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

251–260 of 740 posts

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

#251

Post by carlosjobim »

bluegatty wrote: post #232
carlosjobim wrote: post #175

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.

Social issues aside, that's a tiny slice of the economics of AI. Just by nature of how often it's used etc. You need workloads for AI be cost effective: software, automation etc.

International trade is a giant sector already, and potentially much bigger than that, now that LLM assisted translation makes it easy to offer your products and services in any language, or make complicated and sensitive deals without a common language.

Hackers always rage and down vote every time I mention this, because they are unable to see beyond their small world. Why didn't they learn that their part of the internet is 0,000000001% of what the world uses the internet for today. It's going to be the same with LLMs. Programming and hacker stuff is going to be 0,0000000000000000000000000000001% of what the world uses AI for. But translation is going to be in the top 5 of use cases.

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

#252

Post by hodgehog11 »

YuechenLi wrote: post #148
hodgehog11 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a frontier scientific research environment, funding is often limited, so personal subscriptions are more common. Fable can hit a 5-hour usage limit on the Max subscription tier before it finishes a single complex math prompt . Most of the time you get one or two if you reduce context and question complexity. Most of my colleagues are cancelling their subscriptions because of that, and just using Sol instead, which…

Hmm. Would you mind sharing an example of a complex math prompt that you would use? Because I found that even Sonnet can solve fairly complex math problems fairly easily if you give it the right tools, so I'd like to give it a shot myself if you'd like.

[dead]

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

#253

Post by [deleted] »

fluidcruft wrote: post #125
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#254

Post by adastra22 »

brookst wrote: post #80
dwaltrip wrote: post #74

Earlier 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

Yeah same. Multiple 20x max accounts, I typically hit > 50% of the fable usage limit on eace, literally never seen a guardrail. Maybe I’m boring? Maybe they have some kind of account reputation system?

Be careful, this is against ToS and they bill ban you.

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

#256

Post by nullsanity »

nullocator wrote: post #250
cle wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Philippines is on Anthropics list of allowed countries?

[dead]

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

#257

Post by mattwad »

Claude will refuse to visit sites with robots.txt, make a graphic spoof of an iOS game, or even fill out an employee survey on my behalf. ChatGPT is always happy to oblige, no questions asked.

I can respect the guardrails - I also can see why OpenAI may not have much control over their models - but I need an AI who will do whatever I ask and not play judge and jury.

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

#258

Post by dominotw »

preommr wrote: post #79
sajithdilshan wrote: post #4

Every software engineer in my company uses Claude code heavily. However we’ve never enabled Fable and only use Opus, Sonnet and Haiku. Nobody has complained and seems like for every use case we have Opus is more than powerful enough, especially with Opus 5

> Every software engineer in my company uses Claude code heavily. I find it funny how OpenAI got caught lacking for a very brief window, but it turned out to be a very critical turning point. Like a guy that that's at the top of their game the entire year, and the one day they have the flu, the CEO does a surprise performance review.

i think they were trying to play a different game.

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

#260

Post by niccl »

corv wrote: post #225
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…

Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!

nit pick: _So Long_ and thanks for all the fish

I'm really sorry about that, but it jarred my ASD-ness

Post reply on HN