At Anthropic, the way that we thought about it is we don't build for the model of today, we build for the model six months from now.
That's actually like still my advice to founders that are building on LLMs.
Just try to think about like what is that frontier where the model is not very good at today?
Because it's gonna get good at it.
All of QuadCode has just been written and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten over and over and over.
There is no part of QuadCode that was around six months ago.
You try a thing, you give it to users, you talk to users, you learn.
And then eventually you might end up with a good idea, sometimes you don't.
Are you also in the back of your mind thinking that maybe like in six months you won't need to prompt that explicitly, that the model should be good enough to around its own?
No more need for plan mode in a month?
Welcome to another episode of The Light Cone, and today we have an extremely special guest, Boris Cherni, the creator, engineer of Claude Code.
Boris, thanks for joining us.
Thanks for creating a thing that has taken away my sleep for about three weeks straight.
I am very addicted to quad code and it feels like rocket boosters.
Has it felt like this for people like for you know months at this point?
I think it was like end of November is where a lot of my friends said like something changed.
I remember for me I felt this way when I first created quad code and I didn't yet know if I was onto something I kind of felt like I was onto something and then that's when I wasn't sleeping.
And that was just one was straight months.
Yeah, it was like three straight months I didn't take a single day vacation worked through the weekends worked every single night I was just like, oh my god.
This is I think this is gonna be a thing I don't know if it's useful yet Because it couldn't actually code yet if you look back on Those moments to now like what would be like the most surprising thing about this moment right now?
It's unbelievable that we're still using a terminal.
That was supposed to be the starting point.
I didn't think that would be the ending point.
And then the second one is that it's even useful.
Because, you know, at the beginning it didn't really write code.
Even in February when we gated, it wrote maybe like 10% of my code or something like that.
I didn't really use it to write code.
It wasn't very good at it.
I still wrote most of my code by hand.
So the fact that it actually like our bets paid off and it got good at the thing that we thought it was going to get good at because it wasn't obvious.
At Anthropic, the way that we thought about it is we don't build for the model of today.
We build for the model six months from now.
And that's actually like still my advice to founders that are building on LLMs is, you know, just try to think about like, what is that frontier where the model is not very good at today?
Because it's going to get good at it.
And you just have to wait.
going back but when do you remember when you first got the idea can you just talk us through that like was it something like a spark or what was even the first version of it in your mind.
It was so accidental that it just kind of evolved into this.
As anthropic, I think for Ant, the bed has been coding for a long time.
And the path to save AGI is through coding.
And this has kind of always been the idea.
And the way you get there is you teach the model how to code, then you teach it how to use tools, then you teach it how to use computers.
And you can kind of see that because the first team that I joined at Anthropic, it was called the Anthropic Labs team.
And it produced three products.
It was Quadcode, MCP, and the desktop app.
So you can kind of see how these like weave together.
The particular product that we built, you know, like no one asked me to build a CLI.
We kind of knew maybe it was time to build some kind of coding product because it seemed like the model was ready, but no one had yet really built the product that harnessed this capability.
So like still there's this insane feeling of product overhang, but at the time it was just like even crazier because like no one had built this yet.
And so I started like hacking around and I was like, okay, we build a coding product, what do I have to do first?
I have to understand how to use the API because I hadn't used the Anthropic API at that point.
And so I just feel like a little terminal app to use the API.
And it was a little chat app because, you know, like you think about the, you know, AI applications at the time and, you know, for non coders today, most, what are most people using is just a chat app.
And, you know, it was in a terminal.
then I think tool use came out.
I just want to try out tool use because I don't really understand what this is.
I was like, two years, this is cool.
You built it in turn or just because it was the easiest way to get something up and running?
Yes, because I didn't have to build a UI.
At that point, it was like the IDE's cursor windsurfed with the things that were really taking off.
Were you sort of under any pressure or getting lots of suggestions of, hey, we should build this out as a plug-in or as a fully-featured IDE itself?
There was no pressure because we didn't even know what we wanted to build.
The team was just an explore mode.
We know vaguely we wanted to do something in coding, but it wasn't obvious what.
No one was high confidence enough.
That was like my job to figure out.
And so I gave the model the bash tool.
That was the first tool that I gave it.
Just because I think that was literally the example in our docs.
It just like took the examples in Python.
I just ported it to TypeScript because that's how I wrote it.
You know, I didn't know like what the model could do with bash.
So I asked it to like read a file.
It could like cat the files.
And then I was like, okay, like, what can you actually do?
And I asked it, what music am I listening to?
You wrote some like Apple script to script my Mac and look up the music in my music player.
And, you know, like, I didn't think the model could do that.
And that was my first, I think, ever fuel the AGI moment.
Whereas it's like, oh my God, the model, it just wants to use tools.
That's kind of fascinating.
I mean, it's very kind of contrarian that Clocker works so well in such an elegant, simple form factor.
I mean, terminals happen around for a really long time and that seemed to be like a good design constraint that allowed a lot of interesting developer experiences.
It doesn't feel like working.
It just feels fun as a developer.
I don't think about files where everything is.
And that came by accident almost.
Yeah, it was an accident.
I remember, so after the terminal started to take off and turn away.
And honestly, like after building this thing, I think like two days after the first prototype, I started giving it to my team just for dog footing.
Because, you know, like, you know, if you come up with an idea and it seems useful, the first thing you want to do is you want to give it to people to see how they use it.
And then I came in the next day and then Robert, who sits across from me, he was another engineer, he just like had quad-code on his computer and he was like using it to code.
I was like, what are you doing?
Like this thing isn't ready, it's just a prototype.
But yeah, it was already useful in that form factor.
And I remember when we did our launch review to kind of launch quad-code externally, this was in December, November or something like that in 2024.
Dario asked and he was like the uses chart internally like the the doubt chart is like vertical are you like forcing engineers to use it like why are you mandating them.
And I was just like no no we didn't we did I just like posted about it and they just been like telling each other about it.
Honestly, it was just accidental.
We started with the CLA because it was the cheapest thing and it just kind of stayed there for a bit.
So in that 2024 period, how were the engineers using it?
Were they shipping code with it yet or were they using it in a different way?
The model is not very good at coding yet.
I was using it personally for automating Git.
I think at this point, I've probably forgotten most of my Git.
God of Code has just been doing it for so long.
But yeah, automating bash commands, that was a very early use case.
And operating Kubernetes and things like this.
People were using it for coding.
So there was some early signs of this.
I think the first use case was actually writing unit tests, because it's a little bit lower risk.
And the model was still pretty bad at it.
But people were kind of figuring it out and they were figuring out how to use this thing.
And one thing that we saw is people started writing these markdown files for themselves and then having the model read that markdown file.
And this is where QuadMD came from.
Probably the single, for me, biggest principle in product is latent demand.
And just every bit of this product is built through latent demand after their initial CLI.
And so QuadMD is an example of that.
There's this other general principle that I think is maybe interesting, where you can build for the model and then you can build scaffolding around the model in order to improve performance a little bit.
And depending on the domain, you can improve performance maybe 10, 20%, something like that.
And then essentially the gain is wiped out with the next model.
So either you can build the scaffolding and then, you know, get some performance gain and then rebuild it again, or you just wait for the next model and then you kind of get it for free.
The QuadMD and kind of the scaffolding is an example of that.
And really, I think that's why we stayed in the CLI is because we felt there is no UI we could build that would still be relevant in six months because the model was improving so quickly.
Earlier we were saying we should compare cloud MDs, but you said something very profound, which is yours is actually very short, which is almost like the opposite of what people might expect.
Okay, so I checked this before we came.
So my QuadMD has two things.
One is, it's just two lines.
So the first line is whenever you put up a PR, enable auto merge.
So as soon as someone accepts it, it's merged.
That's just so I can code and I don't have to kind of go back and forth with CR or whatever.
And then the second one is whenever I put up a PR posted in our internal team stamps channel, just so someone can stamp it and I can get unblocked.
And the idea is every other instruction is in our QuadMD that's checked into the codebase.
And it's something our entire team contributes to multiple times a week.
And very often I'll see someone's PR and they make some mistake that's totally preventable and I'll just literally tag quad on the PR.
I'll just do like add quad, add this to the quad MD and I'll do this many times a week.
Do you have to compact the quad MD?
I definitely reached a point where I got the message at the top saying, your quad MD is like thousands of tokens now.
What do you do when you guys hit that?
So our quad MD is actually pretty short.
I think it's like a couple thousand tokens or something like that.
If you hit this, my recommendation would be delete your QuadMD and just start fresh.
I think a lot of people like they try to over engineer this, right?
And really like the capability changes with every model.
And so the thing that you want is do the minimal possible thing in order to get the model on track.
And so if you delete your QuadMD and then, you know, the model is getting off track, it does the wrong thing.
That's when you kind of add back a little bit at a time.
And what you're probably going to find is with every model, you have to add less and less.
For me, I consider myself a pretty average engineer, to be honest.
Like, I don't use a lot of fancy tools.
Like, I don't use like Vim.
I use, you know, VS code because it's simpler.
I would have assumed that because you built this in the terminal that you were sort of like a diehard terminal, like Vim only person, you know, screw those VS code people, you know.
Well, we have people like that on the team.
You know, like Adam Wolf, for example, he's on the team.
He's like, you will never take them for my cold dead hands.
So there's definitely a lot of people like that on the team.
And this is one of the things that I learned early on is every engineer likes to hold their dev tools differently.
They like to use different tools.
There's just no one tool that works for everyone.
But I think also this is one of the things that makes it possible for Quad code to be so good because I kind of think about it as what is the product that I would use that makes sense to me.
And so to use quad code, you don't have to understand them.
You don't have to understand TMX.
You don't have to know how to, like, SSH.
You don't have to know all this stuff.
You just have to open up the tool and it will guide you.
It will do all this stuff.
How do you decide how verbose you want, like, sort of the terminal to be?
Like, sometimes you have to go, you know, control O and check it out.
And is it, like, internal bike shed battles around, like, longer, shorter?
I mean, every user probably has a different opinion.
Like, how do you make those sorts of decisions?
Is it two verbose right now?
Oh, I love the verbosity because basically sometimes it just like goes off the deep end and I'm watching and then I can just read very quickly.
And it's like, oh, no, no, it's not that.
And then I escape and then just stop it.
And then it just like stops an entire bug farm like as it's happening.
I mean, that's usually when I didn't do plan mode properly.
This is something that we probably change pretty often.
I remember early on this is maybe six months ago.
I tried to get rid of bash output just internally just to like summarize it because I was like these giant long bash commands I don't actually care and then I give it to anthropic employees for a day and everyone just revolted I want to see my dash because it actually is quite useful for
You know, like for something like git output, maybe it's not useful.
But if you're running, you know, like Kubernetes jobs or something like this, you actually do want to see it.
We recently hit the, hid the file reads and file searches.
So you'll notice instead of saying, you know, like red food.md, it'll said, you know, like red one file search, searched one pattern.
And this is something I think we could not have shipped six months ago, because the model just was not ready.
You would have, you know, it's still read the wrong thing pretty often.
As a user, you still have to be there and kind of catch it and debug it.
But nowadays, I just noticed it's on the ray track almost every time.
And because it's using tools so much, it's actually a lot better just to summarize it.
But then we shipped it, we dog-fooded it for like a month, and then people on GitHub didn't like it.
So there was a big issue where people were like, no, I want to see the details, and that was really great feedback.
And so we added a new verbose mode.
And so that's just like in slash config, you can enable verbose mode.
And if you want to see all the file outputs, you can continue to do that.
And then I post on the issue, and people still didn't like it, which is, again, awesome, because my favorite thing in the world is just hearing people's feedback and hearing how they actually want to use it.
And so we just like iterated more and more and more to get that really good and to make it the thing that people want.
I'm amazed like how much I enjoy fixing bugs now.
And then all you have to do is have really good logging and then even just say like, hey, check out that, you know, this particular object, it messed up in this way and it like searches the log, it figures everything out.
It can like go into your, you can make a production tunnel and look at your production DB for you.
Bug fixing is just going to century copy mark down.
Pretty soon it's just going to be straight MCP.
It's like an auto bug fixing and test making sort of, what's the new term they call it?
Making a startup factory.
There's all these concepts now of rather than having to review the code.
I'm old school, so I like the verbosity.
I like to say, oh, well, you're doing this, but I want you to do that.
But there's a totally different school of thought now that says, like anytime a real human being has to look at code, that's bad.
I think like Dan Chipper talks about this a lot.
Whenever you see the model make a mistake, try to put it in the Quad MD, try to put it in skills or something like this that's reasonable.
But I think there's this meta point that I actually struggle with a lot and people talk about like agents can do this agents can do that but actually what agents can do it changes with every single model.
And so sometimes there's a new person that joins the team and they actually use quad code more than I would have used it.
And I'm just constantly surprised by this.
For example, we had a memory leak, and we were trying to debug it.
And by the way, Jared Sumner has just been on this crusade killing all the memory leaks.
And it's just been amazing.
But before Jared was on the team, I had to do this.
And there was this memory leak.
I was trying to debug it.
And so I took a heap dump.
I was looking through the profile.
Then I was looking through the code.
And I was just trying to figure this out.
And then another engineer on the team, Chris,
he just, like, asked Quadcode.
He was like, hey, I think there's a memory leak.
Can you, like, do this and then, like, try to figure it out?
And Quadcode, like, took the heap dump, it wrote a little tool for itself to, like, analyze the heap dump.
And then it found the leak faster than I did.
And this is just something I have to constantly relearn because my brain is still stuck somewhere six months ago at times.
So what would be some advice for technical founders to really become maximalists at the latest model release?
It sounds like people off of, fresh off of school or that don't have any assumptions might be better suited than maybe sometimes engineers who have been working at it for a long time.
And how do the experts get better?
I think for yourself, it's kind of beginner mindset and I don't know, maybe just like humility.
Like I feel like engineers as a discipline, we've learned to have very strong opinions and senior engineers are kind of rewarded for this.
In my old job at a big company, when I hired like architects and it's kind of a type of engineer, you look for people that have a lot of experience and really strong opinions.
But it actually turns out a lot of this stuff just isn't relevant anymore.
And a lot of these opinions should change because the model is getting better.
So I think actually the biggest skill is people that can think scientifically and can just think from first principles.
How do you screen for that when you try to hire someone now for your team?
I sometimes ask about what's an example of when you're wrong.
You know, some of these like classic behavioral questions, like not even coding questions I think are quite useful, because you can see if people can recognize their mistake in hindsight, if they can claim credit for the mistake, and if they learn something from it.
And I think a lot of these like very senior people, especially there are some founder types like this, but I think founders in particular are actually quite good at it.
But other people sometimes will never really take, they'll never take the blame for a mistake.
But I don't know like for me personally I'm wrong probably half the time like half my ideas are bad and you just have to try stuff and you know you try thing you give it to users you talk to users you learn and then eventually you might end up at a good idea sometimes you don't and this is the skill that I think in in the past was very important for founders, but now I think it's very important for every engineer and
Do you think you would ever hire someone based on the cloud code transcript of them working with the agent?
Because we're actively doing that right now.
We just added just as a test, like you can upload a transcript of you coding a feature with cloud code or codex or whatever it is.
Personally, I think that like it's going to work.
I mean, you can figure out how someone thinks like whether they're looking at the logs or not.
Like can they correct the agent if it goes off the rails?
Like do they use plan mode?
You know, when they use plan mode, do they
make sure that there are tests or, you know, all of these different things that, you know, do they think about systems?
Do they even understand systems?
Like, there's just so much that's sort of embedded in that that I imagine, I just want like a spider, a spider web graph, you know, like in those video games, like NBA 2K, and it's like, oh, this person's really good at shooting or defense.
It's like, you can imagine a spider web graph of like, you know, someone's clawed code skill level.
Yeah, what would the skills be?
What would be those assets?
I think it's like systems, testing, must be like user behavior.
I mean, there's got to be a design part for sure.
Maybe also just like automating stuff.
My favorite thing in Cloud MD for me is I have a thing that says for every plan, decide whether it's over engineered, under engineered or perfectly engineered and why.
I think this is something that we're trying to figure out too, because I think when I look at engineers on the team that I think are the most effective, there's essentially two, it's very bimodal.
There's one side where it's extreme specialists.
And so like I named Jared before, like he's a really good example of this.
And kind of the bun team is a really good example.
Just hyper specialists, they understand DevTools better than anyone else.
They understand JavaScript runtime systems better than anyone else.
And then there's the flip side of kind of hyper generalists and that's kind of the rest of the team.
And a lot of people, they span like product and info or product and design or, you know, like product and user research product and business.
I really like to see people that just do weird stuff.
I think that's one of these things that was kind of a warning sign in the past because it's like can these people actually build something useful?
Yeah, that's what it must ask.
But nowadays, like for example, an engineer on the team Daisy, she was on a different team and then she transferred on to our team.
And the reason that I wanted her to transfer is she put up a PR for cloud code like a couple of weeks after she joined or something.
And the PR was to add a new feature to cloud code.
And then instead of just adding the feature, what she did is first she put up a PR to give cloud code a tool so that it can test an arbitrary tool and verify that that works.
And then she put up that PR.
And then she had Quad write its own tool instead of herself implementing it.
And I think it's this kind of out of the box thinking that is just so interesting because not a lot of people get it yet.
You know, like we use the Quad agent SDK to automate pretty much every part of development.
It automates code review, security review, it labels over issues, it shepherds things to production.
It does pretty much everything for us.
But I think externally, I'm seeing a lot of people start to figure this out, but it's actually taken a while to figure out how do you use LMS in this way?
How do you use this new kind of automation?
So it's kind of a new skill.
I guess one of the funnier things that I've been having office hours with various founders about is you have the visionary founder who has the idea they've built this crystal palace of the product that they want to build.
They've totally loaded in their brain.
You know who the user is and what they feel and what they're motivated by and then they're sitting in cloud code and they can do like, you know, 50x work and then but they have engineers who work for them who like don't have the crystal memory palace of like the platonic ideal of the product that the founder has and they can only do like 5x work.
Are you hearing stories like that?
There's usually a person who's like the core like designer of a thing and they're just like, you know, trying to blast it out of their brain.
What's the nature of like teams like that?
You know, it seems like that's almost a stable configuration.
Like you're going to have the visionary who like now is unleashed, but you know, maybe going back to the top of it, like I'm experiencing this right now.
It's like, oh, well, I'm only a solo person.
And, you know, I need to eat and sleep and I have, you know, a whole job.
It's like, how am I going to do this, you know?
You know, like we just launch quad teams and, you know, this is a way to do it, but you can also just build your own way to do it.
What's the vision for cloud teams?
There's this whole new field of agent apologies that people are exploring.
What are the ways they can configure agents?
There's this one sub-idea which is uncorrelated context windows, and the idea is just multiple agents.
They have fresh context windows that aren't essentially polluted with each other's context or their own previous context.
And if you throw more context at a problem, that's a form of test time compute.
And so you just get more capability that way.
And then if you have the right topology on top of it, so the agents can communicate in the right way, they're laid out in the right way, then they can just build bigger stuff.
And so Teams is kind of like one idea.
There's a few more that are coming pretty soon.
And the idea is just maybe it can build a little bit more.
I think the first kind of big example where it worked is our plugins feature was entirely built by a swarm over a weekend.
It just ran for like a few days.
There wasn't really human intervention.
And plugins is pretty much in the form that it was when it came out.
Like, did you spec out sort of the outcome that you were hoping for and then let it sort of figure out the details and then, like, let it run?
Yeah, an engineer on the team just gave Quad a spec and told Quad to use a Asana board.
And then Quad just put up a bunch of tickets on Asana and then spawned a bunch of agents and the agents started picking up tasks.
The main Quad just gave it instructions and they all just figured it out.
The independent agents that didn't have the context of the bigger spec, right?
If you think about the way that, you know, like how are agents actually started nowadays?
And, you know, I haven't pulled the data on this, but I would bet the majority of agents are actually prompted by quad today in the form of sub agents.
Because like a sub agent is just like a recursive quad code.
That's all it is in the code.
And it's just prompted by, we call her mama quad.
And I think probably if you look at most agents, they're launched in this way.
My Claude insights just told me to do this more for debugging so that I get like, I spent a lot of time on debugging and it would just be better to have like multiple sub agents spin up and like debug something in parallel.
And so then I just like added that to my Claude MD to just be like, Hey, like next time you try and fix a bug like.
have one agent that looks in the log, like one that looks in the code path, that just seems sort of inevitable.
For weird scary bugs, I tried to fix bugs in plan mode, and then it seems to use the agents to sort of search everything.
Whereas when you're just trying to do it in line, it's like, okay, I'm gonna do this one task instead of search wide.
This is something I do all the time too.
I just say, if the task seems kind of hard, this kind of research task, I'll calibrate the number of sub-agents I ask it to use based on the difficulty of the task.
So if it's really hard, I'll say use three or maybe five or even 10 subagents, research in parallel, and then see what they come up with.
I'm curious, so then why don't you put that in your cloud MD file?
It's kind of case by case.
Quad MD, it's just a shortcut.
If you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over, you put in the quad MD.
But otherwise, you don't have to put everything there.
You can just prompt quad.
Are you also in the back of your mind thinking that maybe like in six months you won't need to prompt that explicitly, that the model should be good enough to go out on its own?
No more need for plan mode in a month?
I think plan mode probably has a limited lifespan.
That's some alpha for everyone here.
What would the world look like without plan mode?
Do you just describe it at the prompt level and it would just do it one shot at?
Yeah, we've started experimenting with this because cloud code can now enter plan mode by itself.
I don't know if you guys have seen that.
So we're trying to kind of get this experience really good.
So it would enter plan mode the same point where a human would have wanted to enter it.
So I think it's something like this.
But actually plan mode, there's no big secret to it.
All it does is it adds one sentence to the prompt that's like, please don't code.
You can actually just say that.
So it sounds like a lot of the feature development for Clock Code is very much when we talk about OIC, talk to your users and then you come and implement it.
It wasn't the other way that you had this master plan and then implemented all the features.
I mean, that's all it was like plan mode was we saw users that were like, hey, Claude, come up with an idea, plan this out, but don't write any code yet.
And there was kind of various versions of this.
Sometimes it was just talking through an idea.
Sometimes it was these very sophisticated specs that they were asking Claude to write.
But the common dimension was do a thing without coding yet.
And so literally, this was like Sunday night at 10 p.m.
I was just looking at GitHub issues and kind of seeing what people were talking about and looking at our internal Slack feedback channel.
And I just wrote this thing in like 30 minutes and then shipped it that night.
It went out Monday morning in those plan modes.
So do you mean that there'll be no need for plan mode in the sense of I'm worried that the model is going to do the wrong thing or head off in the wrong direction, but there will still be a need for that?
you need to think through the idea and figure out exactly what it is that you want, and you have to do that somewhere.
I kind of think about it in terms of increasing model capabilities.
So maybe six months ago, a plan was insufficient.
So you get clod to make a plan.
Was it even with plan mode?
You still have to kind of sit there and maybe sit, because it can go off track.
Nowadays, what I do is probably 80% of my sessions, I say plan mode has a limited lifespan, but I'm a heavy plan mode user.
Probably 80% of my sessions, I start in plan mode, and it'll start making a plan, I'll move on to my second terminal tab, and then I'll have it make another plan, and then when I run out of tabs, I open the desktop app, and then I go to the code tab, and then I just start a bunch of tabs there, and they all start in plan mode, probably 80% of the time.
Once the plan is good and sometimes it takes a little back and forth, they just get Quad to execute.
And nowadays what I find with Opus 4.5, I think it started with 4.6, they got really good.
Once the plan is good, it just stays on track and it'll just do the thing exactly right, almost every time.
And so, you know, before you had to babysit after the plan and before the plan, now it's just before the plan.
So maybe the next thing is you just won't have to babysit.
You can just kind of give a prompt and Quad will figure it out.
The next step is Cloud just speaks to your users directly.
It just bypasses you entirely.
It's funny, this is actually the current stuff for us.
Our Clouds actually, they talk to each other, they talk to our users on swag, at least internally pretty often.
My Cloud will tweet once in a while, but I actually deleted.
It's just like, it's a little like cheesy.
Like, I don't love the tone.
What does it want to tweet about?
Sometimes it'll just like respond to someone because I always have like co-work running in the background.
And it's like, it's the co-work cloud that really loves to do that because it likes using a browser.
A really common pattern is I ask what to build something.
It'll look in the code base.
It'll see some engineer touch something in the Git flame.
And then it'll message that engineer on Slack, just like asking a clarifying question.
And then once it gets the answer back, it'll keep going.
What are some tips for founders now on how to build for the future?
Sounds like everything is really changing.
What are some principles that will stay on and what will change?
So I think some of these are pretty basic, but I think they're even more important now than they were before.
One example is latent demand.
I mentioned it a thousand times for me.
It's just the single biggest idea in product.
It's a thing that no one understands.
It's a thing I certainly did not understand my first few startups.
The idea is people will only do a thing that they already do.
You can't get people to do a new thing.
If people are trying to do a thing and you make it easier, that's a good idea.
But if people are doing a thing and you try to make them do a different thing, they're not going to do that.
And so you just have to make the thing that they're trying to do easier.
And I think Quad is going to get increasingly good at kind of figuring out these kind of product ideas for you just because it can look at feedback.
It can look at debug logs.
It kind of figured this out.
That's what you mean by a plan mode was latent demand that people already like, and it had their claw chat window open in the browser and were like talking to it to figure out like the spec and what it should do.
And now is that like plan mode just became that you just do it in Claude code.
Sometimes what I'll do is I'll just walk around the office on our floor and I'll just kind of stand behind people.
I'll say, like, hi, so it's awkward.
And then I'll just see kind of like how they're using quad code.
And this is also just something I saw a lot.
But it also came up in GitHub issues, like people were talking about it.
It seems like your surprise how far the terminal has gone and how far it's been perished.
How far do you think it has left to go?
Just given with this world of swore multiple agents, do you think there's going to be a need for a different UI on top of it?
It's funny, if you asked me this a year ago, I would have said the terminal has like a three month lifespan and then we're going to move on to the next thing.
And you can see us experimenting with this, right?
Because quad code started in a terminal, but now it's in, you know, it's on web, you can like, it's in the desktop app, you know, we've had that for, you know, like three months or six months or something, just in the code tab.
It's in the iOS and Android apps, just like in the code tab.
It's in Slack, it's in GitHub, there's VS Code extensions, there's JetBrains extensions.
So we're just like, we're always experimenting with different form factors for this thing to figure out what's the next thing.
I've been wrong so far about the lifespan of the CLI, so I'm probably not the person to forecast that.
What about your advice to DevTool founders?
Someone's building a DevTool company today.
Should they just be building for engineers and humans, or should they be thinking more about what Claude's going to think and want and build for the agent?
The way I would frame it is, think about the thing that the model wants to do and figure out how do you make that easier?
And that's something that we saw, you know, like when I first started hacking on cloud code, I realized like this thing just wants to use tools, it just wants to interact with the world.
And how do you, how do you enable that?
Well, the way you don't do it is you put it in a box and you're like, here's the API, here's how you interact with me and here's how you interact with the world.
The way you do it is you see what tools it wants to use, you see what it's trying to do and you enable that the same way that you do for your users.
And so like for, if you're building a DevTool startup, I would think about like, what is the problem you want to solve for the user?
And then when you apply the model to solving this problem, what is the thing the model wants to do?
And then what is the technical and product solution that serves the latent demand of both?
YC's next batch is now taking applications.
Apply at ycombinator.com slash apply.
It's never too early and filling out the app will level up your idea.
Back in the day, more than 10 years ago, you were a very heavy user and you wrote a book about TypeScript, right?
Before TypeScript was cool.
This is when everyone was deep in JavaScript.
This is back in early 2010s, right?
Yeah, something like that.
Before TypeScript was a thing because back then is a very weird language.
It's not supposed to do a lot of things with being typed in JavaScript and now is the right thing.
And it feels like Cloud Code in the terminal has a lot of parallels with TypeScript at the beginning.
TypeScript makes a lot of really weird language decisions.
So if you look at the type system, pretty much anything can be a literal type, for example.
And this is super weird, because even though Haskell doesn't even do this, it's too extreme, or it has conditional types, which I don't think any language thought of at all.
It was very strongly typed.
Yeah, it was very strongly.
And the idea was like when, you know, like when Joe Pamer and Anders and the early team was like building this thing, the way they built it is we, okay, we have these teams with these big untyped JavaScript code bases.
We have to get types in there, but we're not going to get engineers to change that the way that they code.
You're not going to get JavaScript people to have like, you know, 15 layers of class inheritance, like you would a Java programmer.
They're going to write code the way they're going to write it.
They're going to use a reflection and they're going to use mutation and they're going to use all these features that traditionally are very, very difficult to type.
They're a very unsafe type to any strong functional programmer really.
And so the thing that they did, instead of getting people to kind of change the way that they code, they, they built a type system around this.
And it was just, it's brilliant because there's all these ideas that no one was thinking about.
Even in academia, like no one thought of a bunch of these ideas.
It purely came out of the practice of observing people and seeing how JavaScript programmers want to write code.
And so, you know, for, for quad code, there, there are some ideas that are kind of similar in that, you know, like you can use it like a unix utility.
In some ways, it is kind of rigorous in this way, but in almost every other way, it's just the tool that we wanted.
I build the tool for myself, and then the team builds the tool for themselves, and then for anthropic employees, and then for users.
And it just ends up being really useful.
It's not this principled and academic thing.
Which I think the proof is actually in the results.
Now, fast forward more than 15 years later.
Not many code bases are in Haskell, which is more academic.
And there's tons of them now on TypeScript, because it's way more practical, which is interesting.
Yeah, it is interesting, right?
It's like TypeScript solves a problem.
I guess one thing that's cool, I don't know how many people know, but the terminal is actually one of the most beautiful terminal apps out there and is actually written with React terminal.
When I first started building it, I did front-end engineering for a while.
I'm sort of like a hybrid.
I do design and user research and write code and all this stuff.
We love hiring engineers that are like this, so we love generalists.
For me, it's like, okay, I'm building a thing for the terminal.
I'm actually kind of a shitty Vim user.
So like how do I build a thing for people like me that you know are gonna be working in a terminal and I think just the delight is so important and I think that why see this is something you talk about a lot, right?
It's like build a thing that people love if the product is useful, but you don't fall in love with it That's not great.
So it kind of has to do both
Designing for the terminal honestly has been hard, right?
It's like 80 by 100 characters or whatever, you have like 256 covers, you have one font size, you don't have like mouse interactions.
There's all this stuff you can't do and there's all these very hard trade-offs.
So like a little known thing for example is you can actually enable mouse interactions in a terminal so you can enable like clicking and stuff.
Oh, how do you do that in quad code?
I've been trying to figure out how to do this.
We don't have it in quad code because we actually prototyped it a few times and it felt really bad because the trade-off is you have to virtualize scrolling.
And so there's all these weird trade-offs because like the way terminals work is like there's no DOM, right?
It's like there's like anti-escape codes and these kind of weird organically evolved specs since like the 1960s or whatever.
It's like a BBS door game.
That's like a great compliment.
You feel like you're discovering... Lord of the Red Dragon.
Yeah, but we've had to just like discover all these kind of UX principles for building the terminal because no one really writes about this stuff.
And if you look at the big terminal apps of, you know, like the 80s or 90s or 2000s or whatever, they use like EdCurses and they have all these like Windows and things like this and it just looks kind of like janky by modern standards.
It just looks too heavy and complicated.
And so we had to reinvent a lot.
And for example, something like the terminal spinner, just like the spinner words, it's gone through probably, I want to say like 50, maybe a hundred iterations at this point.
And probably 80% of those didn't ship.
So we tried it, it didn't feel good, move on to the next one.
Try it, didn't feel good, move on to the next one.
And this was like sort of one of the amazing things about quad code, right?
It was like, you can write these prototypes and you can just do like 20 prototypes back to back.
See which one you like and then ship that.
And the whole thing takes maybe a couple of hours.
Whereas in the past, what you would have had to do was like, weren't to use origami or Framer or something like this.
You built like maybe three prototypes.
It just took much, much longer.
And so we have this luxury of, we have to discover this new thing.
We have to build the thing.
We don't know what the right endpoint is, but we can iterate there so quickly.
And that's what makes it really easy.
And that's what lets us build a product that's like joyous and that people like to use.
Boris, you had other advice for builders and we kept interrupting you because we have so many questions.
I would say, okay, so maybe two pieces of advice that are kind of weird because it's like about building for the model.
So one is don't build for the model of today, build for the model of six months from now.
This is like sort of weird, right?
Because like you can't find PMF if the product doesn't work, but actually this is the thing that you should do because otherwise what will happen is you spend a bunch of work, you find PMF for the product right now, and then you're just going to get leapfrogged by someone else.
because they're building for the next model, and a new model comes out every few months.
Use the model, feel out the boundary of what it can do, and then build for the model that you think will be the model, maybe six months from now.
I think the second thing is, you know, actually in the quad code area where we sit, we have a framed copy of the bitter lesson on the wall.
And this is this like rich, sudden, like everyone should read it if you haven't.
And the idea is the more general model will always be the more specific model.
And there's a lot of corollaries to this, but essentially what it boils down to is never bet against the model.
And so this is just like a thing that we always think about, where we could build a feature into Cloud Code, we could make it better as a product, and we call this scaffolding.
That's all this code that's not the model itself.
But we could also just wait like a couple months, and the model can probably just do the thing instead.
And there's a way to straight off right it's like engineering work now and you can kind of extend the capability a little bit maybe 10 20% or whatever and whatever domain on this like you know like the spider chart of what you're trying to extend.
Or you can just wait and the next model will do it so just always always think in terms of this trade off where do you actually want to invest and assume that whatever the scaffolding is it's just checked out.
How often do you rewrite the code ways of clock code?
Is this every six months with this?
Is there scaffolding that you've deleted because you don't need it?
Any work as the model just improved?
Like all of quad code has just been written and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten over and over and over.
We unship tools every couple of weeks.
We add new tools every couple of weeks.
There is no part of quad code that was around six months ago.
It's just constantly rewritten.
Would you say that most of the code base for our current clock code is only, say 80% of it is only less than a couple of months old?
It might even be like less than, yeah, maybe like a couple of months.
So it's like the life cycle of code now.
That's another alpha is expecting it to be the shelf life to be just a couple of months.
Do you see Steve Yegge's post about how awesome working at Anthropic is?
And I think there's a line in there that says that an Anthropic engineer
currently averages 1000x more productivity than a Google engineer at Google's peak, which is really an insane number, honestly, like 1000x.
Three years ago, we were still talking about 10x engineers, now we're talking about 1000x on top of a Google engineer in the prime.
This is unbelievable, honestly.
Yeah, I mean, internally, if you look at technical employees, they all use quad code every day.
And even non-technical employees, I think like half the sales team uses quad code.
They've started switching to co-work because it's a little easier to use, it has like a VM, it's a little bit safer.
But yeah, we actually, we just pulled the stat and the, I think the team doubled in size last year, but productivity per engineer grew something like 70%.
as measured by just like the simplest stupidest measure pull requests.
But we also kind of cross check that against like commits and like the lifetime of commits and things like this.
And since quad code came out, productivity per engineer at Anthropic has grown 150%.
And this is crazy because I want in my old life, I was responsible for code quality at Meta.
And I was responsible for the quality of all of our code bases across every product across like, you know, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, whatever.
And one of the things that the team worked on was improving productivity.
And back then, seeing a gain of something like 2% in productivity, that was like a year of work by hundreds of people.
And so this like 100%, this is just like unheard of, just completely unheard of.
What drew you to come over to Anthropic?
I mean, basically as a builder, you could go anywhere.
What was the moment that made you say like, actually, this is the set of people or this is the approach?
I was living in rural Japan and I was opening up hacker news every morning and I was reading the news and it just started to be like AI stuff at some point.
And I started to use some of these early products.
I remember the first couple of times that I used it, it just took my breath away.
It was very cheesy to say, but that was actually the feeling.
As a builder, I've just never felt this feeling using these very, very early products.
That was in the quad two days or something like that.
And so I just started talking to friends at Labs just to kind of see what was going on.
And I met Ben Mann, who's one of the founders at Anthropic.
And he just immediately won me over.
And as soon as I met kind of the rest of the team at Ant, it just won me over.
And I think probably in two ways.
So one is it operates as a research lab.
So the product was teeny, teeny tiny.
It's really all about building a safe model.
And so this idea of just being very close to the model and being very close to development and being not the most important thing because the product isn't anymore.
It's just the model is the thing that's the most important.
That really resonated with me after building product for many years.
And then the second thing was just how mission-driven it is.
I'm a huge sci-fi reader.
My bookshelf was just filled with sci-fi.
And so I just know how bad this can go.
And when I think about what's going to happen this year, it's going to be totally insane.
And in the worst case, it can go very, very bad.
And so I just wanted to be at a place that really understood that and kind of really internalized that.
And at Ant, you know, like if you overhear conversations in the lunch room or in the hallway, people are talking about AI safety.
This is really the thing that everyone cares about more than anything.
And so I just wanted to be in a place like that.
I know for me personally, mission is just so important.
What is going to happen this year?
Okay, so if you think back like six months ago and kind of what are the predictions that people are making?
So Dario predicted that 90% of the code at Anthropic would be written by Quad.
For me personally, it's been 100% since Opus 4.5.
I just, I uninstalled my IDE.
I don't edit a single line of code by hand.
It's just 100% Quad code and Opus.
And, you know, I land, you know, like 20 hours a day every day.
If you look at anthropic overall, it ranges between like 70 to 90 percent, you know, depending on the team.
For a lot of teams, it's also like 100 percent.
For a lot of people, it's 100 percent.
And I remember making this prediction back in May when we GA'd quad code that you wouldn't need an ID to code anymore.
And it was totally crazy to say, I feel like people in the audience gasped because it was such like a silly prediction at the time.
But really, all it is is like you just like trace the, you know, the exponential.
And this is just so deep in the DNA at hand because three of our founders were co-authors of the scaling law's paper.
They saw this very early.
And so this is just tracing the exponential.
This is what's going to happen.
So continuing to trace the exponential, I think what will happen is coding will be generally solved for everyone.
And I think today coding is practically solved, you know, for me, and I think it'll be the case for everyone, you know, regardless of domain.
I think we're going to start to see the title software engineer go away.
And I think it's just going to be maybe builder, maybe product manager, maybe we'll keep the title as kind of a vestigial thing.
But the work that people do, it's not just going to be coding.
It's software engineers are also going to be writing specs.
They're going to be talking to users.
Like this thing that we're starting to see right now on our team where engineers are very much generalists and every single function on our team codes, like our PMs code, our designers code, our EM codes, our finance guy codes, like everyone on our team codes, we're going to start to see this everywhere.
So this is sort of, this is kind of like the lower bound if we just continue the trend.
The upper bound, I think, is a lot scarier.
And this is something like, you know, we hit ASL4.
And this, you know, at Anthropic, we talked about the safety levels.
ASL3 is where the models are right now.
ASL4 is the model is recursively self-improving.
And so if this happens, essentially, we have to meet a bunch of criteria before we can release a model.
And so the extreme is that, you know, this happens.
Or there's some kind of catastrophic misuse.
Like people are using the model to design bi-viruses, design zero days, stuff like this.
And this is something that we're really, really actively working on, so that doesn't happen.
Honestly, it's just been so exciting and humbling, seeing how people are using Cloud Code.
I just wanted to build a cool thing, and it ended up being really useful, and that was so surprising and so exciting.
My impression from Twitter or just the outside is basically everyone went away over the holidays and then found out about Cloud Code, and it's just been crazy ever since.
Is that how it was for you at the Internet?
were you having like a nice Christmas break and then came back here like what happened?
Well actually for all of December I was traveling around and I took a coding vacation so we were kind of traveling around and I was just like coding every day so that was really nice and then I also started to use Twitter at the time because like I worked on threads back then way back when so I've been a threads user for a while so I just like tried to see kind of like other platforms where people are.
Yeah, I think for a lot of people they kind of discovered, that was the moment where they discovered Opus 4.5, I kind of already knew.
And internally, quadco's just been on this like exponential tear for many, many months now, so that just like it became even more steep.
And if you look at quadcode now,
There was some stuff from Mercury that 70% of startups are choosing Quad as their model of choice.
There were some other stuff from semi-analysis that 4% of all public commits are made by Quad Code, of all code written everywhere.
All the companies use Quad Code from the biggest companies to
Smallest startups, it plotted the course for perseverance, for the Mars rover.
This is the coolest thing for me, and we even printed posters because the team was like, wow, this is just so cool, the NASA chooses to use this thing.
So yeah, it's humbling, but it also feels like the very beginning.
What's the sort of interaction between Claude code and then co-work?
Like, you know, was it a fork of Claude code?
Was it like you had Claude code, look at the Claude code code and say, let's make a new spec for non-technical people that, you know, keeps all the lessons.
And then, you know, it sort of went off for a couple of days and did that.
What's the genesis of that?
And, you know, where do you think that goes?
This is gonna be my fifth time using the word wait and demand.
I mean, we were looking at Twitter and there was that one guy that was using quad code to monitor his tomato plants.
There was this other person that was using it to recover wedding photos off of a corrupted hard drive.
There were people that using it for finance.
When we looked internally at Anthropic, every designer is using it.
The entire finance team at this point is using it.
The entire data science team is using it, not for coding.
People are jumping over hoops to install a thing in the terminal so that they can use this.
So we knew for a while that we wanted to build something.
And so we're experimenting with a bunch of different ideas.
And the thing that kind of took off was just a little quad-code wrapper in a GUI in the desktop app.
It's just quad-code under the hood.
And the Felix and the team, and Felix was an early electron contributor.
He kind of knows that stack really well, and he was hacking on various ideas.
And they built it in, I think, something like 10 days.
It was just like 100% written by quad code.
And it just felt ready to release.
There was a lot of stuff that we had to build for non-technical users, so it's a little bit different than a technical audience.
All the code runs in a virtual machine.
There's a lot of protections for deletion and things like this.
There's a lot of permission prompting and kind of other guardrails for users.
But yeah, it was honestly pretty obvious.
Bors, thank you so much for making something that is taking away all my sleep.
But in return, it's making me feel creator mode again, sort of founder mode again.
It's been an exhilarating three weeks.
I can't believe I waited that long since November to actually get into it.
Thank you so much for being with us.
Thank you for building what you're building.
Thanks for having me in the sandbox.