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

581–590 of 740 posts

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

#581

Post by guluarte »

neya wrote: post #492
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…

I'm surprised no one mentions about their recent privacy violation(s). The breaking point for me was the privacy violation. They've been fingerprinting every request and violating users' privacy hoping no one would notice. Too bad, someone found out and that was the day when I cancelled my subscription. https://thereallo.dev/blog/claude-code-prompt-steganography

Engineers love to play with different tools, in my company some use opencode,omp, hermes and you cannot use the team sub with those

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

#582

Post by electroglyph »

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 _…

Opus 5 literally benchmarks higher than Fable

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

#583

Post by empath75 »

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 _…

This whole article seems sort of based on a misunderstanding. Anthropic is _actively discouraging_ people from using Fable at this point. It's not a failure, they're steering people to Opus 5 intentionally.

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

#584

Post by willmadden »

rhdunn wrote: post #502
wahnfrieden wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was flagged for account-sharing, or detecting a compromised account

I had my GMail account locked for 1-2 years because I accessed it from my parents house (in the same country but in a different county) while on holiday. That was because they detected the account being used from a different IP address. Using VPNs can also trip this.

Interesting, I only use VPNs and have never had an issue other than constant "prove that it is you" secondary authentication.

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

#585

Post by adam_arthur »

chamomeal wrote: post #575
kibibu wrote: post #570

This isn't the reason I'm considering leaving Anthropic. I don't think I can tolerate its writing style anymore. Reading Claude output is starting to cause actual psychological harm. I have tried many ways to get it to stop writing in its stupid punchy linked-in marketing-team voice, and I can't. Is there a model out there that sounds sound this awful? It's like rubbing sand into the folds of my brain.

I don’t think GPT is any better. I swear GPT-3 was the golden area of LLM prose. With a good fine tuning, you really couldn’t tell that an AI was writing (except for when it would devolve into utter nonsense lol)

Codex (5.6 Sol) is extremely to the point and direct in its responses.

Often I'll tell it to summarize what it said only because it's providing too much detail, not that it's using esoteric language or weird claudisms.

No idea why people are still using Claude models.

My impression is they started on Claude Code and never tried Codex or other harness+model combos

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

#586

Post by willmadden »

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…

The solution:

1) Set pricing tiers that do not change.

2) As models evolve, move the outdated models down the ladder, and replace the top tiers with the frontier models.

3) Give the users a warning before you do this, so they know their model is changing.

4) Sort the economic distortions out of your OPEX and reset pricing when the technology ossifies.

Is that so hard?

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

#587

Post by greenowl »

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…

Curious what you think your organization's crown jewels actually are?

Because, almost certainly, it's not your source code.

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

#588

Post by c16 »

wccrawford wrote: post #493
dexterlagan wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shou…

I'd also love to hear your setup? How much VRAM/RAM, I assume Qwen 3.8 27b, what harness, are you using any particular skill set?

I've a 32gb and 64gb (work) MBP. 32 works - just and sits at around 28/29gb of 32. 64 works great, so the 48gb laptop with MLX + MTP should be fine. I'm using Ollama.

I initially used the Claude Code harness on 3.6 A3B, but found that tooling would break as Claude released new versions and things would go weird. I've since written my own harness which has basic operations: read, find, bash (which can write files, python etc...) & web_fetch, all within a mac container. Works amazing. You don't need anything complicated to go very far.

Low hanging fruit would be Pi or OpenCode. If you really want a much better understanding of what your hardware is capable of then give writing your own a go.

Additional tip: Low Power mode reduces some token speed, but stops the laptop over heating and the fans going crazy.

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

#589

Post by nicce »

pmdr wrote: post #464
nicce wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

32GB GPUs are getting expensive so that also affects the price.

I didn't think about GPU size. So they don't run this small model on B200s or something?

This is open model intended for local usage. So, it doesn't matter. If the end user wants to run this on their own hardware, cost is defined by the electricity price + the price of the processing power. Providers can increase the price as long as the users don't switch for buying the hardware themselves instead.

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

#590

Post by VladVladikoff »

Anthropic killed it for me with all these silly security guardrails. As a programmer I use the models to check for vulnerabilities in my work. I also use the models for fun reverse engineering projects on the side. Neither of these activities are illegal. And I don’t appreciate being treated as a criminal. I asked Claude to do something the other day and it refused. I copied and pasted the exact same prompt into codex and it happily churned away at it for hours. What Anthropic has done to kill their own company is a bit sad.
Post reply on HN