>> What if the white hat AI introduces the vulnerabilities?

Always possible of course but I find that the LLM's are better at writing robust code than most humans. Yesterday I was working to make a basic login page for a web app. After I got it working I asked the AI how I could make it more resistant against hacking and it came up with a long list of improvements. Brute force protection, cookie security, session binding, idle timeout, concurrent session limits, login anomaly detection, etc., etc. Very helpful.

It's a hassle to pick and choose from the various models I agree. I'm using the Windsurf IDE and recently they came up with an "adaptive" model picker that supposedly sends your prompt to the best model for the task. I was using it yesterday and got good results, no telling which model or mix of them were doing the work.

I am thinking it costs them a gigantic amount of compute resources to run Opus 4.6. In my experience though, it is the premium model for coding and in many cases worth the extra price.

Claude can be slow I agree. But I submit that is because so many people are demanding to use it.

I work with other models too and get good results at times but if it is something particularly difficult the Anthropic models tend to do a better job for me.

"In the last few weeks, Mythos Preview has identified thousands of zero-day vulnerabilities with many classified as critical."

We are moving into a scenario where there's a race for extremely capable white hat AI to identify the existing vulnerabilities and try to plug them, and black hat to find and exploit them. I think this is a good move to try and get the white team ahead of the game. There's a possible apocalypse here.

I generally use Sonnet, it is very capable for most things and cheaper. If it gets stuck or starts to struggle I switch to the better model.

The Claude models are the best by far for coding assistance in my experience. Apparently a lot of other people think so too because Anthropic is getting swamped. They are having to ration out their compute resources and in some cases have raised their fees to 2-3 times more than the lesser competition charges. I'm finding that in order to keep costs down I'm having to use 2nd-tier models for simpler work and revert to Claude for the heavy lifting. A hassle.

Clearly the demand is there. At this point I expect Anthropic is revenue-limited by their infrastructure availability so it makes sense that they recruit the big players to help beef it up.

>> Was giving you an out

That's an obvious lie, and I stand by my statement.

>> you showed nothing

Another obvious lie. I merely showed something you didn't like.

Lol, now you're accusing me of not writing my own posts here? Hilarious!

>> The competition is easily keeping up with Claude Code

Show evidence. Like I did.

"Claude Code has gone from zero to be the #1 tool in only eight months."

https://newsletter.pragmaticen...

Looks like OpenCode is #7.

There are some significant advantages over Python. JavaScript on Node.js (or Bun in this case) is inherently event-driven. TypeScript gives strong typing on top of that. And apparently Bun can package up an app into a standalone executable, also unlike Python. I'm going to have a look at Bun, seems powerful.

My sense of it is that this code is not the LLM itself, it is the infrastructure and interface layer between the user and the LLM. But even so, there's a lot of expensive work that has been exposed. At the very least it will give the competition some ideas.

>> That's because I know better.

You obviously don't know a damn thing, lol.