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

Post by marrone12 » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 5:05 PM UTC

isqueiros wrote: post #604

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.

Kimi K3 is slightly better at this. I'm using it via oh-my-pi. Can definitely sound like it's trying to be clever, but I found it less than Claude.

Post by kbrannigan » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 5:33 PM UTC

chermi wrote: post #674

kbrannigan wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to get paid to code now we think we need to pay a subscription fee just to write software. They push marketing campaigns saying Manual coding no more, just vibe code, gain 10x speed for $100. Then they hit you with hourly and weekly limits, you are wondering when you are going to get cut off. Since LLM at probabilistic it often feels like pulling the lever of a slot machine, hoping our prompt is the jackpot.…

As we've clearly seen, technology is static and the price to performance will never go down. And never be infiltrated by open source.

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

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…

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #610

kbrannigan wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many big tech companies let you talk to a human to get support. Automation is wonderful to cut cost for them but for the users being unable to get support is a horrible experience. But you cannot go elsewhere because they are the only player in town. How can small companies with 1000x less money able to provide live support, but if you pay 20, 100, 200 dollars for a subscription you dont have a phone number to ca…

>Automation is wonderful to cut cost for them but for the users being unable to get support is a horrible experience. But you cannot go elsewhere because they are the only player in town. I can't tell you how many times I've experienced this with comcast. The last time I had to deal with it, was when I bought a new cable modem. I call in to provision it, the automated system assumes I have one of their modems and fai…

Post by andriy_koval » Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 7:09 PM UTC

rolisz wrote: post #561

bean469 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although the LLM providers state that they will not use your data for training when you sign an enterprise deal It can be very hard to prove in court that your data was used for training

If it happened and you get to court, it's probably fairly simple to prove in court (subpoena, discovery, etc). It's not like training will happen only once and then they'll delete the data and all references to it. When training models, you want to have a full lineage of how you obtained it.