The chart ends in July, would be interesting how model adoption looks like in August
Also Sonnet 5 was released June 30th, seems to be grouped in with 'other'?
https://ramp.com/data/ai-index
(click on model market share)
Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
421–430 of 740 posts
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they've hobble Fable and Opus so hard with their safety guardrails, I ask innocuous questions and tasks and they get flagged so often I gave up on it. I can get all the work I need done in GPT5.5 or 5.6 without the hassle. I just kept a $20 plan going for use on my phone.
They also made Fable no longer ZDR for businesses which killed tons of demand for it.
what could be the rationale for that...?
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#423Transformer 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…
>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. I doubt it. The play seems to be: lock what was once commodity compute up into datacenters depriving us regular folk of it, then sell it back to us on subscription. Even if my #NeverSubscribe movement succeeds, all that…
I had an internship at HP in the early 2000's, and my computer was a terminal that connected to an X server in a data center. Doing everything as a service is not a new idea, and suppliers have been trying to push it for decades.
The only time it really succeeds is when regulations force it. I can store files on my own computer or a home NAS just fine, but if I start a medical practice, I have pretty much no hope of being HIPAA compliant without signing up for a data hosting service. The same goes for tax preparation, banking, and several other fields.
It may very well be the case in China, Europe, or Australia that regulatory restrictions force users into models-as-a-service, but in the US, regulations censoring models, even if they frame that censorship as a safety measure, won't pass constitutional muster.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
remember 4 year ago we use to : have stack overflow open, documentation, obscure forums plus other tabs. An ide open with 20 tabs open each file a component, a class or an interface We also use to hold entire codebases in our brain.
And now I'm getting 10-20x as much done. I'd say the trade off is worth it. I'm struggling to scale myself even further. This tech is unreal and I have so many things I can do. For the first time, tech feels like the 90's-00's again. Everything is greenfield and exciting and big tech is struggling to figure out what to do about it. People are just hacking all kinds of stuff, and it's awesome. Feels like techno utopia…
I have mixed feelings.
The barrier and time between idea and usable implementation is almost zero now. I don't have to imagine. I can just write something and see it work before making larger decisions. I really like this. Many of my ideas were abandoned because I needed to study some obscure library. Now, I can learn the parts that I find interesting and just have the AI chew through the grunt parts easily. That's the good.
I started coding with a line editor on a small Casio handheld "computer" and used to keep programs in my head. I more or less knew what happened on each line without seeing the line. With larger programs, I had a mental model of what was going on where and a big part of the input to that was the effort of writing everything by hand. That's gone. It's not really important as far as the output of usable programs is concerned but there's a certain feeling of satisfaction that came with digesting a larger codebase and having it surrender it's secrets to you that's missing.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#425Claude Opus 5 did plugin for Photoshop for $4.5 in three responses.
DeepSeek v4 Pro did same for $1.7 in 7 responses (peak-off times).
For doing much complex task, I would be super nervous about using Anthropics models.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
The $200 max plan is for individuals. The individual plans are heavily subsidized. Employers should be using either the Team plan (which has much lower limits than max) or the Enterprise plan (which is entirely billed on usage). Anthropic know that lots of people are doing all sorts of “bad” things like employers paying for Individual plans, (and using multiple accounts to get more usage) and aren’t yet enforcing the…
AFAIK there is nothing in the ToS that forbids an employee paying for the 20x, $200/month plan. I could be wrong about this in which case it'd be useful to have a link the clause. I think multiple plans are against the ToS, but I'm not doing that. The Teams plans are more convenient for a number of reasons, but yes, they top out at the 6x plan, not the 20x plan. Edit: ToS are here https://www.anthropic.com/legal/cons…
i used to think the same as op but i think you are right. though they can change the eula at any time im sure....
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bubble is _not_ on models becoming more intelligent and solving arc-agi-999. They are already good enough at what they mechanically are. You have to use the right harness, right verifiers (automatic where possible, human where not), etc much much more specific than a generic one like claude code or codex, and it will also be able to work within constraints and be the "proposer" of an imaginary optimisation proble…
The bubble is based on the promise that these LLMs will cure cancer and find the solution to global warming. The pragmatic users of these tools (like you seem to be) are enjoying the subsidized use of the tools right now, but it's not a sustainable business model
Sam Altman says a lot of crazy stuff, but I don’t think that is where the ‘bubble’ is coming from.
In recent months we’ve had the first automated unmanned amphibious assault, the daily drone count in our hot wars is jumping by leaps and bounds, and arms suppliers are promising future drone shipments in the hundred thousand unit range. The ten year picture for reactive combined swarm intelligence on the battlefield is promising to be widespread, highly lucrative, and in need of constant adaptation to near-peer efforts. Datacenters in space are dumb, datacenters in space to power orbital weapons networks and rapid response capabilities make sense.
On top of that we have international trade, scalable customer service, and a first pass 80/20 answer for businesses focused elsewhere. Shitty, maybe, overpriced, maybe, but useful enough our grandkids are gonna use ‘em.
In both cases, as well as potential new LLM-like tech, there’s an argument to be made for being a leader now to dominate the future. That means compute and tech positioning, and memory & GPU deals.
YouTube was a money loser, Google was ‘losing’ money on them for years, YouTube didn’t have a sustainable business model. YouTube was the biggest, though, and whatever premium Google paid to be #1 then meant they were #1 when the online video business model matured. Now they’re printing money with a platform outcompeting news, social, and video platforms.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#428Where 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…
They haven't communicated well the fact that the default model should be Sonnet 5, which should give you unlimited use for common coding tasks (say with occasional subagents use) on the Pro plan. Instead they're pushing Opus and even Fable, to try and get people addicted to the higher tier, without realizing that nearly everybody has a Sonnet for peanuts via DeepSeek V4 on OpenRouter, or completely free through Qwen…
Claude Code also doesn't make it easy to make _efficient_ use of the different models to reduce overall cost. There are many tokenmaxxing features (e.g. ultracode that spawns dozens of subagents) to burn through the 5-hour limit in minutes, but if you want to let an Opus planning agent use Sonnet for implementing you have to orchestrate your own workflow. I'm pretty sure that's because the Anthropic employees working on Claude Code have unlimited token budgets so they're mostly on tokenmaxxing workflows themselves.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#429GLM series has made it very practical to self host. If the new update for Deepseek flash holds up, I think it would be silly for some companies to not self host.
We're spending 225k a year on tokens. No reason not to buy the hardware necessary to run DS4 at this point.
Are you saying that you already spend so much money for tokens that too late to buy the hardware? Sounds like a trap...
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#430When are the hyperscalers finally collapsing? I can't wait! I hate their hardware hogging and land grabbing so much. AI has to be local it makes no sense otherwise.