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

Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 740 posts

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#131

Post by chr15m »

dlcarrier wrote: post #63

Transformer models are quickly becoming a commodity, and I suspect in time we'll all be running them locally. Even now, you can run something pretty useful on a 16 GB graphics card, and I suspect a decade into the future, entry level hardware will be running better models than high-end graphics cards can run now, as entry-level hardware gets better and models get more efficient. It doesn't mean hosted frontier models…

Yep local models will be good enough for most things you need to do, in the same way as most people need a laptop not a supercomputer.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#132

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

semiquaver wrote: post #94

My company still hasn’t been able to deploy wide access to Fable because it’s not available on a ZDR basis. This wasn’t mentioned in the article but I imagine this factor is not irrelevant.

The same for my organization. It's explicitly forbidden in my organization because it's not available with ZDR.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#134

Post by not_a9 »

colingauvin wrote: post #13
felixgallo wrote: post #5

[flagged]

I am because Claude has figured out I am a biochemist and therefore even asking Fable what the weather is gets me bumped back to Opus, sometimes even Opus 4.8 instead of 5. Kimi? GLM 5.3? DeepSeek? No such problem. I can literally open a new chat with just "Hello" and it gets bumped.

Memories break Fable 5 for me as well in chatbot. I ask Opus a lot of sec related stuff and now if I even type “hello” in chat it gets insta-downgraded to Opus 5.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#135

Post by dannyw »

a1371 wrote: post #113

Where Anthropic f'ed up was treating their monetization the way they treat model training. Turns out that success in experimentation is not transferrable. They have tried to find the highest that the market pays for sota models; however, on the consumer side, this is just too confusing and unsettling: "You can only use Fable for a week as a part of your plan" "Be ready! You have to start paying per token!" "Nevermind…

I agree they’ve done a bit too many pricing / usage promotions and A/B tests.

The period was also marked with many billing bugs, like spending people’s usage credits for included Fable for a few hours (gave me a huge shock), but to their credit they refunded it.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#136

Post by ddxv »

tyleo wrote: post #6
felixgallo wrote: post #5

[flagged]

I almost feel like there's some sort of paid campaign going on in Hacker News promoting the Chinese/open models. I feel like every day I'm hearing about how the frontier labs are dead but your experience is the same as mine. My company pays for Claude AND Codex but we never really use the open models for anything critical.

Sure, I'm being "paid" by the fact that it costs pennies a day to use Deepseek and if I could afford the hardware then I could run it locally. Meanwhile, Anthropic is obviously a threat to open weight models and actively lobbies the US Government to have them banned or controlled.

So yeah, I and I guess others, are quite active in whatever little way we have available, to up vote new models and share stories.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#137

Post by _joel »

Zigurd wrote: post #102

For many coders including myself, LLM based coding agents work well enough to be useful, and in some cases worth paying for. What I don't see is vast areas of industry finding $10s to $100s of billions of value in LLMs. There's no lint or compiler that can check for correctly constructed contracts. So LLMs, which should be useful to law firms, incur a lot more manual checking of their work than coding agents. Less fo…

> There's no lint or compiler that can check for correctly constructed contracts.

There are definitely linters and this exists https://catala-lang.org/

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#138

Post by dannyw »

ls612 wrote: post #123
a1371 wrote: post #113

Where Anthropic f'ed up was treating their monetization the way they treat model training. Turns out that success in experimentation is not transferrable. They have tried to find the highest that the market pays for sota models; however, on the consumer side, this is just too confusing and unsettling: "You can only use Fable for a week as a part of your plan" "Be ready! You have to start paying per token!" "Nevermind…

The fact is that demand for tokens at electric bill rates so far outstrips what can be supplied currently not just with frontier models, but with open weights cheap models too. Running an always on Deepseek flash agent would cost three figures a month at API prices.

Total costs sure, electricity only costs no. My two DGX Sparks run DS4 Flash at about 50tok/s concurrency=1 which is more than suitable; at about 150W total wall power when generating.

That’s about A$16 a month in electricity if I ran it 7x24x30.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#140

Post by Retr0id »

bentt wrote: post #27

They've put themselves in a corner. Fable was too good and they gave it away with the $20 plan. It had to be a big step from Opus 4.8 to show progress, and Opus 4.8 is GREAT at coding in many different domains. But they're getting killed on token cost. They have to get people paying more for tokens. So then they put Fable in the $200 plan and release Opus 5. I'm suspicious of Opus 5. It is mostly worse than 4.8. It _…

> The statistics bear this out. 4.8 still dominates.

Where can I find these stats?

Post reply on HN