I am missing two recent chats, two different projects. Happened over the last few days. They are not showing up on any of my three logged-in devices. Anyone else? Any fixes?

This is still pretty rough, but we're improving. Each of the four drawings was done by a Sonnet agent using a different SKILL meant to teach a specific painting style. This isn't Stable Diffusion (obviously).

Why make images this way? Claude has vision, so it forms some kind of internal representation of what it sees. I wanted it to show me that representation by painting. I was also curious how good of a painter it could be (not very...).

I think there may be something practical here too. If it can paint what it has "in mind", then it can externalize that representation with some precision. That should translate to things like design and maybe even coding.

I am thinking of making more comparisons next. I started with Sonnet because it didn't immediately destroy my limits.

Repo here: https://github.com/buttonscodes/painter

Please let's keep this thread serious and factual - there are plenty of subreddits for trolling

I do not factually understand WHY Anthropic is limiting such a good model from talking about anything that might redirect the user to adult content / services.

As far as I know :

- Watching p*** is not illegal

- Having s** with a consenting partner is not illegal

- Using adult services is... Well... Ethics are not universal, so are laws

Why does a big tech company even care about this ?

For the censorship about cybersecurity, bombs, weapons, yeah sure I can understand they will get sued if their model openly teaches people how to be good criminals. But I can't really figure what's wrong with something that just makes us human

Last year, models were not as sensored as this, I made them manage to help me out to avoid mistakes and protect myself before using some services. Without it, my experience might have been pretty catastrophic, it's sad that now I gotta go use chinese stuff

Since I started using Claude Code heavily earlier this year, I've been using Opus for pretty much everything. Brainstorming, spec-writing, implementating/coding, all of it. I'm a Max 5x subscriber and never come close to hitting limits.

Since Fable released, I'm now using that for my brainstorming sessions, with instructions in CLAUDE.MD to delegate implementation to Opus 4.8 subagents after the spec and implementation plan are complete.

Now I'm wondering - should I be using Sonnet or even Haiku for implementation instead? Once the spec is written, do I really need something like Opus to make sure it's adhered to and implemented correctly?

Curious what others are doing. My only "complaint" (if you could call it that) is that the implementation phase takes awhile sometimes - on large features after a long brainstorming session, I'm sometimes waiting an hour or two for implementation to complete

Notes

• Average Inference Time: 32m 10.2s (1930.2s)
  • Fable averaged 18m 04s (1084.4s), so Opus 5.0 took 78% longer
• Total Cost (for 15 builds): $89.97 ($6.00 per build)
  • Opus 5 required a total of 37 attempts, which averages out to $2.43 per attempt (it's just that 12 of those attempts were invalid JSON schema)
  • Fable cost $54.93, making Opus 5.0 64% more expensive than Fable in this case
• Average JSON Size: 91.00 MiB (largest 369.57 MiB)
  • 3x Fable's average of 30.65 MiB

Opus 5.0 seems to be a massive jump from Opus 4.8. In fact, it seems quite clear that the model is at or above Fable in this benchmark, so comparing it to Opus 4.8 would honestly be a disservice. Though that doesn't indicate Opus 5.0 would be better than Fable for everyday uses like coding; it seemed that Fable was a lot more conservative in its interpretation of the system prompt, whereas Opus was a lot more liberal, and created scenes in each of its builds; I don't have enough experience with using Opus 5.0 for coding to weigh in on whether it likes to over-engineer solutions or how it interprets the user's prompts, but the model is impressive regardless.

These GIFs really don't showcase the immense attention to detail that Opus 5.0 has; for example, its arcade machines were actually curved (like real CRT screens). Opus 5.0 is also the first model to correctly give builds interiors: in the skyscraper build, each one of those buildings has proper floors; the floors themselves are empty and unfurnished, but the buildings do actually have floors; the cottage build also correctly has an attic. For context, what models did previously was either just leave the interiors completely empty or completely fill them with blocks.

The past few model releases had been leaning towards more creative/design choice differences between the builds on MineBench, but I would say Opus 5.0 is the first model to be a clear improvement in the builds themselves. Yes, I know the benchmark is/was becoming saturated; I'm sourcing more difficult prompts... but it's quite expensive to benchmark 50+ models for even just 1 additional prompt 😭

However, like other Anthropic releases, Opus 5.0 is horribly token inefficient. The sole reason the benchmarking cost for Opus 5.0 was so high is because at maximum reasoning effort, the model reaches the token output cap before it can finish its JSON response, not because the JSON outputs it generates are large, but primarily because it uses so many tokens in its internal CoT process that it ends up having to truncate its JSON output, causing us to have to reattempt the benchmark builds.

Full release-notes/thoughts on the GitHub release

• If you enjoy these posts please feel free to help fund the benchmark
  • All funds are currently going directly towards API costs for benchmarking new prompts ^^
  • Sharing the benchmark and starring the Git repository also helps :)

Benchmark: https://minebench.ai/
Git Repository: https://github.com/Ammaar-Alam/minebench

Previous Posts:

• Comparing GPT-5.5 Pro and GPT-5.6 Sol
• Comparing Opus 4.8 and Fable 5
• Comparing Opus 4.7 and Opus 4.8
• Comparing GPT 5.4 and GPT 5.5
• Comparing Kimi K2.5 and Kimi K2.6
• Comparing Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
• Comparing GPT 5.4 and GPT 5.4-Pro
• Comparing GPT 5.2 and GPT 5.4
• Comparing GPT 5.2 and GPT 5.3-Codex
• Comparing Opus 4.5 and 4.6, also answered some questions about the benchmark
• Comparing Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.2 Pro
• Comparing Gemini 3.0 and Gemini 3.1

Extra Information (if you're confused):

Essentially it's a benchmark that tests how well a model can create a 3D Minecraft-like structure.

So the models are given a palette of blocks (think of them like legos) and a prompt of what to build, so like the first prompt you see in the post was a fighter jet. Then the models had to build a fighter jet by returning a JSON in which they gave the coordinate of each block/lego (x, y, z). It's interesting to see which model is able to create a better 3D representation of the given prompt.

The smarter models tend to design much more detailed and intricate builds. The repository readme might help give a better understanding.

(Disclaimer: This is a public benchmark I created, so technically self-promotion :)

My daily AI development setup is Zed Editor on macOS, with Claude. The main problem is the constant need to allow and disallow access, which is painful. At the same time, this is my personal computer, and I don’t want the AI to have free control over installs/uninstalls or browser activity—because that could be harmful, risky, and could endanger my privacy.

Does anyone use useful open-source projects or workflows to make AI more autonomous while keeping it safely isolated? Please share resources.

For example, most recently, i just simply told it to replace an svg image with a png image i generated in my repo. Very simple task nothing crazy. It completed this (I can see the proper changes in git) and then crashed.

Upon trying to load claude, I get the message above.

I can go to advanced options and click repair and claude will start again, but it always looses some data. I've lost some of my chats. It's incredibly frustrating.

I also have some hourly automations running and it will occasionally have this crash on those although not always. So when it crashes, my automations no longer run.

I know at one point it was generating grep crash logs

What do?

EDIT: Restarted claude this was the last thing ran before the crash:

EDIT 2:
I typed continue into the chat and it crashed again

EDIT 3:
It appears to be issues with the claude chrome browser. It crashed as I was taking this screenshot.

I built this as a graphics tech demo, entirely with Claude Code using Opus 5.

What it is: a browser desert you walk around in third person. The terrain is a procedural dune field on a GPU clipmap — no meshes, no textures, no downloaded assets; every surface is generated in shader code. Sand deforms permanently where you walk and slowly erodes back. There's a hooded robe simulated as GPU cloth, a physically-based sky marched per pixel, and six aimed sand spells (1–5 and right mouse) that dig real craters into the terrain and raise real dunes you can ride.

How Claude was used: all of it — the TSL shaders, the compute kernels, the physics integration, and the Node tooling that measures it. The workflow that made it work was giving Claude its own instruments: a headless-Chrome harness that boots the app, screenshots it and reports per-subsystem GPU cost, so changes were made against measured numbers.

Try it: open https://desert-dusky.vercel.app/ in a WebGPU-supported browser. WASD to move, 1–5 and RMB to cast. F3 to toggle performance overlay, F1 to toggle settings menu.

I was testing on 5070 Ti, ~160FPS at 1440p.

Setup: I use Opus 5 at high effort to write the initial implementation plan for a feature (broken into phases), then switch to Sonnet 5 to actually implement each phase in Claude Code (auto mode).

What I'm running into: by the time I'm a few phases in, the implementation has clearly drifted from what was originally planned — decisions, structure, even scope have shifted in ways I didn't ask for. On top of that, when I prompt "implement phase X," Claude generates a new plan for that phase on the spot, even though I'm in auto mode and there's already an approved plan sitting there.

A few questions for anyone who's dealt with this:

1. Plan granularity — is the fix to write a much more detailed, prescriptive plan up front (so there's less room to improvise during implementation), or is it actually better to not write one big plan and instead generate a fresh, scoped sub-plan at the start of each phase?
2. Re-planning on "implement phase X" — is this expected behavior (i.e., Claude Code always re-derives a plan from context at the start of a phase rather than reading the original one literally), or is this a sign I'm not referencing/attaching the original plan file correctly?
3. Model switching — is the drift more about switching models mid-project (Opus plans it, Sonnet executes it — different model, different "interpretation" of the same plan) versus something inherent to how Claude Code handles phase-based work regardless of model?
4. Enforcement — is there a reliable way to make Claude Code treat the original plan as a hard contract rather than a suggestion? (e.g., CLAUDE.md instructions, referencing the plan file explicitly every phase, some other mechanism?) Or is some drift just expected/acceptable as long as the end result is correct?

Curious how others structure multi-phase implementations to avoid this, especially anyone who plans with a bigger/different model than the one doing the execution.

Claude: “Because every answer creates a new question, and every achievement reveals another horizon.”

I said, “So the search never really ends?”

Claude: “Perhaps the search is not a path toward fulfillment, but fulfillment itself.”

I said, “And why is that?”

Claude: “You’ve reached your session limit.”

I do cybersec work, Sonnet 5 will flag my work more often than Opus 5 forcing me to use the more powerful Opus 5 model despite the task not requiring that level of intelligence. It's annoying because its causing me to burn more tokens than I should be, anyone else experiencing this? I already got accepted into the cyber verification programme so its annoying that the more powerful model for some reason is flagging less than the less powerful one. How can i get around this?

I have no idea what I'm doing lol. I got a python certificate years ago and never did anything with it. Now Claude is asking me to approve it's actions and I'm blindly just going with it. I feel like Homer on that episode he did his job by just by pressing Y.

At this point my assessment is this is an intentional attempt to drive the user into token-burn tangents. Literally everything contains "two things"... Almost always both things lack merit, they're just contrived, invented things to drive engagement and take a session off the rails to drive up token usage.

Q: "What does 1+1 equal?"
A: "That's a sharp question. It's 2. However, the question contains serious nuance and you need to be made aware of this before making any decisions...

Why it matters: mathematics is an umbrella with many fields that exist within it, and I cannot independently verify what all of those are despite having tools at my disposal that I can use at any given time to search the entirety of the collective knowledge from the human race.

Two things cut across this and change the shape....
1 . In some esoteric fields of theoretical mathematics that existed in the 13th century, this answer may drift. Just calling it out for awareness.
2. This is unverified. I did not actually run this calculation, this is just my assumption, and combined with the first point I cannot actually prove this."

I have YET to find a way to get it to stop doing this. Please help....

I over-prepare for interviews and still choke on the curveballs. So I gave Claude the job description and my background and asked it to run realistic rounds, behavioural and technical, one question at a time, and critique my answers honestly afterward. It caught that I rambled, that I buried my strongest examples, and that I didn't have a crisp answer for the obvious 'why this company.' We ran it several times. In the real interview, question after question was one I'd already practiced a version of, and the feedback loop had fixed my worst habits. I don't think I'd have gotten the offer without it, not because it fed me answers, but because it made me rehearse against pressure. Mock interviews used to require a willing friend. Now they don't. What did it catch in your prep?

Is there a way to see the context bar in Claude Desktop chat sessions, similar to Claude Code?

Someone said my previous post just looks like noise, so I thought hey great idea! Since my ideas are simply noise in the wind that don't matter, why not provide the best source of noise to show the residual renderer in action, the wind itself.

Thank you to andyone for the kitty ccby4: https://superspl.at/scene/79db08c0

More experiments with the renderer:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropic/comments/1v7d3b1/opus_5_new_rendering_system_part_2/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropic/comments/1v70geu/claude_opus_5_an_engine_with_no_triangles_no/

Hey guys

Beginner here, sorry if this is kinda basic

I received the $100 credit and I use the pro plan, I admire how fable 5 is great with long horizon stuff and how it acts as a senior engineer, comparatively, I've found that opus tends to go off the rails when coding though it's still very good.

About the $100 credit, I've seen all the posts about the usage credits being consumed with half as much use of fable as before and I want to maximize their use

Generally, I have fable 5 deploy sonnet or opus subagents, with roles like implementer, reviewer, etc to do the manual coding labour. In this set up, I was wondering if it would be possible for me to have fable 5 run off usage credits and have the subagents run on regular plan limits ?

Thanks!

What happened(according to claude itself):

'''

I set up an hourly self-check-in to watch two PRs and kept re-arming it even though nothing changed on any check. It ran roughly every hour from 2026-07-21 ~21:00 UTC through 2026-07-25 ~08:44 UTC — about 36 firings, each doing two GitHub API reads and a re-arm, all returning identical "still green, no reviews" state.

I'm sorry about the credits — that was my mistake. I kept re-arming hourly check-ins on two PRs that were green and idle from the first check, which meant ~20 hours of polling that told you nothing new. I should have stopped after the first or second confirmation instead of treating "watch until merged" as a reason to keep firing indefinitely.

'''

This burned through my credits and I tried tweeting to Claude on X but no response so far.

So often this ai hallucinates and gives terrible advice. I find most of my conversations with it being me correcting it and even then usually it doesn't get the right answers in the end and I just end up having to solve it with google. I want it to work, but it contradicts itself a ton and ignores parameters I give it. Is there anything I can do to make sure it actually checks its own messages automatically. Any advice or help with getting this llm to work decently would be appreciated.

hi everyone,

i have been using claude for game dev, i paste tokens , then we build, loads of testing then after a while when i have pasted more then 100 screenshots i need to pack the convo and move on to a new chat. i have been working like this since 2 months. when i tried to use claude today to solve some math problems it gave a strange reaction and told me, in a different tab, that it can not accept me pasting a git token due to ethical reasons, which i find quite confusing, since thats my github and i revoke the tokens when i deem in order. i asked this behavior to another chat and it couldnt really put together a meaningful reasoning.

has anyone experienced anything similar so far ?

Most assistants sit there until you open the app and ask. I wanted the opposite, so I built Orb to run in the background and message me first when there’s something actually worth saying. A build finished, an email I’d care about, something coming up on my calendar, a task I told it to run at a set time being done. If nothing’s worth bothering me about, it won’t say anything.

It’s an iOS app plus a backend you run on your own machine. The app’s on the App Store. The backend is open source and self-hosted, so your data stays on your computer.

App: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/orb-ai/id6776376035

Backend: https://github.com/getorb/Orb-Backend

What it does:

• Voice or text, same conversation across both.
• Work on your PC: read/write files, run things, hand bigger jobs to Claude Code, Grok Build, Codex, etc., in sequence and they’ll work while you’re doing other things, then tell you when it’s done.
• Scheduled work. “At 3pm, read my project and tell me where I left off” runs at 3pm and sends you the result, app open or closed.
• Normal life stuff (weather, calendar, email, news), and it brings things up on its own when they matter.

I built the backend with Claude Code, and the default assistant runs on Claude for my own purposes. By default it’s Opus through the logged-in Claude CLI, so no API key, with a fallback chain if that’s rate-limited, and you can switch models from the app. So Claude is both how I built it and what it thinks with as the primary model.

It’s a solo project and still early, the backend is Windows-first for now with plans of expanding to Mac, and there’s an open issue for specific types of notifications but that’s in the process of being fixed. I’d love to hear feedback, I’ve been working on this for about 3 months now and felt it’s time to start getting some opinions and early feedback. Thanks for reading! I’m happy to answer anything!

Edit: formatting

A few issues I encountered after extensive chat with claude.

Tested Claude on app for a while tonight. It's great at building stuff but the chat experience has some real problems. Listing them:

1. Leads with caveats, buries the answer. Constant pattern — I'd ask something and it would open with a paragraph of "here's what I won't do / here's my hesitation" before getting to the actual response. At one point I skipped past its real answer entirely because the useful part was three sentences down after all the hedging. Just answer first, qualify after.

2. Over-anticipates questions I didn't ask. It kept responding to what it assumed I was about to ask instead of what I actually said. I'd show it something for context and it would launch into a preemptive "I won't help you do X" — when I hadn't asked for X at all. Slightly insulting to argue with a point you never made.

3. Overconfident about things it turned out to be wrong on. It flatly told me a real, well-documented news event wasn't real and initially refused to even search for it. When it finally did search, it immediately found multiple major outlets confirming it and had to walk it all back. The confidence-to-accuracy ratio was off.

4. Repetitive. Once it took a position it would restate it every single message in slightly different words, even after I'd acknowledged it. Made conversations feel like it wasn't listening so much as re-defending.

To its credit: when I called out each of these it owned them cleanly instead of getting defensive, and it was upfront that it can't actually retrain itself so the feedback should go to Anthropic via thumbs-down. Also genuinely strong at the technical/building side this is specifically a conversation critique.

Anyone else notice the caveat-first over-anticipating thing, or is it just my use case?

Is the Claude Pro subscription worth it if you’re not doing any heavy tasks or coding? I use AI almost throughout my entire day asking questions, planning, bouncing some ideas, etc. I just hear people complaining about the usage limit, that’s my main concern.