Kimi Code does 75% of what Claude Code does at 20% of its price. The question is whether that 25% that is missing is the one that matters.

A few days ago, the Chinese company Moonshot AI launched Kimi K2.6its new LLM that competes with the Gemini, GPT and Claude model families and is also especially competitive in price. Weeks earlier, it had launched Kimi Code, a programming AI agent that in turn competes with Gemini Cli, Codex and Claude Code. The question is obvious: can the Kimi Code/Kimi K2.6 pairing really compete with the fashionable pairing, Claude Code/Opus 4.7? The answer is complicated. A great model (but not perfect). Kimi K2.6 is an open weights model with one trillion parameters in total (an American trillion), of which 32 billion parameters are active and which uses the well-known Mixture-of-Experts architecture. In it launch article Its performance is shown compared to that of GPT-5.4 and Opus 4.6 and the truth is that its numbers in these synthetic tests seem really excellent: Here Kimi K2.6 is compared to GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro. Source: Moonshot AI. Up to 8 times cheaper than Opus 4.6. Has subscription plans Claude Pro or ChatGPT Plus style, but it can also be used via API. The price in that case is $0.60 per million input tokens (0.16 if cached) and $4 per million output tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens, or up to eight times more. Claude Opus 4.7 It has the same price and is theoretically better in performance, but when Kimi K2.6 was announced this version had not yet appeared (nor GPT-5.5). The magic of the swarm of AI agents. Claude Code works sequentially. Analyze the problem, execute a step, check the result and decide how to proceed. In Kimi Code a different approach is used: a “master agent” divides or decomposes the task we ask of it into independent subtasks and from that division launches up to 300 “subagents” that run in parallel and are capable of coordinating up to 4,000 steps simultaneously. Are many working at the same time better than one? It is the so-called “swarm of agents” of Kimi K2.6 that is used to the fullest in Kimi Code and that we can also activate in its free version on its official website. In Kimi K2.5 up to 100 subagents and 1,500 steps could be launched, so the jump is significant. In internal tests, Moonshot showed how these swarms managed, for example, to “refactor” an open source financial engine, working 13 hours straight and making more than 1,000 tool calls with a 185% improvement in average performance. Of course, these were internal tests. Beyond benchmarks. Kilo.ai is a company that develops tools like Kilo Code or Kilo CLI—programming agents similar to Kimi Code—and its engineers wanted evaluate the performance of both combinations. They gave Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6 the same 1,042-line prompt to create FlowGraph, a workflow orchestration API with directed graph validation or real-time event streaming. Both models ran on Kilo CLI because what they wanted to compare were the models without further ado. Kimi was cheaper, but he also failed more. Claude Opus 4.7 finished in 20 minutes and the final cost was $3.56. Kimi K2.6 took longer, partly because server availability was limited (the model had just been launched), but it cost $0.67. Five times less. Kimi K2.6 did it well at a ridiculous price. Claude did much better, but it also cost five times as much. Kimi did 75% of what Claude did at 19% of the cost. The problem is that both believed they had done everything right and did not detect if they had made mistakes. Further analysis revealed that Claude had committed one and that Kimi had committed six of varying importance. According to Kilo.ai analysts, the final score for both was 91 points out of 100 for Opus 4.7 and 68 points out of 100 for Kimi. Two ways to see the glass. That score seems to make it clear that Kimi is simply cheaper because he did a worse job. But Kilo engineers had another way of looking at it. They have been comparing open weight models of Chinese companies for some time and have noticed how the gap with the “frontier” models of Anthropic or OpenAI is becoming less and less pronounced. “With a price of $0.67 and a thorough review, Kimi K2.6 is now a viable option. With a price of $3.56 and fewer fixes needed, Claude Opus 4.7 is the safer option. The choice between the two options depends on the analysis. A year ago, this choice was practically non-existent at this level of complexity.” Review is mandatory. Or what is the same: if after the work of Kimi K2.6 one carried out a more in-depth review and correction, it is likely that all these errors would be detected and corrected, but if we had to trust both models and we could only execute “one pass” of AI execution, Opus 4.7 would win the game. The key is that: one should not trust the code of any model right away, and it is advisable to always review that code. The geopolitical factor. Kimi and Kimi Code come from China, and the startup Moonshot AI has financial backing from Alibaba. The code that is processed in these models passes through their servers, something that for an individual developer may be irrelevant. However, for a company with sensitive proprietary code, contracts that must comply with certain European or American regulations and projects in regulated sectors, this can be a significant obstacle. Kimi Code mitigates this problem by offering the possibility of running the model locally thanks to its open weights, but that requires very powerful machines and eliminates part of the cost advantage. What Kimi Code has that Claude Code doesn’t. The clearest difference between both programming AI agents is parallelism. As we said, the ability to launch up to 300 subagents to work simultaneously attacking the same problem at the same time is remarkable. For analysis of large repositories or generation … Read more

Google says that 75% of its new code already comes from machines

What if much of the software we use every day was already beginning to be written in a different way? AI has been entering programming for some time through the door of the assistants, code suggestions and small automations, but what is beginning to be seen now goes much further. The question is no longer just whether these systems help to write faster, but what happens when a large technology company decides to rely on them systematically. Google has given a pretty clear clue as to where that transition is going. Google’s jump. The figure was put on the table by Sundar Pichai in a blog post linked to Cloud Next 2026. According to Google’s CEO, the company has been using AI to generate code internally for some time and today 75% of all new code is already generated by AI and approved by engineers. The jump is not minor: last fall, that percentage was 50%. In just a few months, Google has gone from already very high usage to placing AI at the center of much of its software production. Precision matters. That nuance is not minor: generated by AI does not mean accepted without human control. Pichai talks about code generated by these systems, but also approved by engineers, a necessary difference to not oversize the data. Richard Seroter, Senior Director, Google Cloud, He explained it to Fast Company noting that that human approval is “fundamental in this area.” Google’s reading is that AI can take on an increasing part of production, but within a flow in which engineers continue to validate, correct and make decisions. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google Google’s internal turn. Pichai did not present this advance as a simple productivity improvement, but as part of a shift towards “truly agentive” workflows. As he explained, Google engineers are orchestrating autonomous digital teams, launching agents to complete tasks that previously depended much more on direct human work. The example he cited helps measure the scope of that transition: A complex code migration, performed by agents and engineers, was completed six times faster than was possible just a year ago with engineers working alone. The engineer changes places. Google’s thesis is not that the programmer disappears, but that their work is displaced. Seroter explained to Fast Company that, with this new distribution of tasks, engineers can focus on higher-value tasks: systems architecture, design and solving complex problems. In this new distribution, manual code writing loses part of its weight and the ability to direct, review and convert those pieces into real products gains importance. The contrast with the rest of the sector. A Sonar survey from earlier this year notes that 96% of developers acknowledge that they do not fully trust AI-generated code, and that 52% do not always review it for errors before incorporating it. At the same time, the weight of these tools is growing very quickly: the code generated by AI would have gone from 6% in 2023 to 42% in the latest report, with a forecast of 65% for 2027. So we have reasons to say that adoption is ahead of trust. Images | Xataka with Grok | Stanford Graduate School of Business In Xataka | A young man has solved a mathematical problem that lasted 60 years in 80 minutes with ChatGPT. That’s the least interesting thing about the story.

Mercadona has gotten rid of its search engine and replaced it with its own. They did it in a month with Claude Code and saved 90%

Mercadona’s online store processes 4.4 million searches a week. Until recently, that volume was managed Algoliaa well-established search service used by companies like Sephora or LVMH. They had been with him for eight years. Now They have replaced it with their own search enginebuilt largely by José Ramón Pérez Agüera, CTO of Mercadona Tech. He has done it largely by himself, from his home, over a long weekend. This is how he told it in a successful LinkedIn post which now extends us in a video call with Xataka. “I’m going to be very honest and I know that this is going to look tacky, but it’s the truth,” says Pérez Agüera. “70% of the work (implementing the search engine, improving search quality and laying the foundation) took three days. One weekend plus an extended Monday.” The result: an 85% improvement in the quality of the ranking, the complete elimination of searches without results (previously 4% of the total) and a reduction in the monthly cost of between 9,000 and 15,000 dollars with Algolia to less than 900. That is, a saving of between 90% and 94% depending on the month. A decision that had been on hold for years The idea of ​​abandoning Algolia is not new at Mercadona Tech, it had been ruminating for a long time. The reasons are not surprising either: the search engine directly moves between 30 and 35% of the products that end up in the cart, which makes it a critical piece of business. And Algolia, like most SaaS services, has a pricing model that scales with use: as the company grows, the cost grows, with no way to stabilize it. “In the end you end up in a vendor lock-in of very critical software that is then difficult to get rid of,” explains Pérez Agüera. But Every time the team considered building something of their own, the work estimate was pushed back.. “The most optimistic vision we had, and with a much more basic version than the one we are going to release now, was five months. And it already seemed fast to me.” Then came the era of AI agents in software development. Pérez Agüera used Claude Code as the main tool and began to experiment on his own, without a formal project or assigned team. More out of curiosity than anything else. For playing. What AI did and what it didn’t The technical process combines hybrid search (by keywords and semantics) with a machine learning system that optimizes the ranking of results. AI made it possible to iterate on dozens of experiments in hours, analyze 479 MB of catalog and analytics data in days, and explore different ranking configurations by chatting with the agent instead of manually implementing them one by one. “I easily did 40 or 50 experiments in a weekend. That would have traditionally taken me weeks,” he explains. But the speed has a precise limit: the 29 technical decisions that AI did not make. Documentation generated during the experimentation process with Claude Code: the 14 parameters that Mercadona’s search engine evaluates to order results (from the popularity of a product to how well it fits semantically with what the user is looking for), its relative weight in the final ranking (popularity and semantic similarity account for two thirds of the decision) and the configuration of the machine learning model used to train it, based on click and purchase data from the last four weeks. Each of those parameters was discussed and validated with the AI ​​agent, but the final selection was made by the human team. Image provided by Mercadona Tech. The most representative was the choice of the indexing engine. Most systems, and probably any AI agent consulted, would have recommended Elasticsearch, the most widespread solution. Pérez Agüera chose Tantivy, a much smaller library written in Rust that integrates as an embedded component, without the need for a separate Java virtual machine. An impossible decision without knowledge of the Mercadona ecosystem. “The AI ​​always recommends the most generic option,” he says. “I made that decision because I have the context and the knowledge to make it.” The transfer to the team When the core of the search engine was ready, the project passed to the engineering team. What they found was not bad code, but it was ccode that did not follow Mercadona Tech’s internal standards. The architecture was hexagonal, as is the company’s style, but it used a different approach than usual. The tests existed (Pérez Agüera applied TDD during development) but some did not make sense or were missing cases. The agent had written thousands of lines of code in a few hours and reviewing them all was unfeasible. “The team’s Tech Lead took two or three days to adapt the project to our good practices,” he summarizes. “Not because the code was wrong, but because it didn’t meet our standards as a company.” In total, adding the initial phase and the launch into production, which includes load testing, infrastructure adjustment and integration into the Mercadona Online architecture; The project has taken approximately a month of work. And “two and a half people” have been in charge of it: Pérez Agüera, the Tech Lead of the Shop team and a part-time Staff Engineer for infrastructure. The original five-month estimate required five or six people. “FWe have easily done a x5 to the speed of the projectand what we have now is much more advanced than what we would have had in five months,” he says. What changes for the teams For Pérez Agüera, the search engine is one more experiment within a larger transformation that Mercadona Tech continues to process internally. The question on the table is not whether to use AI in development, but how to redesign the entire development process based on it. His diagnosis of the profiles is forceful: “AI is going to mean that fewer developers are needed and more engineers are needed. Coding loses value per se; the … Read more

Elon Musk’s AI does not have its own Claude Code, but they already have a solution for that: buy Cursor

SpaceX, Elon Musk’s aerospace company, Indian on Wednesday that he had reached an agreement with AI startup Cursor. According to this agreement, this company could be acquired for 60,000 million dollars. If everything is confirmed, xAI will finally have a programming AI agent with which to compete. Claude Code, Codex or Gemini AI. Restructuring. Elon Musk posted a message on X in March in which claimed that “xAI was not created the right way initially, so it’s rebuilding from the ground up.” The company’s trajectory has been erratic and most of its original founders ended up leaving the company in recent months, but for that restructuring Musk hired Andrew Milich and Jason Ginsberg, two of the co-founders of Cursor. And that has been the trigger for this agreement. Cursor’s rating skyrocketed. By November 2025, Cursor was the undisputed leader in the programming AI agent segment, with $3.4 billion in funding and a fantastic reputation among developers. It had reached $100 million in annual recurring revenue in less than two years, a figure that few startups of its generation can aspire to. The Claude Code earthquake. The arrival of Claude Code changed everything thanks to his extraordinary behavior and its integration with Anthropic models, and while OpenAI also promoted Codex and the era of vibe-coding made all these tools gain more strength than ever. However, for Cursor these launches were problematic because its competitors could work directly with companies because they had something that Cursor did not: computing capacity. Cursor needed an ally. In the statement of the agreement, those responsible for Cursor they explain that the lack of access to computing power to train their own AI models had been a major bottleneck for its growth. Both Anthropic and OpenAI have access to several present and future GW of compute thanks to their agreements with hyperscalers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft). But no matter how good Cursor was, it was competing with giants with many more resources. The agreement with SpaceX gives it access to xAI’s AI supercomputer, which is precisely perfect for training LLMs and which according to its managers allows them to “drastically scale the intelligence of our models”: But xAI too. On the other side of the agreement there is also another winner. xAI have their Colossus supercomputing cluster, access to SpaceX resources (of which it is part) and a significant base of users (and their data) thanks to Grok. What it does not have is a product that competes with Claude Code or Codex, and attempts to develop it have been unsuccessful. Buying Cursor solves that problem at once: instead of working on building a product for years while its competitors continue to advance, xAI directly integrates the team that already had that product and also adds the users who were already using Cursor. Will it be enough? The question this agreement must answer is whether it is enough to put xAI on the real map of artificial intelligence. The company has a minor presence in this market despite the efforts of Elon Musk, and although it will now have a product respected and valued by users, it will be interesting if that is enough to compete with its rivals in this area. The IPO as a contextual framework. SpaceX has been preparing to go public for months, and it is expected that this will be one of the largest Public Sale Offers (IPO) of history. Acquiring Cursor before or after that deal has clear financial implications because SpaceX has two options. You can buy Cursor for $60 billion, or simply pay $10 billion for a close collaboration agreement that does not include the acquisition. SpaceX will make that decision before the end of the year, but this agreement seems to suit both it and Cursor very well. Image | Gage Skidmore In Xataka | Elon Musk knows that TSMC is overwhelmed: Terafab is his idea to completely change the global chip industry

Someone has taken more than 12,000 Spanish laws and converted them to source code. It is a real gem to search for legislation

If you have ever prepared for competitive exams and are looking for the legislation that you have to prepare for or need to consult a law for any management, you will have already realized that the Official State Gazette is a pain. (also applies to regional versions) to find out what is current and what has changed: transpositions, various PDFs, annexes and cross references that make you go crazy. You are not alone: ​​sooner or later it has happened to everyone. Until now you only had two alternatives: consult with someone who did know about the subject to clear your doubts or resort to artificial intelligence to then carefully check that nothing is left out. To the computer engineer Enrique Lopez It must have happened to him too and he took action on the matter. The project. Is called Legalize and it is in a few words a digital repository of state and regional legislation available on GitHub, as if it were a computer project. Thus, it has translated more than 12,000 regulations in force in the state (both state and regional), each one into a Markdown file with plain text on which you can search for what interests you. In addition, each of the laws are grouped in folders based on their jurisdiction. In short: one law, one file, one folder, one jurisdiction. The organization follows the standard ELI (European Legislation Identifier). As the project’s GitHub explains, all content comes from the BOE Consolidated Legislation APIthe text of the legislation is public domain. What Legalize-es provides is structure, version control and metadata. What has changed about this law. But the laws have their drafts, consolidated texts and subsequent reforms, so sometimes being clear about what is in force and what is not is an odyssey. So you added each reform as a commit, with the actual publication date. This way, even if you have no idea about laws, you can see what exactly has changed in the regulations: in red is what is deleted and in green is what is added. We see it better with an example, that of Royal Decree-Law 8/2010: Royal Decree-Law 8/2010 Why is it important. Beyond the practicality of access of this format, the true relevance is that anyone can know what has changed in a law without tricks or cardboard. It is true that the BOE is public, but it is far from friendly. On the other hand, when a law is reformed, it is easy to lose sight of previous regulations. With this format it is easy to know what has changed and when. Context. In a state like Spain where the normative production report of the CEOE for 2024 (the last one released) lists 719 regulations, being up to date with regulations that affect matters as important as taxes or retirement is an arduous task. The digitization of current legal regulations is a pending issue that this project addresses as a civic hack: using technology to simplify and clarify what the administration hinders. How it works. The core of legalize-es is the automation of legislative data through a pipeline, that is, with a “robot” that periodically monitors the BOE’s Consolidated Legislation API. The system extracts the text from the official PDF and cleans it of strange formats, leaving it in plain text. Once processed, the law is integrated into a Git version control system where each reform does not overwrite the previous one, but is saved as a new layer to allow access to the history of changes, which allows traceability. In Xataka | The “ChatGPT for lawyers” exists, it was born in Spain and has just reached a milestone: becoming a unicorn Cover | Flickr

In the midst of Claude Code’s meteoric rise, his code has been leaked. It is a sweet treat for its competitors

One of the news of the day is the great code leak that it has suffered Claude Code. The entire architecture of the programming tool of Claude has been leaked, due to an internal error recognized by Anthropic. Your competitors are in luck. what has happened. The leak was not the result of an external attack or a hack, it was an internal failure: when publishing one of Claude Code’s updates, a 59.8 MB JavaScript source code map (.map) file was exposed, intended for internal debugging. According to sourceswas included by mistake in version 2.1.88 of the @anthropic-ai/claude-code package published this morning. Minutes later the party started. “Earlier today, a release of Claude Code included some internal source code. No sensitive customer data or credentials were involved or exposed. This was a release packaging issue caused by human error, not a security breach. We are implementing measures to prevent this from happening again.” The consequences. For the next few hours, the more than 500,000 lines of leaked code were accessible and downloadable from a public GitHub repository. Since its publication, there are already more than 50,000 forks of the code. The leak shows the system of internal tools that the AI ​​uses to operate and, in addition, signs of functions that have not yet been released have appeared. This has allowed us to have in-depth access to the current anatomy of Claude Code, the internal plans for subsequent iterations and the main limitations it currently has. Why is it important. Although not Claude’s own model has been leaked, but rather the source code of his Code tool, the leak is a double blow for Anthropic. First, it is a severe setback for the company’s intellectual property, handing over its roadmap not only to competitors, but to actors eager to break Claude Code’s security barriers. More importantly, it is a blow to a company that since its inception has focused on being even safer than its competitorspublicly admitting that a file has been slipped in that should not have seen the light of day. What Anthropic has done about it. Anthropic’s reaction has been quick, removing the affected package to prevent new downloads and correcting the subsequent version. Despite this, the damage was done and the situation is irreversible. Go deeper. Claude Code has become, in its own right, one of the most popular tools among developers. According to data from SemiAnalysis, 4% of all public commits uploaded to GitHub are created with this tool, and it is expected to reach 20% in 2026. The Claude Code leak is a reminder that even the most advanced AI companies are not free from rookie mistakes. In Xataka |

We believed that human programmers would end up being code reviewers. Anthropic just killed that

The rise of the Generative AI The world of software development seemed to follow a clear script: models would write the code and humans would review it. It was the new balance. Well, Anthropic just killed him. The problem of programming with AI. What we know today as vibe codingthis practice of giving instructions in natural language to an AI so that it generates code at full speed, has skyrocketed software production in companies. Anthropic affirms that the amount of code generated by each of its own engineers has grown by 200% in the last year. And now there’s a problem: there’s so much new code that reviewing it has become the bottleneck of the process. Human developers can’t cope. Many pull requests (change proposals that must be reviewed before integrating new code) are skimmed or not read very carefully at all. What Anthropic has done. The company Code Review has been releaseda tool integrated into Claude Code that, instead of waiting for a human to review the code, deploys a team of AI agents to do it automatically every time a pull request is opened. This new system is now available in preview phase for Team and Enterprise plan customers. Cat Wu, Product Manager at Anthropic, explained told TechCrunch that the question they constantly received from their clients’ technical managers was always the same: “Now that Claude Code is generating a ton of pull requests, how do I make sure they are reviewed efficiently?” How it works inside. AI agents work in parallel autonomously the moment a pull request is opened, examining the code from different perspectives. An end agent then aggregates and prioritizes the issues it has found, removing duplicates and sorting them by severity. The result reaches the developer through a featured comment, accompanied by more online comments about specific bugs. The focus, according to Anthropicis in logical errors, not in matters of style, something designed on purpose so that the feedback does not generate too much noise. Issues are labeled by color depending on how important they are: red for critical, yellow for attention, and purple for pre-existing code. Numbers. The company has been using Code Review internally for months before launching it to the market. According to what they saybefore implementing it, only 16% of their pull requests received meaningful review comments. With the tool, that percentage rises to 54%. In large pull requests (more than 1,000 modified lines) 84% returned results, with an average of 7.5 problems detected. And less than 1% of those results are flagged as incorrect by the engineers themselves. In one of the cases documented by the company, they spoke of a single line change that seemed routine. However, Code Review marked it as critical, as it apparently could have broken the entire service’s authentication. The bug was fixed before integration. Furthermore, according to the company, the engineer later acknowledged that he would not have caught it alone. ANDhe new role of the programmer. The narrative that had spread in the last two years was that developers would evolve towards a profile closer to that of a reviewer or supervisor of code generated by AI. Now that transition is also being automated, at least in part. Anthropic does not eliminate the human from the equation (in fact the tool does not approve pull requests), but it does compress the review work that was supposed to be the last bastion. It seems that now the human goes from reviewer to final arbiter. Price. It is not a cheap tool. Each revision has a cost based on token consumption. Anthropic esteem The average price per review is between $15 and $25, depending on the complexity of the code. It is a cost that the company justifies in the context of large technology companies where errors that escape review have a much higher price. Cover image | Compagnons In Xataka | Software companies sank on the stock market for a simple reason: investors are panicking about AI

AI solves equations and chops code, but continues to crash with PDFs: the explanation shows its limits

It’s probably happened to you. You upload a PDF to an artificial intelligence chatbot in the hope that it will summarize a report, extract a table or find a specific piece of information for you in a matter of seconds. And, sometimes, he succeeds. But other times, the result is disconcerting: mixed columns, footnotes embedded in the middle of the text, tables converted into an illegible block or answers that do not faithfully reflect what the document says. The paradox is evident. Systems that already demonstrate clear advances in mathematics and programming They keep stumbling upon something as everyday as a PDF. And there is more than a simple punctual failure. Change of mentality. Although for us it is a document with well-defined paragraphs, titles and tables, for the system that processes it the situation may be very different. PDF is, first and foremost, a way to visually describe how a page should be rendered. And when a chatbot like Gemini either ChatGPT If you try to work with it, you do not always access an ordered structure, but rather a set of graphical instructions that you must first reconstruct before you can respond coherently. And that difference is better understood when we look at how a PDF “saves” information. How you actually organize information. Unlike a web page, where the content follows a logical order defined in the code, a PDF can store text as independent fragments placed at specific positions on the page. Many times, the file retains coordinates and placement instructions, but not necessarily explicit relationships between one sentence and the next. This implies that the order in which the text “appears” when extracted does not always coincide with the order in which we read it. If your document includes multiple columns, tables, or overlapping elements, the system must figure out how they fit together. And that deduction is not always trivial. {“videoId”:”x9hhg44″,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”The TRUTH of AI – This is how ChatGPT 4, DALL-E or MIDJOURNEY works 🤖 🧠 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE”, “tag”:”webedia-prod”, “duration”:”1173″} What happens with HTML. On a web page, the content is organized in an explicit hierarchy– There are tags that indicate what a title is, what a paragraph is, what a table is, and how those elements relate to each other. This structure is part of the file itself and makes it easier for other systems to read, index and process it. In a PDF, as we have seen, that semantic layer may not exist or be clearly defined. Therefore, in practice, extracting information from a website tends to be a more predictable process, while doing it from a PDF is more complicated. So what about OCR? It is the first solution that comes to mind. If the problem is that the text is not well structured or even “drawn” like an image, optical character recognition should convert it into something machine readable. And in part it does. OCR has been used for decades to transform images of words into text, but converting an image to text is not the same as reconstructing the logic of the document. When there are varied elements, the system can recognize each word without knowing exactly how they fit together. The result is not a failure in reading characters, but in the organization of information. In Xataka Dario Amodei founded Anthropic because OpenAI didn’t take the risks of AI seriously. Now you are going to give in to those risks Why don’t we abandon PDF? The answer is more pragmatic than technological. As reported by The Verge citing the person responsible for the PDF Associationthe format became established precisely because it allows a document to look the same today as it would in ten or twenty years, regardless of the device or software with which it is opened. A web page can change depending on the browser, an editable sheet can be modified or overwritten, but a PDF maintains its appearance and visual integrity. That stability is precisely what lawyers, engineers, public administrations and any organization that must maintain reliable records need. The challenge is not to replace the format, but to learn to interpret it better. Images | Xataka with Nano Bana In Xataka | Three AIs clashed in ‘War Games’. 95% of them resorted to nuclear weapons and none ever surrendered (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news AI solves equations and chops code, but continues to crash with PDFs: the explanation shows its limits was originally published in Xataka by Javier Marquez .

What is Claude Code and what this tool can do to program with artificial intelligence from your computer terminal

Let’s explain to you what is Claude Code or Claude CodeAnthropic’s tool to create code with the artificial intelligence directly into your computer terminal. This will mean that you will not need to install anything or be asking questions without stopping. Claude. We are going to start by explaining to you in a simple way what this tool is and the basics of how it works. Then, we will explain to you what things can you do and what this program for developers is for. What is Claude Code Claude Code or Claude Code is a command line application developed by Anthropic, the same creators of Claude’s AI. This is a program that allows you perform programming tasks from the terminal from your computer without having to use another program. The computer’s terminal is that command screen that you have in Windows called PowerShell, and in macOS and GNU/Linux it is simply the terminal. Instead of installing a common program that you have to open, the program is installed directly in the terminal, and you can use it to do so. With this program, you can use Claude to generate code within the terminal. And it not only generates code snippets, but can also act and reason directly on your projects by linking it to Github. Claude Code can read, analyze and edit content in your codebase. But in addition to this, you can also run tests and correct any errors generatedalso managing workflows. The classic way to generate code with Claude is to enter his app or website, explain what you want, and have the AI ​​create the code for you. Then you have to copy the code, paste it into the code editor you have installed and do the tests, so that if something fails you can go back to Claude, explain the problem, have him generate the corrected code again and repeat the process. Meanwhile, with Claud Code the process changes and is radically simplified. You simply open your terminal, run Claud Code in it, write a prompt or command saying what you want and that’s it. Then this AI will access your files, write code, run it, detect errors, fix them, and try again. It does all this autonomously, although you can supervise the process and intervene whenever you want. What Claude Code can do Claude Code has direct access to your file systemand can execute real commands on the computer. With all this, what this tool can do is the following: Read your files to see the code that you already have created in a folder, and thus understand the context of your project. Create new files complete with code, but also with configurations and documentation. Modify existing files editing the code you have in them to make any type of modifications. Work on an interim basisbeing able to read the error messages that appear if something fails in the code, and starting to correct these errors automatically. All this will save you a lot of time in your programming work, since you will not need to manually create folder structures, configure development tools, configure databases, create interfaces, write code, or anything. Claude will do all this automatically with just You explain the type of application you want to create in a prompt. You can also ask you to add features to existing projects with a command in which you mention the project, debug errors, review code, whatever you need. Therefore, we are faced with a tool for developers which will help you save a lot of time. Although as always happens in artificial intelligence, can make mistakes and have hallucinationsalthough within the world of AI programming Claude is one of the best. In Xataka Basics | Claude: 23 functions and some tricks to get the most out of this artificial intelligence

Claude Code is being the big favorite among programmers. So much so that he already signs 4% of everything that is uploaded to GitHub

It is worth taking a look at how generative AI It is transforming the daily lives of many programmers. And little by little these tools are conquering the environments of millions of developers. The achievement in this aspect is for Claude CodeAnthropic tool, which already represents 4% of all public commits uploaded to GitHub, according to a report by SemiAnalysis. The media says that, if it maintains its current pace of adoption, it is very possible that it will reach 20% of all daily contributions before the end of 2026. Although there are nuances that should be highlighted. Why is it important. Claude Code is slowly gaining the reputation of being the favorite tool for programming with AI. The tool works radically differently than traditional code wizards. It is not a chatbot integrated into an editor like Cursorbut rather a terminal tool that reads entire code bases, schedules multi-step tasks, and executes them with full access to the developer’s computer. You can start from spreadsheets, entire repositories, or web links, understand context, verify details, and complete complex objectives iteratively. The interesting thing is that, by default, Claude Code includes a co-authorship note if the user has used this tool in their program and uploads it to Github. But the user can also decide not to include that signature if modify the parameters by Claude Code, so that 4% could remain small. In March of last year, a month after its launch in private beta, Claude Code already had the co-authorship of about 15,000 Github commits in a period of 48 hours. Things have ended up escalating quickly. Opinions. The newsletter stands out the comments of some industry professionals regarding the vibe codding. Andrej Karpathy, one of the first to coin the term vibe codding, recognized in a post that he is “starting to lose the ability to write code manually.” Ryan Dahl, creator of Node.js, counted directly that “the era of humans writing code is over.” Boris Cherny, creator of Claude Code, assures that “practically 100% of our code is written by Claude Code + Opus 4.5“. Even Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, has fooled around with vibe codding for some of his personal projects. It should be noted that, despite all the benefits of Claude Code, it is not perfect. Already we pointed out some time ago the words of Kelsey PiperAmerican journalist for The Argument, who explained that 99% of the time using Claude Code is like having a magical, tireless genie, but 1% of the time it’s like yelling at a pet for peeing on the couch. He can and does make mistakes. It also gets stuck. Hence, the expertise of the person who uses it also plays a very important role. Beyond programming. There is an increasingly latent threat with the use of AI tools (well there are a few that accumulate already). And according to account SemiAnalysis, any information work that follows the READ-THINK-WRITE-CHECK pattern can be automated with this technology. The report mentions sectors such as financial services, legal, consulting and data analysis, which add up to billions of workers globally. Anthropic has already taken the next step with coworkreleased a few weeks ago, which is basically Claude Code applied to general office work. According to the company itself, Cowork was developed by four engineers in ten days, mostly with code generated by Claude Code himself. The tool can create spreadsheets from receipts, organize files by content, write reports from scattered notes… And all with access to your computer. The big consultancies and AI. In December, Accenture signed an agreement to train 30,000 professionals on Claude, the largest deployment of Claude Code to date. OpenAI, for its part, Frontier has launched focused on business adoption so as not to lose steam in the field of corporate use of AI, a business that can end up being very lucrative for startups. Cover image | Anthropic and Mohammad Rahmani In Xataka | Programming is the new board of AI. OpenAI and Anthropic have made it clear with GPT-5.3-Codex and Claude Opus 4.6

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.