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

691–700 of 740 posts

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

#691

Post by acchow »

nl wrote: post #295

Wow the sentiment here is so negative. I'm on the $200 plan (work pays) and I also have the $20 OpenAI plan (I pay) and keep a balance on OpenRouter. There is nothing as good as Fable, not even close. I recently had it run a 18 hour autonomous rebuild of a project (moving from Spark to Pandas for performance/data size trade off issues). It orchestrated Opus sub-agents flawlessly for 18 hours. It even did a great job…

> 2 billion tokens (mix of Opus and Fable), 24 hours

That's 1.3M tokens per minute. I suppose you mean input tokens? This would not have cost $2000 at API prices because you would have cache hits.

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

#692

Post by browningstreet »

VladVladikoff wrote: post #590

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 code…

They're expecting to IPO bigger than SpaceX later this year.

HN's take that they "kill their own company" seems wildly out of touch.

Truth is, Sam and Dario and Elon are all terrible and so are their orgs. Leaving any one of those companies for any of the others is wild.

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

#693

Post by renyicircle »

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'm with you on this. We have Claude at work and I get exhausted from using it just a bit. I've recently seen it say "let me verify the most load-bearing claims". I couldn't imagine anyone using "load-bearing", let alone "most load-bearing". Doesn't "load-bearing" alone imply "most"? I have so many questions for Anthropic about how they came up with this style.

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

#694

Post by juanre »

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.

A significant percentage of what Opus 5 writes is pure padding. "The results are in, and they are load bearing". Remove the sentence and nothing is lost.

Fable is much better; still much too verbose, but at least I don't have the feeling that I am being charged for gratuitously added verbiage.

I have been changing my processes and the roles of my agents to avoid interacting with Claude Code as much as I can.

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

#695

Post by pell »

Petersipoi wrote: post #684
pell wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would way rather have Sol all day every data, consistently, than a slightly better Fable for like, 1 prompt every 5 hours, and only when Anthropic decides to not treat me like a cyber criminal. I have used Fable heavily on the lower Max plan and you are really exaggerating the limits here. I've had many multi-hour sessions with Fable on Max.

Maybe you use AI differently than me

What are you doing that uses the entire Fable credits so quickly? Genuine question.

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

#696

Post by madrox »

theshrike79 wrote: post #438
madrox wrote: post #370

Anthropic lost all good will with me. Everything from their policies to their rhetoric has an air of "we don't trust you." The way they treated users who wanted to use them for OpenClaw didn't sit well with me, and then the Fable nonsense was the last straw. And they're somehow shocked users aren't loyal to that. It isn't about cost.

Which AI companies still have your good will?

In addition to what another reply has said, I'll just say any company that does not make me feel like they'll ban me if I hold their model wrong.

The bar is low.

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

#697

Post by misalliance »

jaapz wrote: post #548
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…

Also, for whatever software engineering work I throw at Fable 5, Opus 5 also does fine. Apparently Fable is supposed to do better at long running tasks (in other words - burning more tokens without interacting with the user), but that's not the kind of work I'm doing. After Fable 5 launched, it was better than Opus 4.8 for sure. Then they rug-pulled Fable from me (EU), and later released Opus 5. Now I only reach for…

For browser game generation, Fable 5 consistently produces much better game prompts and playable 2D or 3D prototypes than Opus 5 (based on 500+ prototypes I created using different models). It has a much better grasp of how visual elements work together and implementing game mechanics.

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

#698

Post by gwbas1c »

I just don't like Anthropic's 5.0 models. When I tried Fable and Opus 5.0, they were super-slow and gave me sub-par results. I went back to Opus 4.8, and then switched to GPT 5.6 Luna. It's cheaper and better than Fable.

This is just a case of competition working: Fable (and Opus 5.0) just aren't as good as Anthropic believes, and there's no switching cost, so everyone's moving away.

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

#699

Post by nprateem »

sockaddr wrote: post #682
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.

Likewise. I really love CC and have been using it exclusively for a year now but reading Claude's verbose and semantically-obfuscated writing style is wearing me out and I'm planning to move to another provider. I hope they fix this. It's terrible.

Same. Downloaded chatgpt today. I can't take reading Claude any more.

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

#700

Post by anon373839 »

serial_dev wrote: post #549
antonvs wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s interesting how much Anthropic itself is a demonstration that its own hype is false.

Just use any product going all in on AI hype. In 5 minutes you will see annoying bugs, server is down, non-sensical press releases, confusing UI. This is GitHub, this is Cursor, this is Anthropic, this is Google, this is all of them.

Agreed. I think LLMs are best used as pair programmers or typists for users who already know what they’re doing. Or as tutors for users who want to learn.

Vibe coding is mostly garbage. But it can be useful for creating instant, disposable prototypes to investigate an idea or design direction.

Post reply on HN