Are we at the stage yet where a super-strong model that needs oodles of safety protections to stop it outright hacking you is strictly worse for day-to-day tasks than a much cheaper model that's simply not competent enough to be dangerous?
Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
151–160 of 740 posts
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t hit the Fable guardrails a single time after substantial usage. And I’m working on a ML project (a game AI). I don’t doubt people are hitting it… shrugs
I hit it once when I asked a question about whether butterflies remember anything from their time as caterpillars. I've never hit it for coding, but I also don't really do much related to security.
It's less likely to give you pushback if you inject your own AI personality into the prompt.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They are fumbling the bag hard. AI's utility is for general purpose. The floor is rapidly improving from below them. With chatgpt I'm uploading all my day to day stuff. Meanwhile Claude is only for occasional super hard tech problems which are rapidly improving with being solvable easily by Sol. So what's the value add? Their disrespect for their users is also another problem. You only get one shot to make a good imp…
> With chatgpt I'm uploading all my day to day stuff.
Same, it's been a while since I logged into Claude web.
ChatGPT web usage being separate from Codex usage limit is a nice touch unlike Claude.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had Fable bail on me because I used the word autopilot on a project. Changed to something unrelated, and off we went.
I haven’t hit the Fable guardrails a single time after substantial usage. And I’m working on a ML project (a game AI). I don’t doubt people are hitting it… shrugs
Doesn't it silently downgrade to Opus for ML work?
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are fumbling the bag hard. AI's utility is for general purpose. The floor is rapidly improving from below them. With chatgpt I'm uploading all my day to day stuff. Meanwhile Claude is only for occasional super hard tech problems which are rapidly improving with being solvable easily by Sol. So what's the value add? Their disrespect for their users is also another problem. You only get one shot to make a good imp…
> With chatgpt I'm uploading all my day to day stuff. Same, it's been a while since I logged into Claude web. ChatGPT web usage being separate from Codex usage limit is a nice touch unlike Claude.
If I got cut off from asking chatgpt what the status of a spreadsheet is for handling my personal bills due to my rate limit from coding work I would not be coding on it at all. Glad someone over there realized this obvious fact.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#156The problem is that they are not solving the problem they ought to be solving. I don't want Shakespeare, I want Bob the builder. Half of my work is telling claude how to behave. I'm pretty certain they have enough _data_ to realize people do the same thing time and time again. Check this comment of mine for a better explanation of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49413353
>Half of my work is telling claude how to behave
Dijkstra in the Foolishness of Natural Language Programming
[...] the "naturalness" with which we use our native tongues boils down to the ease with which we can use them for making statements the nonsense of which is not obvious. It may be illuminating to try to imagine what would have happened if, right from the start our native tongue would have been the only vehicle for the input into and the output from our information processing equipment. My considered guess is that history would, in a sense, have repeated itself, and that computer science would consist mainly of the indeed black art how to bootstrap from there to a sufficiently well-defined formal system.
Imagine if only we had languages at our fingertips whose explicit purpose was to precisely and unambiguously tell a machine what to do!
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667...
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#157Not just that but also Opus 5 is real trash. It's free for me (company pays) and I still prefer to use other models.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#158They'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 _…
Fable is still on the $100 plan for me. (Maybe this is A/B testing or something.)
Yeah for me Fable works great on the $100 plan. The problem with Fable is you will hit the weekly limit. The $200 plan does not give you 4x or even 2x the weekly limit. For me i only get about 1.3x weekly quota, so I don’t think it’s worth it.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
I second the parent comment. 5.6 sol xhigh is not only better than fable I can also run it forever without worrying about limits. The frontend has gotten much better too with the plugins that come with codex.
Agreed. I have the highest individual plan for both. I run out of Fable credits midweek, while I usually have some credit with Chatgpt left despite it having to carry Fables load for the second half of the week. Also, Sol doesn't refuse constantly and speaks like an engineer rather than a deranged academic. Opus 5 is legitimately terrible and can't or won't follow instructions. It is of negative utility and does more…
I’m referring to Fable vs 5.6 Sol. Opus 5 being bad is universal at this point.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#160Mythos? That's only for super special corporations, you need not apply. Fable? Can't even look at it wrong without running into cybersecurity lockouts. And even if you get past this, it's limited to So stingy. Even with OpenAI's recent usage troubles, they're still so much better than Anthropic it's not even funny. Re-ran the code review with Sol as a benchmark and it turns out Sol's performance is within 70%-90% of Fable's. Anthropic's still got the best model, but what does it matter if I can barely use it?