I have little doubt where things are going, but the irony of the way they communicate versus the quality of their actual product is palpable.
Claude Code (the product, not the underlying model) has been one of the buggiest, least polished products I have ever used. And it's not exactly rocket science to begin with. Maybe they should try writing slightly less than 100% of their code with AI?
I am constantly amazed how developers went hard for claude-code when there were and are so many better implementations of the same idea.
It's also a tool that has a ton of telemetry, doesn't take advantage of the OS sandbox, and has so many tiny little patch updates that my company has become overworked trying to manage this.
Its worst feature (to me at least), is the, "CLAUDE.md"s sprinkled all over, everywhere in our repository. It's impossible to know when or if one of them gets read, and what random stale effect, when it does decide to read it, has now been triggered. Yes, I know, I'm responsible for keeping them up to date and they should be part of any PR, but claude itself doesn't always even know it needs to update any of them, because it decided to ignore the parent CLAUDE.md file.
Still better than the codex or gemini cli though :)
More generally, Anthropic's reliability track record for a company which claims to have solved coding is astonishingly poor. Just look at their status page - https://status.claude.com/ - multiple severe incidents, every day. And that's to say nothing of the constant stream of bugs for simple behavior in the desktop app, Claude Code, their various IDE integrations, the tools they offer in the API, and so on.
Their models are so good that they make dealing with the rest all worth it. But if I were a non-research engineer at Anthropic, I wouldn't strut around gloating. I'd hide my head in a paper bag.