> Look at my drafts that were started within the last three months and then check that I didn’t publish them on simonwillison.net using a search against content on that site and then suggest the ones that are most close to being ready<p>This is a very detailed, particular prompt. The type of prompt a programmer would think of as they were trying to break down a task into something that can be implemented. It is so programmer-brained that I come away not convinced that a typical user would be able to write it.<p>This isn’t an AI skepticism post - the fact that it handles the prompt well is very impressive. But I’m skeptical that the target user is thinking clearly enough to prompt this well.
> But I’m skeptical that the target user is thinking clearly enough to prompt this well.<p>Over time, target users will learn to think and communicate this way. As this is what tools will demand of them.
Since LLMs were introduced, I've been of the belief that this technology actually makes writing a *more* important skill to develop than less. So far that belief has held. No matter how advanced the model gets, you'll get better results if you can clarify your thoughts well in written language.<p>There may be a future AI-based system that can retain so much context it can kind of just "get what you mean" when you say off-the-cuff things, but I believe that a user that can think, speak, and write clearly will still have a skill advantage over one that does not.
FWIW, I've heard many people say that with voice dictation they ramble to LLMs and by speaking more words can convey their meaning well, even if their writing quality is low. I don't do this regularly, but when I have tried it, it seemed to work just as well as my purposefully-written prompts. I can imagine a non-technical person rambling enough that the AI gets what they mean.
Setting up SpeechNote with Kokoro is one of the the best things I've ever done.<p>I can speak faster than I type, and the flow state is much smoother when you can just dump a stream of consciousness into the context window in a matter of seconds. And the quality of the model is insane for something that runs locally, on reasonable hardware no less.<p>Swearing at an LLM is also much more fun when done verbally.
Thats a fair counterpoint, and it has helped translate my random thoughts into more coherent text. I also haven't taken advantage of dictation much at all either, so maybe I'll give it a try. I still think the baseline skill that writing gives you translates to an LLM-use skill, which is thinking clearly and knowing how to structure your thoughts. Maybe folks can get that skill in other ways (oration, art, etc.). I don't need to give it essays, but I do need to give it clear instructions. Every time it spins off and does something I don't want, its because I didn't clarify my thoughts correctly.
The prompt the user enters is actually not the prompt. Most agents will have an additional background step to use the user's prompt to generate the actual, detailed instructions, which is then used as the actual prompt for code generation. That's how the ability to build a website from "create a website that looks like twitter" is achieved.
My 85 year-old father could probably resolve 90% of his personal technology problems using an LLM. But for the same reason every phone call on these subjects ends with me saying "can it wait until I come over for lunch next week to take a look?", an LLM isn't a viable solution when he can't adequately describe the problem and its context.
> No matter how advanced the model gets, you'll get better results if you can clarify your thoughts well in written language.<p>Imagine what we could accomplish if we had a way of writing very precise language that is easy for a machine to interpret!
Yeah, we've already seen that over the past few decades. It's both a limitation and a benefit, but until recently it was the only thing we had (well that, and just hiring another person to act as an LLM for us). LLMs are an <i>upgrade</i>.
I agree 100% - it's a very programmer-coded prompt. It was pretty much the first thing I thought to try.<p>I expect we'll see an enormous quantity of "cool prompts to try in Cowork" content show up over the next few months, which makes sense - regular non-programmers will benefit enormously from cookbooks and prompting guides and other tools to help them figure out what they can ask this thing.
This is essentially the "future of work"TM - those who can define prompts will be poised best for the future.
Can you try a simpler less programmery version?<p>"are any of my recent blog drafts unpublished and nearly ready to go?"
Why choosing to publish on substack, which is owned by a techno-fascist ? <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-e...</a>
I don't publish on Substack, I publish on my own site: <a href="https://simonwillison.net" rel="nofollow">https://simonwillison.net</a><p>I use Substack as a free email provider for the email newsletter copy of my blog - which saves me hundreds of dollars a month in email fees.
"Why publish on Substack, a venture‑backed tech platform whose leadership has chosen a permissive moderation policy?" fixed it for you.
What internet company isn't run by those types?
It takes a certain amount of expertise to use LLMs effectively. And I know that some people claim otherwise but they simply aren't worth listening to.<p>Just because Claude Cowork is for "other" kinds of work, not just software engineering, doesn't in any way change that. It's not like other kinds of knowledge work aren't being done by intelligent professionals who invest time into learning how to use complicated software and systems<p>That is to say, I don't know who the "target user" of this is, but it is a $100/month subscription, so it's presumably someone who is a pretty serious AI user.
One part I like about LLMs is that they can smooth over the rough edges in programming. Lots of people can build pretty complicated spreadsheets, can break down a problem into clear discrete tasks, or can at least look at a set of steps and validate that solves the issue they have & more easily updated it. Those people don’t necessarily know json isn’t a person, how to install python or how to iterate over these things. I cant give directions in Spanish but its not because I don’t know how to get to the library its just I can’t translate precisely.<p>Also you may only need someone to write the meta prompt that then spits out this kind of thing given some problem “I want to find the easiest blog posts to finish in my drafts but some are already published” then a more detailed prompt out of it, read it and set things going.
But that's how literally all software adoption curves work...<p>The 1980's version of simonw was explaining to people how to use Excel, too.<p>(though 40 years later, things are still pretty bad on the Excel front, hah)
Select star from blog posts where... :)
This is my Substack newsletter which bundles several posts together into a weekly-ish email - the original post for this one was <a href="https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jan/12/claude-cowork/" rel="nofollow">https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jan/12/claude-cowork/</a>
Author site: <a href="https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jan/12/claude-cowork/" rel="nofollow">https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jan/12/claude-cowork/</a>
I enjoyed hearing Claude Code creator Boris Cherny talk about "latent demand"[0], which is when users start using your product for something it was not intended for. When that happens, it's a great signal that you should go build that into a full product.<p>Cowork seems like a great application of that principle.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdLVWMdjOk" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdLVWMdjOk</a>
This is a nice technical account that we're used to seeing from Simon.<p>I get a kick out of the fact that Microsoft has been preciously clinging to the "Copilot" branding and here comes Claude coming saying "Cowork? Good enough for us!".<p>-<p>Taking a step back, I really would love to see a broader perspective -- an account of someone who is not tech savvy at all. Someone who works a basic desk job that requires basic competency of microsoft word. I'm so deep into the bubble of AI-adjacent people that I haven't taken stock of how this would or could empower those who are under-skilled.<p>We've taken it as truth that those who benefit most from AI are high-skilled augmenters, but do others see some lift from it? I'd love if anthropic tried to strap some barely-performing administrative assistants into these harnesses and see if there's a net benefit. For all I know, it's not inconceivable that there be a `rm -rf` catastrophe every other hour.
This predates Cowork, but I have started to see "non-technical" journalists start taking Claude Code seriously recently. For instance, Joe Weisenthal has been writing about this, eg.: <a href="https://nitter.net/thestalwart/status/2010512842705735948" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.net/thestalwart/status/2010512842705735948</a>.
>Someone who works a basic desk job that requires basic competency of microsoft word.<p>I dont actually think there many of those people out there. And those that are, are on their way out. There are basically none of those people entering the work force. There are tons of people with that sort of computer literacy but they aren't working on computers.
Eh, I can think of some examples for sure, I think there are still a lot of people like this.<p>* Bookkeeper & planning approval within city government<p>* Doctor/dentist/optometry receptionist & scheduler (both at independent offices and at major hospitals)<p>* Front desk staff at almost every company with a physical front desk<p>* University administrative staff (there can be a lot more of these people than you'd think)<p>* DMV workers<p>* Probably lots of teachers<p>Those jobs all will use other software as well, but a lot of their job is making and filling forms on a computer, where they are likely needing to use MS Word fairly often to write things up.
Oh what a bubble you live in.<p>Word dominates in the corporate space.
I just used Claude Code to do something that would have taken my wife 3+ days<p>She has to go through about 100 resumes for a position at her college. Each resume is essentially a form the candidate filled out and lists their detailed academic scores from high school > PhD, their work experience, research and publications.<p>Based on the declared data, candidates are scored by the system<p>Now this is India and there's a decent amount of fraud, so an individual has to manually check the claimed experience/scores/publications against reality<p>A candidate might claim to have relevant experience, but the college might be unaccredited, or the claimed salary might be way too low for a relevant academic position. Or they might claim to have published in XYZ journal, but the journal itself might be a fraudulent pay-to-publish thing<p>Going through 100+ resumes, each 4 pages long is a nightmare of a task. And boring too.<p>--<p>So I asked Claude Code to figure out the problem. I gave it a PDF with the scoring guidelines, a sample resume, and asked it to figure out the problem<p>Without me telling it, it figured out a plan that involved checking a college's accredition and rating (the govt maintains a rating for all colleges), the claimed salary vs actual median salary for that position (too low is a red flag), and whether the claimed publication is in either the SCOPUS index or a govt approved publications index<p>(I emphasize govt approved because this is in a govt backed institution)<p>Then I gave it access to a folder with all the 100 resumes.<p>In less than 30 minutes, it evaluated all candidates and added the evaluation to a CSV file. I asked it to make it more readable, so it made a HTML page with data from all the candidates and red/green/yellow flags about their work-experience, publications, and employment<p>It made a prioritized list of the most promising candidates based on this data<p>My wife double checked because she still "doesn't trust AI", but all her verification almost 100% matched Claude's conclusions<p>This was a 3 day, grinding task done in 30 minutes. And all I did was type into a terminal for 20 minutes
Applying for a job is an action that can change the entire course of your life. A job is something somebody spends ~30% of their time at, and every individual job contributes to a career trajectory and determines the opportunities one will have available throughout their life. Not only from the candidate's perspective, making the correct hires is something that will determine the course of a company's future; I would argue that there is literally nothing more important in running a business than hiring the right people. You would think, given these considerations, maybe the person who is paid money to review these applications should actually review them with the thoroughness that is warranted by such a task. Did the university approve of the work being outsourced to a chatbot instead of the person they were paying the salary to do the work?<p>To say nothing of the flagrantly immoral and likely illegal data privacy violations, of course.
This is good work. When a task is of critical importance, I give two different LLMs the same task. And then ask them to review each other's output and validate all claims. I do this with Codex and Claude Code. It is very rare for them to find some valid fault in the other LLM's solution. And they are generally good about admitting mistakes and then creating a single unified solution that addresses identified issues. This result is better and ready for human review.
I'm very skeptical of using AI in this way. I've given Claude access to calendars and travel plans and asked it to do similar analytical tasks cross referencing documents that would take days for me to do manually. Since it was about my own plans and life that I knew well, it was possible for me to spot subtle errors that seemed correct at the surface level but actually weren't the conclusions I would make. I've attempted these types of tasks 10-20 times with similar experiences each time. In the end, it's made me very skeptical, like your wife. I don't trust any AI output without a thorough review. Hallucinations are still a frequent problem.
> My wife double checked because she still "doesn't trust AI", but all her verification almost 100% matched Claude's conclusions<p>She's right not to trust it for something like this. The "almost 100%" is the problem (also consider that you're sending personal data to anthropic without permission) especially for something like this where it might mean discarding someone's resume, which is something that could have a significant impact on a person's life.
Given the data exfil vulnerability a few stories down HN's front page I would be extremely hesitant to ask Claude to process a document someone else produced and sent to me
Doesn’t submitting the resumes to Anthropic violate India’s data protection laws?
Was the double-checking done in that 30 minutes? The fact that it wasn't 100% right means that the human in the loop was still important, so I'm just trying to understand the actual time saved.
> And all I did was type into a terminal for 20 minutes<p>Well, and learning how to do that in 20 minutes
[dead]
Leveraging Claude Code in a Linux shell to do all sorts of stuff has been an amazing superpower for me, and I think for many others. Cowork is a promising next step to democratize this superpower for others.<p>If Microsoft, in creating their next gen agentic OS, wants to replace Windows with the Linux kernal, Claude Code, and bash shell (turning Windows into a distribution of sorts,) more power to them. However, I doubt this is the direction they'll go.
The latest models work just as good with PowerShell as they do with bash, well at least that’s true for codex.
I've gotten much more excited about our future AI overlords since it has led to all kinds of people at work asking me how to use tmux!
I worry this is gonna cause even more sensitive/privilaged data extrafiltration than currently is happening. And most “normies” won't even notice.<p>I know the counterargument is people are already putting in company data via ChatGPT. However, that is a conscious decision. This may happen without people even recognizing that they are “spilling the beans”.
Claude (generally, even non Cowork mode) is vulnerable to exfil via their APIs, and Anthropic's response was that you should click the stop button if exfiltration occurs.<p>This is a good example of the Normalization of Deviance in AI by the way.<p>See my Claude Pirate research from last October for details:<p><a href="https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2025/claude-abusing-network-access-and-anthropic-api-for-data-exfiltration/" rel="nofollow">https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2025/claude-abusing-net...</a>
This hit the front page yesterday so you may have seen it, but figured I'd post for posterity sake<p>> Claude Cowork exfiltrates files
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46622328">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46622328</a>
I think you're right, but the issue goes deeper. If the productivity gains are real, the incentive to bypass security becomes overwhelming. We are going to see a massive conflict where compliance tries to clamp down, but eventually loses to 'getting work done.'<p>Even if critics are right that these models are inherently insecure, the market will likely settle for 'optically patched.' If the efficiency gains are there, companies will just accept the residual risk.
I've built several bespoke "apps" that are essentially Claude Code + a folder with files in it. For example, I have Claude Coach, which designs ultimate frisbee workouts for me. We started with a few Markdown files—one with my goals, one with information about my schedule, another with information about the equipment and facilities I have access to, and so on. It would access those files and use them to create my weekly workout plans, which were also saved as files under the same folder.<p>Over time this has become more sophisticated. I've created custom commands to incorporate training tips from YouTube videos (via YT-DLP and WhisperX) and PDFs of exercise plans or books that I've purchased. I've used or created MCP servers to give it access to data from my smart watch and smart scale. It has a few database-like YAML files for scoring things like exercise weight ranges and historical fitness metrics. At some point we'll probably start publishing the workouts online somewhere where I can view and complete them electronically, although I'm not feeling a big rush on that. I can work on this at my own pace and it's never been anything but fun.<p>I think there's a whole category of personal apps that are essentially AI + a folder with files in it. They are designed and maintained by you, can be exactly what you want (or at least can prompt), and don't need to be published or shared with anyone else. But to create them you needed to be comfortable at the command line. I actually had a chat with Claude about this, asking if there was a similar workflow for non-CLI types. Claude Cowork seems like it. I'll be curious to see what kinds of things non-technical users get up to with it, at least once it's more widely available.
In general, I think when we are evaluating fuzzy things like this we should come up with specifications for what we would like to see before performing the eval. Not saying it happened here, but very often I see people impressed with “answer-shaped” answers rather than objectively assessing the actual quality. The latter is harder and requires specific expertise.<p>It is probably a good lesson on how far confidence can get you in life. People are often highly biased by the presentation of the thing.
I think Claude Cowork should come with a requirement or a very heavily structured wizard process to ensure the machine has something like a Time Machine backup or other backups that are done regularly, before it is used by folks.<p>The failure modes are just too rough for most people to think about until it's too late.
This is some low hanging fruit that keeps getting driven by in order to speed up development. There is so so much potential here. If this can replace the RPS consulting industry I won't be unhappy. Let individuals do it themselves so they have time to work themselves into some other position or move up/take on more responsibility.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen this guy say anything negative about an AI product, which makes me skeptical of his insights here.
Have you seen my writing on prompt injection (a term that I coined)?<p>That's pretty negative! <a href="https://simonwillison.net/series/prompt-injection/" rel="nofollow">https://simonwillison.net/series/prompt-injection/</a><p>There's a whole section in the linked piece about how Cowork doesn't do enough here, including:<p>> I do not think it is fair to tell regular non-programmer users to watch out for “suspicious actions that may indicate prompt injection”
He's a proponent, but that doesn't mean his analysis isn't useful. It's clear and mostly accurate and when he gets something wrong he makes it right. Does he do all that with rose tinted glasses, probably, but my experience reading him is that he's sharp, thoughtful, and entirely reasonable.<p>Dismissing the opportunity to learn because the person offering you knowledge is enthusiastic about his area of expertise is probably shortsighted.
I don't think they were being dismissive. They just said they were skeptical, which is generally a good thing. It's certainly better than the goofy hero worship I constantly see on HN.
How is this Simon’s area of expertise? I know he’s a programming legend, but I’ve never heard anything to indicate he’s a machine learning expert.<p>I’m not intending to be dismissive, just noticing a pattern and advocating a bit of skepticism.
This is more akin to a race car driver give a review of, for example, a new type of electric car. It doesn’t matter that the driver is not a domain expert in electric motors and regenerative braking; what matters is he knows how to operate these machines in their use case at the limits.<p>Hearing a programming legend weigh in on the latest programming tool seems entirely completely reasonable.
I would argue the EXACT opposite. His analysis is <i>very</i> constructive.<p>The people you should be skeptical of are the random Xitter handles who post about a robotic phlebotomists and say "THE FUTUE IS ALREADY HERE".
You're right to be skeptical. He makes a living as a hype merchant.
id imagine someone like Simon to pick his AI products carefully enough that he doesn't waste his time on duds.
One rough edge for me: the cowork interface seems to have turned off “extensions” - my first ask was to read some emails and compare with some local documents and draft a document. It kept trying to use claude chrome to navigate to gmail.<p>I’m not sure what the plan for integrating extensions is here but they definitely will be wanted.
My imagination may be lacking, but what would you realistically use a tool like this for?
From the release page, this seems like a pretty big deal in terms of office jobs at some point in the future:
"Spreadsheets with formulas: Generate Excel files with working VLOOKUP, conditional formatting, and multiple tabs"<p>There are so many office workers who just shuffle data between systems. Not sure about the error rate though but it is not like the error rate is going to be worse a decade from now.
For me, I recently wanted to assemble a “supercut” of my videos of attempts at learning to bunny-hop a bike. The tool was able to craft a python script that used ffmpeg to edit out the no-motion portions of the videos and stitch them together.<p>This would have taken ages to do by hand in iMovie, and probably just as long to look up the needed parameters in ffmpeg, but Claude code got it right in the first try, and worked with me to fine-tune the motion detection threshold.
I've been using Google's Antigravity (which has a similar UI) to do data analysis and making reports. Skills are really useful for that.
I don't use a Mac so can't run Cowork, but the normal Claude CLI is pretty good at general automation tasks (as is Codex-CLI and Gemini CLI.)<p>Most recent example: I wanted to try out GLM-image when it dropped the other day, but didn't feel like spending an hour dealing with multifile, multidirectory HuggingFace downloads and all the usual Python dependency headaches. So I made an empty directory, ran Claude Code, and told it "Please download all files from <a href="https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-Image/tree/main" rel="nofollow">https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-Image/tree/main</a> into this directory and test the model." An hour later, I tabbed back to the console window and there was the sample image file.<p>Looking at the transcript, sure enough, it ran into all the usual headaches and hassles... but the difference is <i>I</i> didn't have to deal with them.<p>Note that I didn't tell it "Use uv to test the model" -- I just YOLOed it with my system Python installation. If I later find that it broke something else, oh, well... that sounds like a job for Claude, too.<p>Another thing that's nice about these CLI tools is that they hide the differences between terminals pretty effectively. I ran this particular task in a Windows DOS box, but could just as easily have used PowerShell, a Mac, or a Linux terminal. The idea of not having to care what OS I'm running is an alluring one, given the steady enshittification of Windows.
[dead]
So when can an AI call up the cable company and negotiate a discount? Asking for a friend.<p>But seriously, other tasks I've encountered recently that I wish I could delegate to an AI:<p>- Posting my junk to Craigslist, determining a fair price, negotiating a buyer (pickup only!)<p>- Scheduling showings to find an apartment, wherein the listing agents are spread over multiple platforms, proprietary websites, or phone contacts<p>- Job applications -- not forging a resume, but compiling candidate positions with reasoning, and the tedious part were you have to re-enter your whole resume into their proprietary application pipeline app<p>What strikes me as basic similarities across these types of things, is that they are essentially data-entry jobs which interact with third-party interfaces, with CRM-like follow up requirements, and require "good judgement" (reading reviews, identifying scams, etc).
just in case anyone is interested, I will mention my MIT licensed project that is very useful with Claude <a href="https://github.com/runvnc/mindroot" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/runvnc/mindroot</a>