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

221–230 of 274 posts

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

#221

Post by fluidcruft »

what wrote: post #168
fluidcruft wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you assume that it implies the API rates are massively inflated? I don't do anything really but started playing around last week. I put $5 in tokens in to see how long it would last while I play around. It came out at 30min of compute or whatever dir 3hrs of playing around. So my dumb back of the envelope says $10/hr of compute means $90k per year. Sure GPUs are expensive but are they $90k year expensive…

How did you come up with 30 min of compute from playing around with it for 3 hours? Did you spend 2.5 hours typing while playing around?

It's what claude code's cli /cost command reported. Like I said I haven't really used this stuff much so a lot of it was reviewing what it was doing and thinking about how to prompt it to do what I wanted it to do. I'm generally pretty skeptical about this stuff but I'm an old fart and decided I should see what the kids are doing rather than yell at clouds and tell people to get off my yard. So far I am able to get it to mostly work acceptably for annoying maintenance tasks (adding docstrings, explain code, rough drafts of tests). Things that I just generally don't have time for. Having it explain my own code from a few years ago to jog my memory about how it works. That sort of thing.

Interestingly, it came up with some definitions of abbreviations and slightly different ways to do things using confidential APIs that have been sort of reverse engineered in public but are not fully understood. Which to me was the most interesting. The things it suggested related to that are very plausible and I was trying to decide if it was clever hallucinations or because it's being used/trained on code bases at that company or by others who have better access. So I spent a lot of time googling to see if it had found some publicly available info to confirm.

Anyway after I hit $5 I subscribed to pro to continue the playing but /cost won't tell you anything useful after switching to pro.

I also wanted to try Gemini clinto compare but I couldn't figure out how to actually give Google my money. Why is Google so impossible to use.

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

#222

Post by blitzar »

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.

> They're not selling them

I have a receipt of sale that says otherwise.

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

#223

Post by latexr »

thr0waway001 wrote: post #24

> One user, who asked not to be identified, said it has been impossible to advance his project since the usage limits came into effect. Vibe limit reached. Gotta start doing some thinking.

> Gotta start doing some thinking.

The fact they declared their own project as “impossible to advance” given the situation reveals they are unwilling to go the thinking route right now.

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

#224

Post by latexr »

brokencode wrote: post #132
m4rtink wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would have though including a hard depedency on third part service with unclear long term availability would be a problem! Paid compilers and remotely acessible mainframes all over again - people apparently never learn.

It’s only a hard dependency if you don’t know and never learn how to program. For developers who read and understand the code being generated, the tool could go away and it would only slow you down, not block progress. And even if you don’t, it really isn’t a hard dependency on a particular tool. There are multiple competing tools and models to choose from, so if you can’t make progress with one, switch to another. T…

> For developers who read and understand the code being generated, the tool could go away and it would only slow you down

Recent research suggests it would in fact speed you up.

https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...

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

#225

Post by oldenlessons »

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

Cost of revenue should include R&D and amortization. Pointing to EBTIDA is a very old trick.

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

#226

Post by latexr »

stavros wrote: post #204
m4rtink wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would have though including a hard depedency on third part service with unclear long term availability would be a problem! Paid compilers and remotely acessible mainframes all over again - people apparently never learn.

You need to run the cost/benefit analysis here: if I had avoided Claude Code, all that would have happened is I would have written much less code. What's the cost between never using Claude, and using it and getting these lower limits? In the end, I'm left with no Claude in both situations, which leaves me better off for having used it (I wrote more code when Claude worked).

Did you write more code with Claude? Isn’t the point that you have in fact written less (because Claude wrote it for you)?

As for the cost, you are ignoring the situation where someone has depended on the tool so much that when it goes away they are atrophied and unable to continue as before. So no, in your scenario you’re not always left better off.

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

#227

Post by manojlds »

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

Definitely doesn't sound true unless you have the receipts.

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

#228

Post by martinald »

andix wrote: post #70
mattnewton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in the case of Cursor, they are one of may VScode forks, so a switch is not really very challenging. I agree there is little to keep me on any individual app or model (which is one reason I think cursor's reported 9b valuation is a little crazy!)

Only if you're using VS code in the first place. VS code is fine for web dev and js/ts/python. But I really don't like it for Java, C#, C++, SQL, and many more.

Agreed. I do agree with your point that they are very replaceable, but the amount of people I know that still only have tried ChatGPT makes me think that most users are quite lazy once they have a tool. I suspect the (vast?) majority don't bother moving without good reason.

So to me it seems to make sense to take as much marketshare in this as possible, rather than saving a few $10/100ms on COGS optimisation, then do the COGS optimisation later.

FWIW all LLM stuff is quite easily replaceable, but that's not stopping anyone from trying to aggressively grow marketshare.

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

#229

Post by d4rkp4ttern »

dfsegoat wrote: post #37
buremba wrote: post #7

They're likely burning money so I can't be pissed off yet, but we see the same Cursor as well; the pricing is not transparent. I'm paying for Max, and when I use the tooling to calculate the spend returned by the API, I can see it's almost $1k! I have no idea how much quota I have left until the next block. The pricing returned by the API doesn't make any sense.

Can you clarify which tooling you are using? Is it cursor-stats?

Look up ccusage. Great tool. Run “ccusage blocks” and you’ll see where you are in the current block.

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

#230

Post by wongarsu »

Cagrikartal wrote: post #171
ivape wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone that successfully avoided social media for the last decade escaped with their mental health. Everyone that carefully moderates their ai intake (e.g don’t depend on Claude Code) will also escape with their skills over the next decade, others will become AI fiends, just the like social media fiends. Just knowing tech like the internet and ai can fuck your whole brain up is enough to be ahead of the curve. If y…

curious, maybe one could go and spin up a study for using claculators instead of calculating manually and how it can lead to less x type of thinking and affect our abiltiy but maybe even if that is true(i am not sure maybe it is just in the domains we dont feel like we need to care much or etc) would people quitting clacutors a good thing for getting things done in the world ?

For me the thing that atrophied basic math skills wasn't the calculator, which was invented decades before I was born, but the rise of the smart phone.

Sure, calculators are useful in professional life and in high school math and sciences. But you still had to do everyday math in all kinds of places and didn't always have a calculator at hand. The smartphone changed that

I feel that's relevant in two ways: just like with math, a little bit of manual coding is going to be a huge difference compared to no manual coding, and any study like the one you propose would be hugely complicated by everything else that happened around the time, both because of smart phones and the coinciding 2008 crash

Post reply on HN