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

211–220 of 740 posts

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

#211

Post by llm_nerd »

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…

>You don't feel they want to give you a dependable service for an, albeit premium, price. It's a constant bargaining game

We all know that the subscription prices are not at all sustainable for these providers. You all do, right?

Yes, they're struggling to segment the market and find a way to make money, and that basically relies upon emptying the pockets of whales. As someone enjoying a hilariously subsidized Max plan, I understand that, and I don't think they're trying to scam me in some way.

And both sides of this equation understand that the market is competitive, and maybe more competitive than they thought it would be. Like, would you rather they did pull Fable when they first said they would? Or that they'd cut quota? I wouldn't. But I'm glad that Kimi K3 and GPT 5.6 Sol and the latest GLM and Qwen and...I love that this has forced Anthropic to change plans. I'm not going to hold that against them.

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

#212

Post by segmondy »

Give me a break, Anthropic is expensive and their CEO is not the nicest guy around, and the games they play with other people's money/their API is not fair. I stopped using Anthropic and OpenAI once they started calling for regulation of open models. I have survived locally since LLama3-70 days and have been surviving fine. If I was to pay for cloud models, it definitely will not be Anthropic, Fable or not. From what I have read, the best AI model will not even comply with requests most of the time because it or/and Anthropic supposedly knows what's better and safe for you.

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

#213

Post by DiscourseFan »

chr15m wrote: post #131
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.

Well nobody thought you could write software that helps tightly coordinate processes happening simultaneously from millions upon millions of nodes on nearly every corner of the world, but here we are. When industry expands further off earth, we will need more complex and intricate software to coordinate its movements, why wouldn’t our systems become more powerful. If you are hopeful for humanity than you must expect the scale of industrial necessity to only ever increase alongside the imagination and capacity of its people’s.

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

#214

Post by nitwit005 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #175
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…

> What I don't see is vast areas of industry finding $10s to $100s of billions of value in LLMs. Translation between languages. That value dwarfs all programming value that can be had. Economically, culturally, scientifically, spiritually.

Between human languages? The problem will be Google is giving that away for free.

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

#215

Post by etempleton »

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…

OpenAI is also now actively discounting their model. They just offered a free month to users. Both companies seem spooked by what I have to imagine is slowing user growth.

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

#216

Post by ComplexSystems »

runako wrote: post #166

The US government basically told them they can't sell "Fable" and so they aren't. That's probably 90% of the story. Once the government stepped in, their 5th generation was effectively killed. They either had to lock it up (Mythos), neuter it (Fable), or leave people with the perception they were overpaying for a weaker model (Opus 5). Hopefully Anthropic has learned to anticipate this risk and has a plan for rollout…

The government seems like it's in a rough spot. If they let Mythos out, they seem worried people could use it to mass-hack the internet. China seems to not care so much about this and they're right behind. I don't really know what the answer is.

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

#217

Post by pastel8739 »

codazoda wrote: post #206
adriand wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as I started using Fable I was like, okay, this is probably as good a model as I will need for software engineering going forward. I still feel that way. I don’t need a better model, I need a faster Fable. The thing I miss most about programming is flow, and the constant bouncing between terminal tabs sucks. I’d love to do one thing at a time, with Fable, quickly.

You may or may not like agents mode. I also hate flipping tabs, but I enjoy using agent mode with well named sessions. I still stick with a single session until I must move to another, then I leave them around for a few days until I’m sure I won’t need to pick up where I left off again. Command: claude agents

I don’t think they were complaining about literally flipping tabs but rather just needing to context switch so often. This doesn’t sound like it helps with that.

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

#218

Post by SkyPuncher »

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…

Yea, I don’t have any interest in trying Fable because I’m not interested in the BS that’s going to come with it.

I’m at the point where I need stability and predictability. I want the B- student who shows up everyday rather than the A+ student that’s unreliable.

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

#219

Post by mikert89 »

apt-apt-apt-apt wrote: post #204
mikert89 wrote: post #100

im using fable almost exclusively, i just buy a new 200$ license if i run out of capacity. its so much better, easily worth it given how much work I get done. I built a code, deploy, e2e test loop with my full aws infra, fable just implements linear tasks constantly, 5 at a time, tests the whole thing end to end if people dont see why they need a model this smart, they probably arent using ai enough

Isn't there a risk of getting banned if you do this (multiple accounts to bypass usage limits)?

Idk I never worry about it

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

#220

Post by oefrha »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #160

Mythos? 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…

50% usage plus there seems to be a pretty big metering multiplier still. Do a relatively in-depth review of 3k LoC with Fable xhigh and poof, there goes 5% of the weekly Fable allowance. If I use their first party code-review skill that spawns a bunch of subagents—well just forget about it.
Post reply on HN