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

401–410 of 740 posts

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

#401

Post by ranang »

Until now, I've been paying Anthropic for the $200/month plan for over a year. This morning I was once again hit with "You've hit your monthly spend limit · your weekly limit resets 8pm […]". I am so frustrated and tired of being treated like a lab-rat to see how much I am willing to pay for less and less LLM access.

I've now bought the $200/month plan from OpenAI and simply ran `/status` in Claude to get my session ID, then asked Codex in the same directory to "Please take over the work started by Claude Code with session ID `[…]`." This seems to work like a charm. It also seems that the Codex weekly and monthly budgets are more generous?

Unless Anthropic adjusts their customer-abusing behavior I think I will end my subscription with them soon.

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

#402

Post by sznio »

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…

In my case it's been kind of unhealthy, just constantly waiting for the token limit to reset, always feeling like I'm wasting a resource if I'm not using subscription right now.

I just put $30 on openrouter, switched to Pi, and I finally have a calm mind. Since I actually pay per request I want to maximize efficiency rather than utilization

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

#403

Post by remus »

foxylad wrote: post #301

Non-LLM user here. Why? Apart from the ecological issues, I'm very uncomfortable giving my organisation's crown jewels to {random_internet__corp}. Look at the lengths they go to for training data - 10M for Spirit's call logs? Destroying millions of obscure books to scan them? They make meth-heads look scrupulous. Your prompts, especially if they contain your entire codebase, are _way_ more data-rich than an airline p…

> So they _are_ going to train on them, no matter how many checkboxes you tick to stop them.

It is a risk, but is it a big risk? If one of the big labs were to do this and get caught it would be suicidal due to the loss of confidence in them and the inevitable lawsuits that would follow for breach of contract. Given the AI labs are all desperately trying to paint themselves as Serious Businesses so that other Serious Businesses will pay loads of money for tokens the last thing they want is a rep for siphoning off sensitive customer data.

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

#404

Post by osigurdson »

cle wrote: post #230
fluidcruft wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of companies seem to want to lock in to one solution or the other - like picking Oracle or SQL Server. The landscape is far too unsettled for that imo.

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

#405

Post by dexterlagan »

zymhan wrote: post #375
visarga wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That forces people to look beyond the walled garden. Every time I get "you used your quota, come back in 3 hours, or 2 days" -> that is experimentation time with their competition, leading to changed service plans. When they said "claude -p" will be billed at API pricing even for plan users I moved my harness off claude. After I integrated codex, then it was never going to be a full claude project again. What busin…

It drove me to setup Qwen 3.8 this weekend. I couldn't see the value in just giving them money for a higher tier plan instead. I've never run a local LLM model before. Certainly won't take as long to iterate on this.

Qwen 3.8 is excellent. With the right harness, it does about 95% of what Opus can do, in my case automation software development. Since 3.8 came out, I have significantly revised my expectations for a local model. Give it another year or two, and we'll be running fast and free local models for nearly everything that matters, and these costly subscriptions will be a thing of the past. I've always believed that AI should be free for everybody, like TV and radio. We're almost there.

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

#406

Post by osigurdson »

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…

I used Fable a bit when it was available. I didn't get the senae is was dramatically better than OpenAI. Now I am considering canceling my Claude sub since I can no longer experiment with their best models.

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

#407

Post by mirekrusin »

TylerE wrote: post #210
mirekrusin wrote: post #180

Poor analysis. Fable is not used because it has extra retention requirement that corps can't sign off so it stays disabled for everybody in many cases. It's also not winning on day to day work against Opus 5, which is simply available as there are no extra retention requirements and no extra paper work to do with legal. Devs also don't like that Fable refuses to work on half of their prompts. Then comes better pricin…

> It's also not winning on day to day work against Opus 5 In what universe? Hell, Opus 5 seems to be worse than Opus 4.6 at almost everything.

Sure.

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

#408

Post by gehsty »

foxylad wrote: post #301

Non-LLM user here. Why? Apart from the ecological issues, I'm very uncomfortable giving my organisation's crown jewels to {random_internet__corp}. Look at the lengths they go to for training data - 10M for Spirit's call logs? Destroying millions of obscure books to scan them? They make meth-heads look scrupulous. Your prompts, especially if they contain your entire codebase, are _way_ more data-rich than an airline p…

I’m not certain of that - I feel like the enterprise zero retention policy will be tight?

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

#409

Post by cromka »

Paying 100 USD a month and getting "Claude is at capacity now" when you need it for work doesn't help.

You can't make it an indispensable dev tool if devs cannot rely on it. They will absolutely jump the service to s more reliable one and that was Codex for me.

P.S. Claude is indeed down right now for me.

Post reply on HN