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

An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 778 posts

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#51

Post by wahnfrieden »

Avicebron wrote: post #30
Alifatisk wrote: post #7

It’s incredible how forgiving you guys are with Anthropic and their errors. Especially considering you pay high price for their service and receive lower quality than expected.

It's still night and day the difference in quality between chatgpt5.4 and opus 4.7. Heck even on Perplexity where 5.4 is included in Pro vs 4.7 which is behind the max plan or whatever, I will pick sonnet 4.6 over the 5.4 offering and it's consistently better. I don't love Anthropic, I don't have illusions about them as a business. But if a tool is better, it's better.

You aren’t getting the 5.4 experience for code if you’re not using it in the Codex harness

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#52

Post by scblock »

saghm wrote: post #40
Alifatisk wrote: post #7

It’s incredible how forgiving you guys are with Anthropic and their errors. Especially considering you pay high price for their service and receive lower quality than expected.

At least personally, it feels like the choices are the one that's okay with being used for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons targeting, the one that's on track to get acquired by the AI company that dragged its feet in getting around to stopping people from making child porn with it, the one that nobody seems to use from Google, and the one that everyone complains about but also still seems to be using because…

A valid choice, a moral choice, is none of the above.

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#53

Post by sroussey »

jryio wrote: post #34
Philpax wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anthropic publicly gaslights their user-base: "we never degrade model performance" is frustrating. They're not gaslighting anyone here: they're very clear that the model itself, as in Opus 4.7, was not degraded in any way (i.e. if you take them at their word, they do not drop to lower quantisations of Claude during peak load). However, the infrastructure around it - Claude Code, etc - is very much subject to change…

Model performance at inference in a data center v.s. stripping thinking tokens are effectively the same. Sure they didn't change the GPUs their running, or the quantization, but if valuable information is removed leading to models performing worse, performance was degraded. In the same way uptime doesn't care about the incident cause... if you're down you're down no one cares that it was 'technically DNS'.

I thought these days thinking tokens sent my the model (as opposed to used internally) were just for the users benefit. When you send the convo back you have to strip the thinking stuff for next turn. Or is that just local models?

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#54

Post by saghm »

Robdel12 wrote: post #5

Wow, bad enough for them to actually publish something and not cryptic tweets from employees. Damage is done for me though. Even just one of these things (messing with adaptive thinking) is enough for me to not trust them anymore. And then their A/B testing this week on pricing.

The A/B testing is by far the most objectionable thing from them so far in my opinion, if only because of how terrible it would be for something like that to be standard for subscriptions. I'd argue that it's not even A/B testing of pricing but silently giving a subset of users an entirely different product than they signed up for; it would be like if 2% of Netflix customers had full-screen ads pop up and cover the videos randomly throughout a show. Historically the only thing stopping companies from extraordinarily user-hostile decisions has been public outcry, but limiting it to a small subset of users seems like it's intentionally designed to try to limit the PR consequences.

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#55

Post by bensyverson »

mannanj wrote: post #15
Robdel12 wrote: post #5

Wow, bad enough for them to actually publish something and not cryptic tweets from employees. Damage is done for me though. Even just one of these things (messing with adaptive thinking) is enough for me to not trust them anymore. And then their A/B testing this week on pricing.

so who do you trust and go to? (NotClearlySo)OpenAI?

Anecdotally, I know many people who have supplemented Claude with Codex, and are experimenting with models such as GLM 5.1, Kimi, Qwen, etc.

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#56

Post by lukan »

lukasus wrote: post #24
Alifatisk wrote: post #7

It’s incredible how forgiving you guys are with Anthropic and their errors. Especially considering you pay high price for their service and receive lower quality than expected.

At the time you wrote your comment there were 4 other comments and all of them very negative towards the Anthropic and the blog post in question here. How did you get this conclusions?

Confused as well, I rather supposed Antrophic had some standing for saying no to Trump and being declared national security threat, but the anger they got and people leaving to OpenAI again, who gladly said yes to autonomous killing AI did astonish me a bit. And I also had weird things happening with my usage limits and was not happy about it. But it is still very useful to me - and I only pay for the pro plan.

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#57

Post by ayhanfuat »

Kiro wrote: post #20
ayhanfuat wrote: post #14

Reading the "Going forward" section I see that they have zero understanding of the main complaints.

How so?

They feel they're in a position to make important trade-off decisions on behalf of the user. "It's just slightly worse, I'll sneak this change in" is not something to be tolerated, whether it actually turns out to be much worse or not. Their adaptive thinking mess has caused a ton of work for me. I know a lot of people are saying Codex is actually better now. I don't agree but I'm switching to it because it's much more reliable.

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#59

Post by unselect5917 »

lukasus wrote: post #24
Alifatisk wrote: post #7

It’s incredible how forgiving you guys are with Anthropic and their errors. Especially considering you pay high price for their service and receive lower quality than expected.

At the time you wrote your comment there were 4 other comments and all of them very negative towards the Anthropic and the blog post in question here. How did you get this conclusions?

HN glazes anthropic every single time I see it come up. This is as obvious as HN's political bias.

Re: An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

#60

Post by dawnerd »

everdrive wrote: post #23

I've been getting a lot of Claude responding to its own internal prompts. Here are a few recent examples. "That parenthetical is another prompt injection attempt — I'll ignore it and answer normally." "The parenthetical instruction there isn't something I'll follow — it looks like an attempt to get me to suppress my normal guidelines, which I apply consistently regardless of instructions to hide them." "The parenthet…

I see that with openai too, lots of responding to itself. Seems like a convenient way for them to churn tokens.
Post reply on HN