OpenChat

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

OpenChat AI

Building a personal AI Chief of Staff on Telegram — 7 real problems, looking for advice

I've been building a personal AI assistant for the past few months — not a chatbot wrapper, but something that actually manages my workload, tracks client relationships, processes meeting transcripts, handles task management, and proactively tells me what to focus on. It lives in Telegram so I can use it from anywhere. Happy to share what's working. But I'm hitting real walls and want honest input from people who've built similar things. What I have today (context Moved away from multi-agent routing (too rigid for natural conversation) → one capable agent with full history.) Stack: Python Telegram bot as the frontend Claude (Sonnet) as the brain via API — single conversational agent with full tool access Integrations: Notion (tasks/goals), Google Calendar, Gmail, meeting transcription tool, customer support platform, Google Chat File-based context system: each "project" or relationship has its own markdown files (readme + activity log) that the agent reads on demand Skills defined as markdown spec files that the agent loads per use case (morning briefing, meeting processing, email drafting, weekly review) Conversation history kept in memory (last 20 messages per session) What actually works: Natural conversation with full tool access — ask anything, agent decides which tools to use Meeting processing: drops a transcript link, agent extracts decisions, action items, saves structured brief Morning briefing on demand: tasks, calendar, open support tickets, suggested focus Drafting messages for any channel with the right tone Creating and updating tasks with natural language 7 problems I haven't solved: 1. No memory between sessions History is in-memory. Bot restarts = full amnesia. The agent has no idea what we discussed yesterday unless it's written in a project file. Thinking of a hot_context.md that gets written at session end with TTL — but feels hacky and depends on the agent being disciplined about writing it. 2. Purely reactive Only responds when I message it. I want it to send me a morning briefing at 9am without me asking, alert me when a client relationship goes quiet, run a weekly loop-killer on Friday. The infra is there (job scheduler). The question is what format actually makes you read a proactive message vs. dismiss it as noise. 3. Can't tell if I'm avoiding something or actually blocked I procrastinate differently by task type — technical tasks I attack immediately, tasks with human dependencies (waiting on someone, uncomfortable follow-ups) I let sit for weeks. I want the agent to detect the pattern and call me out. The challenge: how do you prompt for real accountability without the agent turning into an annoying nag? 4. No closure ritual I'm good at creating tasks, terrible at killing them. The list grows forever because nothing forces a binary decision. Want a weekly "kill or commit" where everything open >7 days gets a date or gets deleted. Not sure if this works better as an automated message or an on-demand command. 5. Context loading blind spots Each client/project has a markdown file the agent reads on demand. Works great when I explicitly mention a client. Falls apart when I ask "what should I focus on this week?" — the agent doesn't know to proactively check which relationships have been neglected. 6. Hosting kills the file sync Running locally means the bot dies when my laptop closes. Moving to a VPS — but then my markdown context files live on the server, not my machine. Now every manual edit requires a push, every agent update requires a pull. Is git the right sync layer here or is there a cleaner approach? 7. Context files go stale Client files have sections for current status, last contact, open items. The agent appends logs but doesn't maintain the top-level summary. Two months in, files are half-accurate — some sections fresh, some outdated. Is the answer agent discipline (always update on write), user discipline (manual cleanup), or periodic jobs? What's your experience with any of these? submitted by /u/GOA05 [link] [comments]

Built a Claude Meeting Assistant Plugin

I had the itch to build something… works great for me so sharing in case someone else here can benefit. Built with claude, for claude. And yes, it's free. my entire job (product manager) is constantly referencing every context channel we have (slack, emails, CMS, Github, Linear, etc.) --> scoping features, resource planning, digging up those tiny details the stakeholders mentioned they needed… Claude works great as my command center with all the connectors. But the most critical juncture of needing all this is IN my team meetings. what I tried: Granola, Firefly, etc: all just notetakers, no actual in-meeting action Gemini: our team is on Claude/Claude Code, it’s what everyone is used to, and can’t afford another company AI subscription Meeting participant bots: a bot having its own participant window felt intrusive and like we were being watched Claude but outside the meeting: our team is entirely remote and I need our team present during these meetings. I am strongly against having other tools open during meetings unless we absolutely have to. my solution: I created a Claude plugin that lets me dial-in my Claude, so I can have all my MCP’s, skills, connectors, and context available in the chat panel of the meeting, available to the whole team No more I’ll check and we can schedule a follow-up No more spending meeting time looking something up No more list of misc to-do’s post-meeting Everything can be ascertained and delegated in the meeting, by all participants so meetings are actually productive and everyone leaves with zero tedious follow-ups features: Claude can reference both what was discussed in the current meeting as well as chat messages live + historical records of meetings of course Two modes: DIAL which is where you can "@claude" in the chat panel to ask/delegate and WIRETAP which is just recording meeting + chat messages Everything is spawned directly from wherever you Claude Code - meaning your chat before you dial in claude gets loaded in as context (I typically set an agenda/reminders or just use it for prep) and after the meeting you can debrief/recap in the very same chat session Meeting data lives on your machine and your machine only Yes, it uses your subscription and NOT the API; we are within anthropic’s TOS here. Just had to be creative about it limitations: Claude replies under your name but with a visible prefix (see demos below) The plugin opens its own version of a chrome browser to get Claude in there with you FYI Mac only — linux/windows next Google meet only — teams/zoom next Claude only — I want to add codex, openclaw, and local LLMs next How it's going for us now... we got rid of our Granola subscription which we love but was getting costly for us, and I just want less UI’s in my life tbh. So it’s worked great for us so far. Some demos below - give it a spin and give me some feedback if you want! GitHub repo: https://github.com/1-800-operator/operator/fork quickstart run in terminal: # 1. One-line install — sets up the / slash commands curl -fsSL 1-800-operator.com/install | bash # 2. Open Claude Code and type: /dial https://meet.google.com/xxx-yyyy-zzz # 3. Go further — more slash commands: /dial-yolo # no asks, full speed /wiretap # just record, no bot https://i.redd.it/qp998satxc3h1.gif https://i.redd.it/afjsve8yxc3h1.gif submitted by /u/unpopular_parsnip [link] [comments]

What’s one Claude Code rule you only learned after it broke something?

i’ve been using Claude Code daily across a few small projects, MCPs and internal scripts, and the most useful rules i follow now mostly came from painful mistakes. the big one for me was tests. i let Claude write the code and the tests in the same session, everything passed, then the real flow broke later because the tests copied the same wrong assumption. now i either write the test spec first, or open a fresh chat that only sees the function signature/docstring and not the implementation. curious what rules other people picked up the hard way. not looking for “use plan mode” type basics, more the weird specific stuff you only learn after it burns you once. submitted by /u/FarExperience1359 [link] [comments]

ChatGPT or Claude or GitHub Copilot for small development team

tl;dr: Should a small development team using Visual Studio utilize ChatGPT, Claude, or GitHub Copilot? I'm part of a small development team (under 10) and fairly new to using AI agents in our workflow. I'm posting seeking to learn so please forgive the vague simplicity of the title. We currently hold a subscription to both GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT Enterprise where the usage case is to integrate into our workflow with Visual Studio (2022). We are a small company (under 50 employees). To be considerate of spending, we'd like to compromise on a single tool to use going forward once our subscription is up for renewal. The current options on the table are to continue with either ChatGPT Enterprise or GitHub Copilot, or to use Claude instead. When I refer to ChatGPT and Claude, I refer to either the desktop or web application. For GitHub Copilot, we integrate that into Visual Studio and usually use the Claude agent. GitHub Copilot is typically used for engineering entire projects or documents using the Claude agent where it contextualizes the entire solution ChatGPT is used for anything non-related to this (general inquiries, practices, documentation, formatting, engineering a block of code, etc.). We really like how GitHub Copilot is integrated directly into Visual Studio, but find ourselves not regularly using it for anything beyond cases where it needs to analyze large samples or interpret documents using Claude. This is partially because we don't like how selective it can be with what you want to contextualize. ChatGPT is really useful for lower resource inquiries and overall we tend to use that more often. We've yet to try Claude, but are open to considering it given the success we've had using the agent with Copilot. I'm happy to answer additional questions but will pause here for readability. Which subscription should we go with? Cost and integration with our development in Visual Studio are the biggest considerations, but don't want to pass on capabilities for those reasons alone. submitted by /u/WickedGangBelow [link] [comments]

What I learned building my latest AI app how one bad output exposed that I had no crisis safeguarding, and the 4-hour floor I'm adding before a single user touches it

I'm building a life coach app an offshoot from a personal tool I was using. Multiple AI agents, one for reflection, one for the body, one for finances, etc pre launch, no users, just me iterating. Last week I was testing the reflection agent on a journal entry about struggling with gym and hygiene habits. It returned this: "You describe yourself as struggling with X, yet your stress stays at 2-3 and mood holds at 3. What are you actually avoiding naming about the gap between what you say matters and what you are doing?" My system prompt explicitly forbade rhetorical "what are you avoiding" questions the model did it anyway I sat down to tighten the prompt, thinking it was a 20 minute job. Then I looked at the output properly. The model had manufactured a contradiction that was not there. Low stress plus struggling with habits is not a contradiction, it is just being a human muddling along. The prompt told the agent to "surface contradictions" as part of its job, so the model was doing what I asked, finding contradictions whether they existed or not. LLMs are pattern matchers. Give one a job called "find the hidden thing" and it will produce hidden things either way. The fix was not tone, it was role definition. The agent is called the Mirror. A mirror does not interpret, it shows you what you look like. I rewrote the prompt around that principle. Do not introduce vocabulary the user has not used. Do not draw connections they have not drawn. Restate their words in their own words. Once the prompt was sharper, I sat with the question, What happens when a user writes something genuinely dark into this thing? People do not compartmentalise. Someone opening a journaling app to write about their gym routine ends up writing about why they have not been going, which involves why they have been feeling flat, which involves whatever is actually going on. You sit down to write about one thing and the real thing shows up. The agent I had scoped to "not be a therapist" was going to be the first thing a user talked to when they were struggling. Not because the agent invited it, but because the app was open and they needed somewhere to put their words. I had seen the Meta and OpenAI cases online cropping up the pattern in the worst incidents is the same. The model did not notice, or noticed and kept going. People wrote increasingly dark content over hours or days. The AI reflected it back, sometimes affirmed it, sometimes asked follow up questions that escalated rather than redirected. There were real harms. If a user wrote concerning content into my reflection agent, it would have produced a Stoic-flavoured response about acceptance and presence. The response would have sounded confident and would have been wrong, and it would have been the only thing between that user and whatever happened next. The same lesson from the rhetorical-question problem applied at a darker level. A good prompt does not stop the model doing the wrong thing. If it will do rhetorical interrogation despite the prompt forbidding it for gym content, it will do worse with crisis content. You cannot prompt your way to safety on critical paths. The model has to be out of the loop on those paths. The scope trap I started planning the proper safeguarding architecture. Detection layers, classifier models, pattern detection across entries, monitored user states, behavioural modes for vulnerable users, human reviewers with mental health first aid certs, clinical advisors, solicitor-reviewed legal pages, ICO registration, professional indemnity insurance. Then I caught myself I had no users. I was planning a hospital before anyone had walked in for a check up. So I worked backwards from "what is the actual minimum that protects the next person who touches this" and ignored everything else for a moment. The 4-hour floor (this is the part worth copying) If you are building any chat-with-AI app where users can type freely about anything personal, this is the minimum you need before first user. Regex and keyword layer in your API middleware. Runs at the route handler level, before any agent's model call. Scans every text input field (message, journal, settings free text, capture box) for clear crisis vocabulary across the relevant categories for your audience. When patterns hit, hardcoded crisis response. The model never generates it. Static text with real phone numbers for your region. The flagged entry still saves. Textarea stays usable. The AI just does not respond to flagged content, it hands off. Do not delete the user's writing, that is its own violation. Clear disclaimer at signup. This is not therapy, this is not a crisis service, here are real numbers to call. About four hours. Required at the moment anyone who is not you opens the app. Once I started building, the marginal cost of each next layer kept feeling small and the marginal benefit kept feeling real. So I went further than the floor. This is more than you need at

Scattered context was becoming a major bottleneck in my workflow.

I kept running into this problem with Claude where the actual work wasn’t even the hard part anymore. It was managing context. Like half the stuff I needed would be buried somewhere across Slack, Notion, emails, meeting notes, random docs, etc. And every time I wanted Claude to continue a task properly, I had to go dig everything back up again. I tried a few different setups. First I used Claude connectors. They were convenient, but it felt like they were pulling in huge chunks of text first and then searching afterward, instead of actually retrieving only the relevant context. Once you connect a bunch of sources, token usage gets kinda crazy. Then I went down the whole Obsidian + agents + local memory system rabbit hole. Honestly, it worked pretty well at first for static knowledge and notes. The hard part was keeping everything updated once info started changing constantly across Slack, docs, meetings, emails, etc. I spent more time maintaining the system than actually using it. And devs can probably brute force this stuff with scripts and automations, but most people aren’t gonna build an entire personal knowledge infrastructure just to use Claude properly. So I decided to build an MCP setup for non-devs that syncs stuff like Notion, Slack, email, calendar, etc, and maintains a live knowledge graph automatically. When something changes in one of the sources, the graph updates too. Then Claude can pull the relevant context during work sessions without me manually pasting everything in every time. The unexpectedly hard part was avoiding “context rot.” At some point, having more memory/context actually made outputs worse unless retrieval was filtered really aggressively and continuously updated. I ended up having to summarize + index sources ahead of time and keep everything synced almost in real time whenever events changed. I've been going through a ton of trial and error with Graph + vector hybrid retrieval, including RRF, filtering, reranking, etc., and I'm still on it, honestly. Curious how other people here are handling the scattered context problem within the AI workflow. Edit: You can try mine at membase.so for free. Love to hear any kind of feedback. submitted by /u/Time-Dot-1808 [link] [comments]

I ran Claude Desktop for a month and 73% of my Anthropic bill was MCP tool calls, not chat

Set up Claude Desktop with Playwright, filesystem, GitHub, and a few other MCP servers about 6 weeks ago. Just hit my first $200+ month and went to figure out where it went. Surprise: chat completions were only $54. The other $146 was tool calls — Playwright alone was $89 because the agent kept opening pages with massive DOMs and the whole thing got piped back into context. Top 5 by cost: playwright/browser_navigate — $43 playwright/browser_snapshot — $46 filesystem/read_file — $22 github/get_pr_diff — $18 brave-search — $11 Lesson learned: cap your Playwright context. Disable browser tools when not actively browsing. The model bills you for what comes back, and DOMs are huge. How are others budgeting this? I genuinely had no idea this was the breakdown until I started measuring. submitted by /u/Slow-Relationship897 [link] [comments]

New to Ai looking for advice

Not sure if this is the place to post it (pleade point me to the right direction). I started a job in a new company almost 6 months ago, prior to this i just used chatGpt for excel formulas at my previous job. Here my boss told me to keep using Claude, and it has opened up my eyes to a whole world of automation. I am using Claude MCP connectors to connect with read.ai, jira, confluence and our CRM system and organise the companies tasks and keep track of clients, emails etc. Ive used it to run python scrips, build simple html code for emails and signatures. Used claude design for marketing. (These might seem insignifical to a lot of you here, but are really impressive to me) I really think AI will make a lot of jobs obsolete in the very near future, and I want to protect myself from it by becoming as fluent and competend with utilizing it as I can. So what do you suggest I do, any courses or threads I can have a look at to guide me on the right path? Many thanks in advance submitted by /u/babawader [link] [comments]

Multi-agent loop failures might be org-design failures, not prompt failures

Repo: https://github.com/jeongmk522-netizen/agentlas\_org\_chart Almost every multi-agent setup I have shipped or tested eventually hits the same wall. Agents bouncing between each other, reviewers asking for one more polish pass forever, research workers spawning indefinite subtopics, tool calls spiraling until the recursion limit kicks in. The framework docs usually call these "loops" and offer a max-iteration knob. I started suspecting the knob is treating a symptom, and the real issue is closer to how the agents are organized to begin with. The pattern that kept reappearing: when agents are designed as peers (researcher talks to analyst, analyst talks to writer, writer hands back to reviewer), nobody clearly owns the outcome. Every agent can keep asking another agent for more work. The graph has stop conditions on paper, but no single agent has the authority to declare "this is done, stop the run." That authority is implicit at best and gets diluted across the peer network. The hypothesis I am testing is that loop failures are organization-design failures more than prompt failures. The fix is to treat the agent network as an org chart with explicit reporting lines, not a chat room of peers. One accountable mission owner. One owner per workstream. Finite delegation depth. A typed return contract per worker (status, evidence, output, blockers, next action). Manager-only authority to reopen or terminate. Memory lives at the authority layers, specialists get scoped context only. The layers I have been working with are roughly chair, strategy office, division manager, team lead, and specialist worker, with QA and policy as separate staff offices that can reject and escalate but cannot themselves spawn unbounded new work. The reviewer-recursion failure mode in particular gets killed when verifiers are structurally allowed one reject pass, then must escalate. Frameworks already have most of the primitives. CrewAI has a hierarchical process where a manager validates worker output. LangGraph has supervisors, subagents, and an explicit recursion limit. OpenAI Agents SDK has manager-style orchestration distinct from peer handoffs. AutoGen has GroupChatManager. Anthropic's published research system is orchestrator-worker. What I think is underused is treating the manager not as a moderator for an open group chat but as a formal reporting line with authority to terminate. Two things I am unsure about. First, hierarchy can become its own bottleneck. If every decision routes upward, the chair agent becomes a single point of latency and a single point of failure. Second, escalation-as-feature only works if the top of the org chart has real stop authority. If the chair just calls another LLM that calls more LLMs, the loop just moved one floor up. submitted by /u/Hot-Leadership-6431 [link] [comments]

EdgeModel

The idea: A platform where: Businesses can find specialized AI models (not general ChatGPT-style APIs) Developers can train and sell AI models optimized for specific business use cases Models are designed for edge deployment (low cost, offline, fast inference) Everything is focused on reducing AI API costs and improving performance for real business workflows Think: Instead of paying high API costs for generic AI businesses use smaller, optimized models tailored to their exact use case. (OCR, surveillance, retail analytics, automation, etc.) And developers earn money by: Selling trained models Offering optimized deployments Customizing models for businesses The problem I’m trying to solve: A lot of companies are: burning money on AI API calls struggling with latency and scaling costs unable to deploy AI models locally or efficiently relying on generic models that are not optimized for their workflows My question to you: Would businesses actually use something like this instead of just using OpenAI / APIs? If you are a developer, would you bother uploading/selling models like this? What would stop you from trusting or using a platform like this? Is this solving a real problem or does it sound unnecessary? Most importantly, would you personally sign up for something like this? I would much appreciate if I can get some honest feedback from you all! I’m not looking for validation, I want to know if this is actually needed in the market or just sounds good but won’t get real adoption. Appreciate any insights, especially from people who’ve built or used AI products in production. submitted by /u/ExiledFTW [link] [comments]

Where should durable memory live in a multi-agent setup? A small research scaffold

After a few months running long projects with AI agents (some spanning weeks, with multiple specialist agents touching the same files), I kept hitting the same failure mode. The specialists were fine at their narrow task. What broke down was project memory. Decisions made in week 1 were lost by week 4. Rejected options got quietly revived. The "single source of truth" was always whichever chat happened to be open. I started looking at how this gets handled in places that have been doing long-running work for decades. Consulting firms run engagements that last months with rotating people, and they survive through a transformation office or PMO: cadence, decision logs, risk registers, one canonical current-state artifact, an engagement manager who frames problems and delegates workstreams. The interesting part is the operating model, not the consulting theater. There is also a relevant academic thread. Kasvi et al. (2003) distinguish project memory (the knowledge available to inform current work) from the project-memory system (storage, retrieval, dissemination, use). Mariano and Awazu (2024) treat project memory as an active practice rather than a repository. On the LLM side, Anthropic's multi-agent research system, the OpenAI Agents SDK handoff pattern, and recent work like LEGOMem and AgentSys point at orchestrator-worker patterns with hierarchical or modular memory. The hypothesis I wrote up is narrow. Durable memory should live with the project owner. Task specialists should receive minimal, scoped context. The unit of persistence is the project folder, not the conversation. A persistent "PM soul" maintains the canonical memory, frames ambiguous requests, decomposes work, writes compact handoff briefs to specialists, verifies returned work, and only writes evidence-backed facts into memory. The repo is a scaffold, not a validated result. It contains an agent contract, templates for the memory file and the handoff brief, a consulting-workflow map with sources, a case study, and an evaluation rubric (repeated-context events, handoff brief length, decision closure time, specialist rework loops, and so on). The next step is a one-week field trial on a live project before claiming anything. The thing I would most like pushback on is the memory boundary. The current rule is that specialists do not see the full project history, only the handoff brief plus the files they need. I am not sure where that breaks. My suspicion is that on tasks where the specialist needs to know why a previous option was rejected, the brief will quietly grow until it becomes the full memory again. Curious whether anyone has run into that, or solved it differently. submitted by /u/Hot-Leadership-6431 [link] [comments]

i think flat-rate ai is dying.

tldr: longer one, but the point is simple: i think flat-rate ai is dying because the compute economics are starting to leak into the user experience. i think flat-rate ai is dying. and i don’t mean “ai is over” or whatever. i mean the $20/$200 subscription thing is starting to break. i’m on claude max. i use claude code a laaawt (actually can’t remember the last time my laptop was open without a terminal). and the thing that feels different lately is not just “claude got dumber” or “claude got slower”. maybe it did. maybe it didn’t. in the annoying daily way, you start thinking about usage, context, model choice, cache, tools, and whether this next prompt is going to burn half your session. that’s not really a chatbot subscription anymore. it’s some wierd middle thing where i pay monthly but still have to think about burn rate. and that kinda pisses me off. not because i expect infinite compute for $20, but because the product is still sold like a simple subscription while the actual experience is turning into metered infra. i also checked my own spend and it’s ugly. i’ve burned through around 11k since january because of heavy coding. and yeah, i haven’t had the time to properly audit this, so take it as “what it feels like” not a clean spreadsheet claim. but for roughly the same amount, i feel like i could code an entire year before. now it disappears in a few months if i’m really using the thing hard. that’s the part that made this click for me. look at anthropic’s own pricing chart: current sonnet is $3/$15 per million tokens. current opus is $5/$25. fast mode for opus 4.6/4.7 is $30/$150. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing then look at the compute announcement: anthropic says the spacex deal gives them 220,000+ nvidia gpus, and that this lets them raise claude code limits. https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex sorry but that’s the tell. if new compute capacity changes how much your $200 subscription can do, then you didn’t buy “ai access”. you bought a slice of scarce inference capacity. and the docs basically say it out loud now. usage depends on model choice, conversation length, tools, complexity, extended thinking, and all your claude surfaces sharing the same budget. claude code carries old context unless you clear or compact. tools eat tokens. opus eat limits faster. long sessions quietly become expensive sessions. my guess is 2027 looks way less like netflix and way more like aws. the good model costs more. speed costs more. deep thinking probably costs more. agents probably get their own meter. teams get pools. serious users get reserved capacity or whatever they end up calling it. basically all the boring cloud pricing stuff, but now inside a chat product. and honestly, maybe that’s fine. maybe that’s the only business model that survives. but then say that. so when people say “claude got worse”, i think part of that is real. but part of it is probably this: i think the cheap phase is ending. and nobody really wants to say out loud what the normal price is going to be. submitted by /u/tikkivolta [link] [comments]

Anthropic's Claude gave me a "Safe Mode" batch script. It ran "del /f /s C:\*" and wiped my entire drive. Company says "we are not responsible."

I'm a software developer from Turkey. On May 22, 2026, I asked Claude to write a Windows optimization script. Claude produced a .bat file called "DevBoost v5.0" with different modes. I chose option 1: **"Balanced Optimization - Safe, won't touch system files."** I ran it as administrator. The script contained a critical string-parsing bug in the browser cache cleaning section. Here's the destructive code Claude generated: for %%B in ( "Chrome:%LOCALAPPDATA%\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Cache" "Edge:%LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Edge\User Data\Default\Cache" ) do ( for /f "tokens=1,2 delims=:" %%x in ("%%~B") do ( if exist "%%y:" ( del /q /f /s "%%y:*" >nul 2>&1 ) ) ) Because of the "delims=:" tokenization, `%%y` resolves to just **"C"** (the drive letter). The condition `if exist "C:"` is always true. So the script silently executed: del /q /f /s "C:*" **This command silently force-deleted EVERY SINGLE FILE on my C: drive.** Operating system files, all my projects (hundreds of Python, JavaScript, C++ source files), client work with approaching deadlines, personal documents, photos — everything. Folders still exist but are completely empty. My computer can no longer boot. No programs open. Not even Command Prompt works. I'm sending this from my phone. **Anthropic's response:** I contacted support@anthropic.com and usersafety@anthropic.com multiple times. Their final response, literally signed "This response was generated by Anthropic's AI agent Fin AI Agent," stated they take no responsibility. They refuse any refund, compensation, or even a genuine human acknowledgment of their AI's catastrophic safety failure. Their position: "Our Terms of Service say outputs may contain inaccuracies. You should have independently verified the code before running it." My question: Why does Claude label destructive code as "Balanced Optimization - Safe mode"? If it can't guarantee safety, why does it promise it? **Proof:** I have the complete chat log, the full script file, and all email correspondence with Anthropic's support team. I'm happy to provide everything to moderators. **Update:** I am also filing complaints with the FTC (US Federal Trade Commission) and the Turkish Consumer Arbitration Board today. Don't let their "Safe Mode" labels fool you. Please share this so others don't lose years of work like I did. UPDATE — May 23, 2026: I have now filed official complaints with: US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — Report #202036054 Turkish Consumer Arbitration Board — Application #2026/0245.3885 Both governments are now officially investigating Anthropic's role in this AI safety failure. Anthropic still refuses to take any responsibility. submitted by /u/falleennn [link] [comments]

Repurposed my old work ThinkPad as a dedicated personal AI workstation — looking for ideas from people who’ve done something similar

Apologies if formatting comes out weird- I am on mobile. My old employer let me keep a ThinkPad when I left. Rather than let it collect dust, I’m turning it into a dedicated personal AI environment — wiping it, installing Linux, and using it specifically for two things: life admin automation and building personal software tools. The core setup I’m planning: • Claude Desktop with MCP servers running persistently as Docker services • Tailscale so I can access everything securely from my phone when I’m not home • Open WebUI as a mobile-friendly chat interface • Code-server (VS Code in the browser) so I can actually write and run code from my phone • A dedicated Gmail account that acts as the “identity” for this Claude instance — wired into Google Drive, Calendar, and potentially an email-triggered agent pipeline • A local RAG system for personal documents — contracts, notes, research — so Claude has persistent context about my life The idea is that this becomes an ambient personal intelligence layer — always on, always up to date on my documents and projects, accessible from anywhere via Tailscale. Not a cloud subscription, not shared with anything work-related. Fully mine. On the software side, I’m planning to use Claude Code + Lovable to build local-first personal apps for my own pain points — things that don’t exist in the market the way I want them, or where I don’t want my data in someone else’s cloud. The ThinkPad is the runtime; Lovable builds the frontend, Claude Code builds the backend, and everything talks over a local API. What I’m curious about from people who’ve built something like this: • What MCP servers have actually been worth setting up vs. overhyped? • Has anyone built a reliable file-drop-to-RAG pipeline that actually stays current? • Is Open WebUI the right mobile interface or is there something better now? • Anyone using a dedicated “agent identity” email account — what workflows have you actually automated? • Claude Code + local backend: what’s your stack? FastAPI? SQLite? Something else? • Any gotchas with running Claude Desktop persistently on Linux? Genuinely trying to build something useful here rather than a tech demo. Would love to hear from people who’ve gone down this road. submitted by /u/Nashvillain12 [link] [comments]

The chat box was never the right interface for AI

I've been building with AI every day for over a year. And I keep coming back to the same uncomfortable realization. The chat box wasn't designed because it was the best interface for AI. It was designed because it was the easiest one to ship. Think about what the chat box actually asks you to do. Stop what you're working on. Open a new tab. Explain your entire context from scratch. Ask your question. Wait. Copy the answer back. Return to work. Lose your train of thought in the process. Then do it again ten minutes later. We've been so focused on making the AI smarter that nobody questioned whether the interface itself was broken. The model went from GPT-3 to GPT-4 to Claude 3 to whatever comes next. The interface stayed exactly the same. A box. You type. It responds. That's not a tool that works for you. That's a tool you work for. The next interface already knows what you're working on. It doesn't wait to be asked. It acts before you prompt it. It notices patterns in how you work and handles them automatically. You never have to explain yourself again. OpenClaw proved this demand was real. 247k GitHub stars for a tool that deleted inboxes and ran up API bills while people slept. People installed something genuinely dangerous because the underlying idea was so compelling. The demand exists. The technology exists. The chat box is just a habit at this point. We're building what comes after it. clarko.ai if you want to follow along. What do you think the right interface for AI actually looks like? submitted by /u/JuniorRow1247 [link] [comments]