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

341–350 of 740 posts

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

#341

Post by echelon »

kbrannigan wrote: post #266
adriand wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as I started using Fable I was like, okay, this is probably as good a model as I will need for software engineering going forward. I still feel that way. I don’t need a better model, I need a faster Fable. The thing I miss most about programming is flow, and the constant bouncing between terminal tabs sucks. I’d love to do one thing at a time, with Fable, quickly.

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.

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

#342

Post by visarga »

8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote: post #109
dwaltrip wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t hit the Fable guardrails a single time after substantial usage. And I’m working on a ML project (a game AI). I don’t doubt people are hitting it… shrugs

It tends to bail occasionally for me once auth-related code comes into play. Nowadays Codex handles the bulk of the implementation and Fable/Opus on the planning. Not sure if Anthropic patched it, but early on its release the web UI Fable guardrails will trip if you mention you're a biologist.

I can't get an answer from Fable on "How does digestion work?"

Used to straight out bail to Opus on this, now it's "Honing" and "Pondering" for 10 minutes on it. Then I get a bunch of "This response didn’t load." and it still churns ahead.

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

#343

Post by jsisto »

yellow_lead wrote: post #328
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?

you sound like fun at parties

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

#344

Post by gr_norm »

aroman wrote: post #335
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…

I think you need to spend more time with Sol. If you think there is nothing even close to as good as Fable - my guess is you haven’t spent as much time getting as familiar with working with those models as you have with Claude’s. Codex is more token efficient and tends to get better results than Fable with less need for extreme token burning shenanigans like 18 hours of subagents. I spend 10+ hours a day in both agen…

Agree, Sol and Fable consistently trade blows on Rust dev. I prefer Sol since it's faster, as far as proprietary models go.

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

#345

Post by jsisto »

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…

hours working on a problem is a weird metric. you could use a slower model and get those numbers way higher.

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

#346

Post by raincole »

Revanche1367 wrote: post #242
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…

Some users on HN in recent months started describing Anthropic as having become a “token merchant” and I think that moniker is quite apt.

If they actually became a token merchant it'd be amazing. But they didn't. They tried to hide the chain of thoughts tokens. They banned accounts for using third-party harnesses with Claude subscription. Their tokens are also not very at a very competitive price.

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

#347

Post by zeafoamrun »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #294
noosphr wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say that the model of the electricity market OP is talking about hasn't existed in 15 years and it's only getting worse with more intermittent renewables entering the market. And no, batteries are not the answer because physics doesn't care how much greenwashing lobbyists do.

What a weird non-sequitur. P.S. batteries are the answer, hope this helps

Yeah just had a power engineer and physicist out for lunch and batteries are the answer (according to them)

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

#349

Post by Vespasian »

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…

Open weights are certainly something that is very eagerly being adopted in some companies.

It's not even that expensive because even the 15€/month/employee bill for people who use AI very little can stack up.

Beside that though, many companies already have most if not all of their data in some cloud (Microsoft would be a prime example). Giving them a few extra bugs to get a (potentially) very useful tool is not out of the ordinary.

If you are under the impression that not going AI would threaten your business right now (which may very well be true for some companies) then there isn't really a choice even if you believe the vendors will steal everything eventually (which they totally will)

Post reply on HN