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

321–330 of 740 posts

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

#321

Post by camkego »

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.

This is the part that is truly scary.

Nadella the CEO of MSFT wrote that post “ A frontier without an ecosystem is not stable”

It seems to me that the unspoken assumption in that post is that no matter what happens they’re gonna be training on your data.

He’s the CEO of Microsoft, he knows how these decisions go down, he knows how the world works, he is sending a warning.

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

#322

Post by itemize123 »

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…

main reason is the 30days retention; not the plan changes

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

#323

Post by purpleidea »

nate wrote: post #179

Of course I echo the universal: Opus 5 sucks. But what also sucks is still using 4.8. Are you all seeing this? It's like the older models got dumber just before Fable and Opus 5 were coming out? I've heard the theory that it's because 4.8 is getting put on older hardware? And I imagine that just ratchets down reasoning time then possibly? Sometimes I'm just trying to sus out if I'm truly seeing things these days or g…

I have noticed very serious degradation in performance from Anthropic. I've switched away from Opus 5, but 4.8 is still much worse than how it was before Fable came out. It's constantly making what seems like obvious mistakes... I point them out, it's constantly apologizing.

I don't know why...

Is it A/B testing?

Is it load shedding?

Is it because I'm in Canada?

Is it because I'm not on the Claude Max plan?

Is it because I'm not paying via API?

Is it because I'm not paying via Bedrock?

Is it because the U.S. is worried people are distilling?

Is it because the U.S. wants to keep the top capability to themselves?

I think open models are the future. Anthropic is killing their reputation so fast. If they don't come clean I think they're cooked.

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

#324

Post by DefamationStati »

Revanche1367 wrote: post #249
rob wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Anthropic does this, OpenAI Is giving everybody resets like every other day now on Twitter. I'm strongly considering biting the bullet and just ditching my $200/month Claude Code plan for the Codex one instead, especially because I keep running into my weekly limits (even sticking to Opus.)

I got the AI ultra plan for gemini, the models are lower quality than claude and codex for sure but it comes with a pretty high limit for my purposes and I haven’t reached the weekly limit yet after about 3 weeks of usage. I have enterprise claude at work, the budget isn’t particularly great and I keep running out within a week tops with any serious work. Not even considering it for a personal plan with how quickly t…

I've got the AI pro plan for Gemini and the limits as absolutely abysmal when using 3.7 flash in antigravity, If I use swarms then I can't even finish a single prompt without it reaching the limit.

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

#325

Post by ipaddr »

hirvi74 wrote: post #314
Zigurd wrote: post #102

For many coders including myself, LLM based coding agents work well enough to be useful, and in some cases worth paying for. What I don't see is vast areas of industry finding $10s to $100s of billions of value in LLMs. There's no lint or compiler that can check for correctly constructed contracts. So LLMs, which should be useful to law firms, incur a lot more manual checking of their work than coding agents. Less fo…

I have a family member that is an attorney in housing law. She claimed that LLMs are not particularly useful for her work. If she asked a simple question like, "Find all the for all 50 states," then she still has to go and check every single one of the laws. Since the legislature is modified so often, she cannot look at, say, Maryland's law and know if it the LLM output was the 1990, 2014, 2018, or 2026 version of th…

This is my experience if you need the data to be accurate often it isn't and you only know that because you had to check because it was important. Things not important you never check.

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

#326

Post by NitpickLawyer »

rustcleaner wrote: post #277
semiquaver wrote: post #94

My company still hasn’t been able to deploy wide access to Fable because it’s not available on a ZDR basis. This wasn’t mentioned in the article but I imagine this factor is not irrelevant.

>ZDR Zero Data Retention, for the uninitiated readers in this thread. The no-ZDR is clearly to permit surveillance. I would be shocked if NSA wasn't all up in these SOTA model providers' systems. Never subscribe!

> The no-ZDR is clearly to permit surveillance.

It's to train better models. The three letter agencies don't need to spell it out in a ToS, they just access it if they want.

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

#327

Post by zsoltkacsandi »

somenameforme wrote: post #195
nate wrote: post #179

Of course I echo the universal: Opus 5 sucks. But what also sucks is still using 4.8. Are you all seeing this? It's like the older models got dumber just before Fable and Opus 5 were coming out? I've heard the theory that it's because 4.8 is getting put on older hardware? And I imagine that just ratchets down reasoning time then possibly? Sometimes I'm just trying to sus out if I'm truly seeing things these days or g…

This is yet another reason why I think local models will win in the future. They're almost certainly A/B testing all sorts of opaque stuff that people have no clue about, hence the various 'How's Claude doing this session?' popups. So what you are paying for may vary on a day by day basis, which is quite undesirable, even if their main goal is simply to make a better model. When it comes to a tool, I'd rather have co…

Yes. OpenAI is doing this as well, but they are much more transparent about it.

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

#328

Post by yellow_lead »

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…

> $200 plan (work pays)

so violating the TOS? Or work pays for a plan you cannot use at work?

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

#329

Post by zsoltkacsandi »

samrj12 wrote: post #189
nate wrote: post #179

Of course I echo the universal: Opus 5 sucks. But what also sucks is still using 4.8. Are you all seeing this? It's like the older models got dumber just before Fable and Opus 5 were coming out? I've heard the theory that it's because 4.8 is getting put on older hardware? And I imagine that just ratchets down reasoning time then possibly? Sometimes I'm just trying to sus out if I'm truly seeing things these days or g…

I definitely agree. I honestly cannot do tasks that require even minor complexity. Opus 5 keeps forgetting things in context as well and coding conventions. Really cannot build with CC without Fable.

Favourite conversation with Opus 5:

Me: why did you add HTMX?

Opus 5: you asked it twice.

Me: quote the exact sentence(s) where I asked it.

Opus 5: I can’t because you didn’t.

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

#330

Post by visarga »

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…

> 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 business encourages users to try their competition and adapt their usage to the competing products?

Post reply on HN