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

Post by watwut » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 6:37 AM UTC

llm_nerd wrote: post #211

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 pl…

Post by sebastiennight » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 6:41 AM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #376

noosphr wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny I'm a physicist and worked as a power grid quant. Batteries aren't the answer.

This battle of giants is so interesting I can't wait for the next information-filled reply to teach me something new about the batteries vs no batteries battle. I love how both of you are arguing about what the solution is, yet the problem isn't even clearly defined yet :P

Post by nottorp » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 6:42 AM UTC

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 _…

Post by nottorp » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 6:49 AM UTC

hirvi74 wrote: post #314

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…

I have a family member that is an attorney in housing law. She claimed that LLMs are not particularly useful for her work. If she asked a simple question like, "Find all the for all 50 states," then she still has to go and check every single one of the laws. Since the legislature is modified so often, she cannot look at, say, Maryland's law and know if it the LLM output was the 1990, 2014, 2018, or 2026 version of th…

Post by nrmitchi » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 6:54 AM UTC

hirvi74 wrote: post #314

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…

I have a family member that is an attorney in housing law. She claimed that LLMs are not particularly useful for her work. If she asked a simple question like, "Find all the for all 50 states," then she still has to go and check every single one of the laws. Since the legislature is modified so often, she cannot look at, say, Maryland's law and know if it the LLM output was the 1990, 2014, 2018, or 2026 version of th…