I do think I do a good job of being very structured at breaking down my requirements and acceptance criteria (thanks dual lives as a devops and SRE guy and then PM). Extensive unit testing, discipline in use of sessions and memories and asking it to think of questions it should be asking me before even formulating a plan.

On the other hand, I think Claude is more friendly/readable and also still better at producing out-of-the-box nice looking frontend.

I think this is where we might have differing opinions. I'm a CTO by profession and I know what bad code is, so it is quite easy for me, based on my professional experience, point out when Claude generates bad code. And when you point it out, or ask it why it didn't take the correct/simpler approach - the response is always along the lines of "Oops, sorry!" or "You're absolutely right to question that..."

I’m so confused. Your link shows they are pushing for guardrails, what is bad about that? It is consistent with Anthropic safety-first principles, and what Dario wrote and talked about for the past decade or so? Could you be more direct with your criticism? Otherwise it’s hard to engage with

> ChatGPT most of the time one-shots complex solutions in comparison

is an intelligible sentence.

Paraphrased: ChatGPT often completes complex solutions in one try whereas Claude does not (or performs less well).

I guess you can’t take me seriously?

I shit on OpenAI because they had a completely clear path to being dominant in consumer and enterprise, in chatbot and coding agent, and in text, image, and video. And somehow they screwed it up by being unfocused, unnecessarily slimy, drama-ridden, and slow to react to the market.

OpenAI has a lot of good tech and some good product. They may yet succeed. But they embody the lazy hare partying with celebs while the tortoises pull ahead in the race.