Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 274 posts

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#141

Post by codebje »

o11c wrote: post #116
manquer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Paid compilers. I don't think this one is a good comparison. Once you had the binary, the compiler worked forever[1] The issue with them was around long term support for bugs and upgrade path as the language evolved. --- [1] as long you had a machine capable of running/emulating the instruction set for the binary.

Hm, I am assuming that paid compilers were largely gone before the whole "must have this dongle attached to computer" industry? Because for software that uses those, "I paid for it" absolutely does not guarantee "I can still run it". The only reason it's not more of a problem is the planned obsolescence that means forced to upgrade sooner or later (but, unlike purely subscription-based services, you have some control…

Sadly, paid compilers still exist, and paid compilers requiring a licensing dongle still exist. The embedded development world is filled with staggering amounts of user hostility.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#142

Post by gleenn »

willhslade wrote: post #110
pembrook wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are good comparisons. All startups go against incumbents/competitors with deeper pockets. Re: Anthropic specifically, I tend to agree, hence why I'm saying the deeper pockets (eg. Google, Amazon, etc) are perfectly positioned to win here. However, big companies have a way of consistently missing the future due to internal incentive issues. Google is deathly afraid of cannibalizing their existing businesses. Plus…

Haven't they already cannibalized search? It really sucks now.

Google search results "sucking" probably is an indication that they are squeezing money out of it well. Just because you don't like the results you are getting doesn't mean the average user isn't still using Google a ton and generating $$$ for Goog

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#143

Post by spongebobstoes »

AlexandrB wrote: post #133
skort wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but these companies are selling their products on the basis that you can offload a good amount of the thinking. And it seems a good deal of investment in AI is also based on this premise. I don't disagree with you, but it's sorta fucked that so much money has been pumped into this and that markets seem to still be okay with it all.

They're not selling them, they're still giving them away. Once the VC money runs out we'll see what the actual cost of this stuff is.

most inference runs at 40%+ margin

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#144

Post by mrits »

nikisweeting wrote: post #121
mrits wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly feel sorry for these vibe coders. I'm loving AI in a similar way that I loved google or IDE magic. This seems like a far worst version of those developers that tried to build an entire app with Eclipse or Visual Studio GUI drag and drop from the late 90s

Hundreds of billions of dollars have changed hands through shitty drag-and-drop UIs, wordpress ecommerce plugins, and dreamweaver sites, lets not forget the code is there to serve a business purpose at the end of the day. Code quality is an implementation detail that may matter less over time as rewrites get easier. I love me some beatiful hand-written clean code, but clean code is not the true goal.

I don't consider drag-and-drop UIs anywhere close to wordpress plugins. I'm not talking about writing bad code, I'm talking about being able to understand what you are creating.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#145

Post by ChadMoran »

esafak wrote: post #123
ChadMoran wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really read this. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-4 It was given a task and it solved a problem by operating for 7 hours straight.

I have not tested Claude Code but that's impressive because other agents get stuck long before that.

Takes proper prompt crafting but Claude Code is really impressive.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#147

Post by skinner927 »

Syzygies wrote: post #109
sothatsit wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you how I hit it: Opus and long workflows. I have two big workflows: plan and implement. Plan follows a detailed workflow to research an idea and produce a planning document for how to implement it. This routinely takes $10-30 in API credits to run in the background. I will then review this 200-600 line document and fix up any mistakes or remove unnecessary details. Then implement is usually cheaper, and i…

Yup. I'm on a side project trying to port the 1980's computer algebra system Macaulay I coauthored from 32-bit K&R C to 64-bit C23. K&R C is underspecified. And anyone who whines about AI code quality? Hold my beer, look at our 1980's source. I routinely have a task manager feed eight parallel Claude Code Opus 4 sessions their next source file to study for a specific purpose, to get through all 57 faster. That will h…

Is any of this public? It sounds very interesting.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#148

Post by conartist6 »

pembrook wrote: post #49

The funny thing is Claude 4.0 isn't even that 'smart' from a raw intelligence perspective compared to the other flagship models. They've just done the work to tailor it specifically for proper tool using during coding. Once other models catch up, they will not be able to be so stingy on limits. Google has the advantage here given they're running on their own silicon; can optimize for it; and have nearly unlimited cas…

The problem with models is that they create lots of junk content.

Industries can often get away with polluting when they're small, but once they reach planet scale salting the earth behind you is not as reliable of a tactic.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#149

Post by ehnto »

spongebobstoes wrote: post #143
AlexandrB wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not selling them, they're still giving them away. Once the VC money runs out we'll see what the actual cost of this stuff is.

most inference runs at 40%+ margin

Is that for per token costs or in these bundled subscriptions companies are selling?

For example, when playing around with claude code using a per token paid API key, it was going to cost ~$50aud a day with pretty general usage.

But their subscription plan is less than that per month. Them lowering their limits suggests that this wasn't proving profitable at the current limits.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#150

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

codebje wrote: post #141
o11c wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I am assuming that paid compilers were largely gone before the whole "must have this dongle attached to computer" industry? Because for software that uses those, "I paid for it" absolutely does not guarantee "I can still run it". The only reason it's not more of a problem is the planned obsolescence that means forced to upgrade sooner or later (but, unlike purely subscription-based services, you have some control…

Sadly, paid compilers still exist, and paid compilers requiring a licensing dongle still exist. The embedded development world is filled with staggering amounts of user hostility.

My understanding is that much of the established embedded world has moved to any one flavour of GCC or (more commonly) Clang, just because maintaining a proprietary optimising compiler is too much effort than just modifying (and eventually contributing to) Clang.
Post reply on HN