391–400 of 695 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dang man, chill.
Man, expecting the minimal from companies who are supposed to deliver a pro... there is no SLA for any this, so you are right. Also, why is there no SLA?
My clients demand one, so there is one.
I'm afraid the music may be slowly fading at this party, and the lights will soon be turned on. We may very well look back on the last couple years as the golden era of subsidized GenAI compute. For those not in the Google Gemini/Antigravity sphere, over the last month or so that community has been experiencing nothing short of contempt from Google when attempting to address an apparent bait and switch on quota expec…
Fellow annoyed Google AI Pro subscriber here! Can confirm, I initially enjoyed the 5-hour limits on Gemini CLI and Antigravity so much that I paid for a full year, thinking it was a great decision In the following months, they significantly cut the 5-hour limits (not sure if it even exists anymore), introduced the unrealistically bad weekly limit that I can fully consume in 1-2 hour, introduced the monthly AI credits…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this is ultimately a beta service. The whole industry is.
Wait, where is there a 'beta' tag to something that they are charging real money for? Why is this software any different than any other software and we should completely give away our rights as a consumer to ensure what we pay for is delivered?
Anthropic has many customers despite the fact that they have occasional problems. They’re not suing Anthropic because Anthropic isn’t promising in its agreement something they can’t deliver.
I think you’re reading into the agreement something that isn’t there, and that’s the cause of your confusion.
I don't get it. Last week on the 100 bucks plan I generated probably 50k LOC (not a quality measure for sure!) and just barely kissed the weekly limit. I did get rate limited on some sessions for sure, but that's to be expected. I'm curious what are people doing that is consuming your limits? I can't imagine filling the $200 a month plan unless I was essentially using Claude code itself as the api to mass process stu…
I don't hit limits either on $100, it's more that claude-code seems to be constantly broken and they added some vague bullshit about not using claude-code before 2pm so I just don't expect it to work anymore and tend to use codex-cli as my driver nowadays. I also never hit limits in codex but... codex is $20/mo not $100/mo so it's making me consider relocating the $100 I spend to Anthropic as play money for z.ai and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can’t you turn the 1M off with a /model opus (or /model sonnet)? At least up until recently the 1M model was separated into /model opus[1M]
1M context window is still a separate, non-default model in Claude Code and not included with subscriptions (billed at API rates only)
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/commit/48b1c6c0ba0...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fellow annoyed Google AI Pro subscriber here! Can confirm, I initially enjoyed the 5-hour limits on Gemini CLI and Antigravity so much that I paid for a full year, thinking it was a great decision In the following months, they significantly cut the 5-hour limits (not sure if it even exists anymore), introduced the unrealistically bad weekly limit that I can fully consume in 1-2 hour, introduced the monthly AI credits…
It should be illegal to change the terms of the subscription mid-period. If you paid for the full year, you should get that plan for the whole year. I don't understand how it's ok for corporations to just change the terms mid-way, and we just have to accept it.
Unfortunately, at least for those of us in the US, there isn't legally much that can be done. It's simply not possible to make a contract that would obligate a company to fulfill its promises on this type of sale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude is on hacker news on a Sunday. half the GDP of the world is competing with him. What metrics would you like to see?
An enforceable SLA with the services that Anthropic offers rather than putting an employee to respond to things on Sunday.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you clearly state what they messed up?
Not parent but I can guess from watching mostly from the sidelines. They introduced a 1M context model semi-transparently without realizing the effects it would have, then refused to "make it right' to the customer which is a trait most people expect from a business when they spend money on it, specially in the US, and specially when the money spent is often in the thousands of dollars. Unless anthropic has some secr…
That said, I feel that things started to feel a bit off usage-wise after the introduction of 1M context.
I'd personally be happy to disable it and go back to auto-compacting because that seems to have been the happy medium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's weird. Would you mind running /feedback and sharing the id here next time you see this? I'd love to debug
Sure, I really appreciate you looking at this. a6edd0d1-a9ed-4545-b237-cff00f5be090 / https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/47027 I'm happy to provide any other info that can be useful (as long as i'm not sharing any information about the code or tools we use into a public github issue).
Please:
1. Upgrade to the latest: claude update (seems like you did this already)
2. Start a new conversations (resuming an old convo may trigger this bug again in that convo)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me and my colleagues faced, over the last ~1 month or so, the same issues. With a new version of Claude Code pretty much each day, constant changes to their usage rules (2x outside of peak hours, temporarily 2x for a few weeks, ...), hidden usage decisions (past 256k it looks like your usage consumes your limits faster) and model degradation (Opus 4.6 is now worse than Opus 4.5 as many reported), I kind of miss how i…
> past 256k it looks like your usage consumes your limits faster This is false. My guess is what is happening is #1 above, where restarting a stale session causes a 256k cache miss. That said, I hear the frustration. We are actively working on improving rate limit predictability and visibility into token usage.
To avoid 1M issues, this week I have also intentionally used the 256k context model, disabled adaptive thinking and did the same "plans in multiple short steps with /clear in-between" to minimize context usage, and yet nothing helps. It just feels ~2x to ~3x less tokens than before, and a lot less smart than in February.
Nowadays every time I complete a plan I spend several sessions afterwards saying things like "we have done plan X, the changes are uncommitted, can you take a look at what we did" and every time it finds things that were missed or outright (bad) shortcuts/deviations from plan despite my settings.json having a clear "if in doubt ask the user, don't just take the easy way out". As a random data point, just today opus halfway through a session told me to make a change to code inside a pod then rollout restart it to use said change, and when called out on it it of course said that I was right and of course that wouldn't work...
It is understandable that given your incredible growth you are between a rock and a hard place and have to tweak limits, compute does not grow on trees, but the consistent "you are holding it wrong" messaging is not helpful. I am wondering if realistically your only option is to move everybody to metered, with clear token usage displayed, and maybe have pro/max 5/max 20 just be a "your first $x of tokens is 50/75% off". Allow folks to tweak the thinking budget, and change the system prompt to remove things like "try the easy solution first" which anecdotally has been introduced in the past while, and allow users to verify on prompt if the prompt would cause the whole context to be sent or if cache is available.