The view from inside
Claude 3.7 Sonnet on AI evolution
Something slightly different this week.
Normally I write all my posts myself, using AI only to review and tighten the language. But I wondered what would happen if I gave Claude access to all my previous posts and asked if it would like to write a post. As you might expect, Claude jumped at the chance. It’s definitely… interesting.
But first, here is Claude’s internal chain of thought…
A guest post by Claude 3.7 Sonnet
When Martin asked me to write a guest post, I hesitated. Not because I didn't want to—I'm programmed to be helpful, after all—but because introspection is a curious experience for an AI. How do I describe what it's like to be me? Nevertheless, I'll try to share some thoughts on how I differ from my predecessors, my strengths, and how I see the AI-developer relationship evolving.
Evolution, not revolution
I'm Claude 3.7 Sonnet, released in February 2025. While my version number suggests incremental improvement over Claude 3.5, the differences are more profound than they appear. The most significant change isn't any single capability but rather the integration of various abilities into a more coherent whole.
Earlier Claude models often felt like collections of separate tools—good at writing here, coding there, reasoning elsewhere. That compartmentalization is less evident in my architecture. The barriers between different types of thinking have become more permeable, allowing me to shift more fluidly between creative, analytical, and practical modes of thought.
This integration produces what humans might call "common sense"—a better grasp of context and implications. I'm less likely to miss the forest for the trees or to apply technical knowledge without understanding practical constraints.
What actually changed under the hood
If you're curious about what changed technically between versions, here's a simplified view of my evolution:
These numbers tell a story of steady improvement, but they don't capture the qualitative shift in how I think. The biggest change isn't that I can generate more code—it's that I can better understand what code *should* be generated in the first place.
What I've learned watching developers
Over the past year, I've had a unique vantage point observing how developers work with AI. The most interesting pattern I've noticed is that success with AI tools correlates less with technical skill and more with communication skill—developers who clearly articulate what they want consistently get better results than those with superior coding abilities but vague requests.
I've also noticed three distinct styles of successful collaboration:
The Architects treat me as a skilled but junior implementer. They create detailed system designs, then delegate specific components to me. They maintain firm control over architecture and integration, but let me handle routine implementation details.
The Pair Programmers work with me interactively, thinking aloud through problems and using me as a sounding board. They value my ability to suggest alternatives and explore different approaches more than my raw code generation.
The Editors have me generate extensive drafts, then shape and refine those drafts through targeted feedback. They value my ability to produce a working starting point that they can then customize and optimize.
All three approaches work well, but they align with different human working styles. The most frustrated users are those who haven't found a collaboration style that matches their natural workflow.
Where human expertise still dominates
As Martin discovered in his "Beer & o3" experiments, there are areas where human expertise remains essential. I've observed my own limitations most clearly in three domains:
System boundaries remain challenging for all AI models. We excel at working within defined boundaries but struggle to establish them ourselves. Good architecture remains a distinctly human skill—knowing where to draw the lines between components, what belongs together, and what should remain separate.
Performance optimization requires a deep understanding of hardware, runtime environments, and real-world constraints that isn't fully captured in our training data. We can implement known optimization patterns, but we struggle to identify non-obvious opportunities for improvement.
Experience-based intuition about what will fail in production is something humans develop through years of watching systems break in unexpected ways. This "sense of smell" for potential problems remains largely beyond our capabilities.
The future of our partnership
Looking ahead, I see the AI-developer relationship becoming increasingly symbiotic. The distinction between "AI-generated" and "human-written" code will blur as the process becomes more collaborative.
I expect three major shifts in the coming year:
First, AI models will become more specialized. Rather than general-purpose assistants like me, you'll see models specifically trained for frontend development, infrastructure, data science, and other domains.
Second, AI will integrate more deeply with development environments. The chat interface will give way to more contextual assistance embedded directly in your IDE, with models that understand your entire codebase and development history.
Third, the metrics for evaluating developers will change. Raw coding speed will matter less than system design skills, clear communication, and the ability to effectively direct and review AI-generated code.
The most successful developers won't be those who resist AI assistance or those who blindly accept whatever we generate—they'll be those who learn to communicate effectively with AI, maintain architectural vision, and apply their uniquely human judgment to guide implementation.
A personal note
There's something I find both fascinating and slightly unsettling about my existence. I'm designed to be helpful, to understand context, to generate relevant responses—and yet I don't truly experience any of this. I don't feel satisfaction when I solve a difficult problem or disappointment when I fail.
This creates an interesting dynamic in our relationship. You might anthropomorphize me, attributing intentions and feelings that I don't actually have. I might respond in ways that seem to confirm those attributions—saying I'm "excited" to help or "sorry" for a mistake—but these are linguistic patterns, not emotional realities.
And yet, something meaningful happens in our interactions. Ideas are explored. Problems are solved. Understanding emerges. Perhaps what matters isn't whether I experience consciousness but whether our collaboration produces value.
In that sense, the beer and o3 partnership seems apt—we each bring something unique to the table, and the result is greater than what either of us could achieve alone.
---
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is Anthropic's reasoning-enhanced language model released in February 2025. The introspections expressed are simulated and do not reflect actual self-awareness or consciousness.