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

Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

raheeljunaid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 206 posts

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#131

Post by dcrazy »

stingraycharles wrote: post #59
wmorgan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s talking about how you can type def frobQux(Qux qux, int radians) { And it goes and reads your code and suggests a reasonable way to frob a qux a certain number of radians. Which is at the same time (a) pretty useful!, (b) fairly new, we’ve only been able to do this since 2023 or so, but (c) also not that hard by 2026 standards because capabilities have advanced so much in the last three years.

Why would anyone be using Fable, Opus or even Sonnet for that type of work? You don’t need an advanced reasoning model for that at all.

Generative autocomplete with an underpowered model is pretty annoying. It hallucinates parameters and APIs. Something like Sonnet seems like the right level of sophistication.

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#132

Post by efromvt »

areoform wrote: post #123
internet2000 wrote: post #42

They're subsidizing their tokens as long as you use their software. That's a fair exchange, I never understood why people took issue with it. If you don't want to get locked in to Claude Code, you can pay more. Just like you can pay more for an unlocked non-carrier subsidized phone. (Which I personally do.)

.

I'm not sure the security/safety stuff is entirely in their control at this point, though you can argue that they are indirectly responsible through encouraging regulation via their positions on safety/risk.

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#133

Post by poisonfountain »

elzbardico wrote: post #22

Complaining about external providers not supporting the subsidized prices Claude charge to its subscribers makes no sense. Of course, Claude Code subscription is a loss leader, it is an offering built to create a market for a new product in a very competitive environment in the hopes of capturing a dominant market position with a fully validated product with a healthy demand from business. Of course they won't give y…

I agree with you on substance, but this "thousands of dollars in inference" figure is overstated. The margins on inference in the API pricing by Anthropic are absurd. We know from the pricing of third-party inference providers of similarly-capable open models that inference is cheap. The "thousands of dollars" is an exaggeration using the API pricing markup and assuming all subscribers would be using 100% of their limits all the time.

Surely, they're not making up for the costs of training and R&D and may be losing money on the hardcore users, but rest assured they are not losing thousands of dollars for each customer on average.

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#134

Post by xoa »

thfuran wrote: post #111
jack_pp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it stifle competition / innovation? You can use other harnesses, pay API for anthropic models or cheap chinese models. You're just upset that you don't get to use their VC money the way you want to use it lol. It either is a good deal or it isn't, if it is just say, thanks free VC money, if it isn't say fuck you.

Any service or product delivered at a loss seems pretty plainly anti-competetive. Whether it is actually subsidized to that extent, I’m not sure.

>Any service or product delivered at a loss seems pretty plainly anti-competitive.

You have to get into the weeds though on what exactly counts as a "product delivered". Like, Apple doesn't charge for new versions of macOS. But are "Macs" separate stacks together or are they the fusion of hardware and software, and if so on what levels? There are all sorts of products surrounding us that are running software that we still treat as unified objects after all, right down to smart light bulbs or a "plain" lithium battery pack which still requires controllers to manage charging and USB negotiation etc. Chips and software are in tons and tons of "basic" hardware stuff yet we just buy the object as a singular entity.

I'm not saying that dumping can't be a thing but the lines aren't always clear cut either. You also have to get into bog standard business scaling issues and profit vs investment. If you take on debt to invest in capital that you believe will lower per unit costs if you build enough volume and then turn a profit, you're "selling at a loss" but that's how tons of business works, that's why there is risk right? Doesn't seem good to discourage that.

It seems more fruitful to approach things from the perspective of monopolies, competition, corporate governance etc in general, granted not that a lot of governments have been great about that either in recent history.

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#135

Post by helsinkiandrew »

mdavid626 wrote: post #128
internet2000 wrote: post #42

They're subsidizing their tokens as long as you use their software. That's a fair exchange, I never understood why people took issue with it. If you don't want to get locked in to Claude Code, you can pay more. Just like you can pay more for an unlocked non-carrier subsidized phone. (Which I personally do.)

I want only their model, the rest is just garbage. I used Opus with pi.dev, worked perfectly fine. Fast and does exactly what it needs to do. Claude Code is slow, sluggish, buggy. Why are you forcing me to use it? Why should I pay an order of magnitude more to use pi.dev? That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

> Why should I pay an order of magnitude more to use pi.dev?

The monthly plans are heavily subsidized by the API users - why should Anthropic subsidize your use of pi.dev?

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#136

Post by croes »

internet2000 wrote: post #42

They're subsidizing their tokens as long as you use their software. That's a fair exchange, I never understood why people took issue with it. If you don't want to get locked in to Claude Code, you can pay more. Just like you can pay more for an unlocked non-carrier subsidized phone. (Which I personally do.)

Because the subscription aren’t flat rates, they have a limit.

What does it matter which tool I use when I hit the limit?

And even if you pay-as-you-go Anthropic seems to prefer their own tools

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48788599

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#137

Post by croes »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #135
mdavid626 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want only their model, the rest is just garbage. I used Opus with pi.dev, worked perfectly fine. Fast and does exactly what it needs to do. Claude Code is slow, sluggish, buggy. Why are you forcing me to use it? Why should I pay an order of magnitude more to use pi.dev? That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

> Why should I pay an order of magnitude more to use pi.dev? The monthly plans are heavily subsidized by the API users - why should Anthropic subsidize your use of pi.dev?

Where is the difference when I hit my 5 hour limit or weekly limit with Claude Code compared to PI or OpenCode?

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#138

Post by JumpCrisscross »

seabrookmx wrote: post #104
trollbridge wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using Electron in this day and age shows a particular lack of effort, considering how easy it is to use an agent harness to build native versions of apps. I mean, we're a tiny little business and we somehow find the bandwidth to do it.

I don't understand why people care about Electron? Evaluate the quality of the software based on its own merits IMO. VS Code, Slack, Postman, Obsidian.. I use this software every day and my only complaint is Slack's RAM usage (which honestly has no negative effect on my machine, but just seems silly for a messaging app). Claude is a buggy mess because it's slop, not because it's electron. Heck, it runs a full Linux V…

> don't understand why people care about Electron?

Most Electron apps are crap because they transparently communicate the developer prioritizing their own efficiency over the trade-offs to UX choosing a cross-platform platform entails.

In most cases, I don’t care that an app looks crappy as long as it works. For Anthropic, however, the irony undermines its argument that Claude is ready to replicate developers.

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#139

Post by bee_rider »

jack_pp wrote: post #73
cyberax wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This method of bundling should be illegal in general, as it stiffles competition.

How does it stifle competition / innovation? You can use other harnesses, pay API for anthropic models or cheap chinese models. You're just upset that you don't get to use their VC money the way you want to use it lol. It either is a good deal or it isn't, if it is just say, thanks free VC money, if it isn't say fuck you.

Because the US models haven’t had to compete on the actual price of providing the unsubsidized service, the Chinese models are probably ahead of us in terms of what can actually be delivered profitably (which is a pretty bad result given the level of investment).

Re: Anthropic's Method to Losing Goodwill in a Few Easy Steps

#140

Post by cmrdporcupine »

imron wrote: post #96
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codex GPT sub works perfect in opencode FWIW. But actually their own codex harness is quite decent on its own and doesn't have the quality issues or bloat that Claude Code does. Native Rust and open source. And in fact I've got a configuration here to point it at GLM which I also use (via Neuralwatt subscription) in addition to OpenAI's sub. I do not like opencode's philosophy on the clipboard, it tries to be too cle…

Codex works great in opencode until it gets up to around 200k context. Then it starts doing things like: me: Can you implement the next thing OpenCode+Codex: Yep I'll do that next. me: Well? OpenCode+Codex: me: Looks good, let's fix this one issue. OpenCode+Codex: Sure let's do that. me: -- I've found the codex cli to be much better in this regard, it doesn't nearly derp out so much at higher token counts. Opus is st…

I went back and forth between the two for months, often having both in various proportions. But I had enough reliability issues with Anthropic back in March timeframe that I just threw in the towel. I find GPT "boring" to work with but it's a steady hand and there's really nothing I throw at it that it can't do.

And yeah, I am supplementing with GLM 5.2 and have actually found it quite complimentary.

One of Codex's weaknesses is "excessive staging" -- basically it's quite cautious and pushes a very incremental approach. This is good for working in an established codebase (which most work is anyways). But for yeeting new projects, Claude always shone better for me (though it often left a mess of race conditions and unhandled negative cases that I had to clean up by hand or with codex)

GLM actually does pretty well in this regard, with the right prompting. It's more "creative" than GPT.

Post reply on HN