431–440 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have a look at https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/54497 I can’t use Claude Code online at all
Sorry but you have to make a separate HN post for them to care. Wait like 2 hours so this one dies down otherwise it might not get to the front page with enough other people dealing with it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You realize the thread you are commenting on is not about scaling or downtime, but about a billing bug that Anthropic refused to fix until it become a Streisand effect? If you're happy to continue paying a company that has demonstrated it will steal your money, admit it, and refuse to return it, more power to you. The AI industry is moving fast enough that there will be plenty of players to pick up customers who don'…
But that's just me. Vote with your dollars; I've voted with mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but you have to make a separate HN post for them to care. Wait like 2 hours so this one dies down otherwise it might not get to the front page with enough other people dealing with it
I tried and it got no feedback.
I feel like Anthropic keeps doing this thing were they take a hard-line position and then walk it back, I presume because they're not communicating effectively internally. So I would guess this person will get a refund but it's still a terrible look (and legitimately unacceptable behavior).
I have a feeling the devs themselves aren't the issue and it probably sucks to have to be the fall guys (though some for sure might buy into all of Anthropic's schemes). But my best guess is they don't want to put a firm line down because they want to be free to shift it around however they'd like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they're not advocating. They're claiming they can do nothing. Quitting in protest would be more advocation.
Who says they're not advocating? Who says they were aware of this before today? Extend this to other disciplines - if everyone who cared about security resigned every time leadership pushed to rush something out without proper testing, the world would be a worse place. Sticking around and continuing to try to change the culture is how good companies are made.
They did.
> I don't like it, but can't do much about it.
They're out of ideas. Quitting is an idea. There are plenty of other things to do but if they're not going to bother, then quitting in protest is better than going along, no?
Hey everyone, Thariq from the Claude Code team. We've been on this since the bug surfaced. Everyone affected is getting a full refund and an extra grant of usage credits equal to their monthly subscription as our apology. You can see my original post here: https://x.com/trq212/status/2048495545375990245 . We’re still working on sending emails to everyone affected. Our support flow wasn't set up to route a complex bug…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The official response feels AI generated. I suspect this is a preview of our future. "You're totally right! I'm sorry but you're going to have to piss off anyway. Would you like to spend a few more hours discussing it with our AI chatbot? It won't help. But if it makes you feel better, it will probably cost us an extra $0.12 in tokens." I'll bet the first human at Anthropic learns about this from HN.
That comment isn’t from an Anthropic employee. It’s satire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic doesn't even use their own harnesses for their support chatbots (they're using fin.ai) - that's how little support matters to them. Seems like either you get attention on HN, know someone working there, or are at a large enough company to have an enterprise contact - otherwise, no reply.
They saw how Google providing absolutely terrible customer service for a very long time has done nothing to hurt their bottom line and decided to copy.
Google is not a software, hardware, or SaaS company. They are an ad-funded moonshot R&D incubator, searching only for billion dollar lightning strikes.
Every part of their business exists only to broker and sell ads or capture more market share to show ads to or to collect and trade data/Metadata for better ad targeting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps this is a matter of who is being referred to by 'we'. Obviously someone can do it because it got done. If the 'we' is referring to some team handling issues it would make more sense. In that case they should have said something along the lines of "I have informed someone who can help"
Does AI using first person pronouns gross anyone else out? If there’s one AI regulation I could get behind it would be banning the use of computer systems to impersonate a human
Its hard to describe how out of touch a company has to be for this to happen. Multibillion dollar company admitting to robbing their customer of $200 in front of other customers.