Live data from Hacker News

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

ft.com

221–230 of 740 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The quality of Google Translate is so low that it isn't even in the picture.

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

#222
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…

For what it's worth, the things you describe are mostly because they're extremely short of GPUs and growth rates were absurdly high.

(Eg. They repeatedly said they'd keep fable in lower subscription plans if they had the capacity)

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'd go further and say chatgpt offering continuing service just with degraded model keeps me in their 'free web use' tier. I have API keys for coding stuff, but for most of my day to day use of public llm, I know I won't get 'blocked' using ChatGPT. Yes, the model may change, and I'll get 'worse' output, but usually I can't tell the difference. Using Claude for day to day stuff, I get completely locked out after so many hours. Again, I have API keys for Claude as well, and use it for 'pro' work, but day to day chat stuff... it's not my daily driver.

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But translations don't require anything close to SOTA level models. Translations will be high volume, low margin transactions. That will not save Anthropic.

Maybe not Anthropic, but LLM translations has a value counted in the trillions of dollars easily.

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

#225
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…

Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!

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

#226
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

I'm not a biochemist and I have been blocked by fable and opus for "cyber" just for doing things like asking it to ssh into one of my servers, look at a CVE, or do work in assembly. Been rejected to their cyber verification program 3 times already.

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

#227
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…

While there's no linter for writing contracts, my experience (as a commercial lawyer) is that frontier LLMs are far better and error checking and far quicker at writing than the average senior lawyer. The main thing holding back further deployment (in my jurisdiction) are concerns around data residency, privilege and how fundamentally it will break an industry that is so heavily reliant on time based billing.

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

#228
post #179

Of course I echo the universal: Opus 5 sucks. But what also sucks is still using 4.8. Are you all seeing this? It's like the older models got dumber just before Fable and Opus 5 were coming out? I've heard the theory that it's because 4.8 is getting put on older hardware? And I imagine that just ratchets down reasoning time then possibly? Sometimes I'm just trying to sus out if I'm truly seeing things these days or g…

For me, Opus 5 mostly sucked because of its incomprehensible writing style. Having the system prompt focus on writing in terms that are easier to understand helped a bit

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

#229
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.

Yes, I feel like you can just sense the garbage coming. Age/identity verification, mandatory data sharing, morality policing, "Answer Engine Optimization" ads and influence peddling... it's going to be so painful to watch it all enshittify.

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

#230
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…

Yeah, I agree with this. The constant state of "...will the rug be pulled?!?" does discourage relying on it as a model and building a workflow on it. Anthropic used to just be a reliable thing you could play with. Now it's this constant source of anxiety. It also didn't help that the government yanked it which adds another source of anxiety since OpenAI is on much better terms with the administration and the administ…

My wife's startup made the mistake of building her internal operations around Claude Team.

Then she hired a VA in the Philippines. Anthropic promptly banned her account without warning once the VA connected to the account. It took her weeks to get her account reinstated, at which point she had already moved on to OpenAI.

Post reply on HN