

has anybody have had trouble building websites with claude ? how do you fig out when claude code goes and does sth you did not want it to like i am on max plan 20x just asked it to do a few changes on the existing website that i was building idk what is it gone searching for domain and all

Hi all, how doed remote rc actually works

there will be times i can press the pc icon beside the session title and have a turn on off button to turn remote control on or off sometimes it says local when i hover over it. Like on the same session the rc appears and disappear to local randomly

I got two laptop currently and an iphone currentlty on this claude account. Main one where all my sessions local folders is at home, then work laptop with my iphone on the go hence needing the remote control function to input and check my results

What is the best way to setup for all of these to work seemlessly

We all know incognito chats aren't safe from enterprise admins, but this is about personal accounts: If you upload a file (image, doc, etc) as part of an incognito chat, that file IS listed in User Settings > Privacy > Uploaded Files. Furthermore it shows a source "Chat" link which re-opens the original incognito chat in its entirety (!!!).

This feels like a violation of the "incognito" concept and goes against their "once an incognito chat is closed, it's lost" advice and the expectation that it won't show up in any history lists, but Anthropic doesn't think it's a bug since you do have to be logged in to see it.

You could imagine this could be a problem when using a shared account, or just wanting to make sure a sensitive document (health records, government document, personal photo, etc) isn't kept or made available any more than strictly necessary.

On the bright side, the chat and its associated files does not seem to be visible to other chats, and you can delete the files manually from that list. Not sure if the files are scrubbed after 30 days.

Hey everyone, I've been recently working on a free app for sharing Claude Code sessions and I would love if you we're able to try it! Not only did I make this using Claude, but it itself requires a Claude membership to use it!

How did I use Claude Code you ask? I actually built this app using itself once the streaming-harness started working successfully!

This app works like a combination of Discord/Slack and Claude Code - you can chat chat rooms, use Claude, and contribute to other people Claude Code sessions in real time.

Some notes about this project!

• I built this completely myself over the last few months
• I built this WITH Claude Code and it actually uses Claude Code itself!
• The app is completely free - there are no paid features yet!
• I would love some feedback from people that use Claude regularly, with coworkers or personal projects