Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses

You are an Anthropic shill, and this is an explicit marker that needs to be added to all of your comments, so that all information you provide can be adjusted for that bias. But I do understand why you ignore this point since it devalues all your comments (as it should), and instead cling to "ranting how someone is a shill bla-bla-bla".

Those people, unlike you, are actually using AI in development. And it is not a singular person who reports their frustration with the model being degraded after a certain period of time, so the anecdata does gradually become data. Your attempts at gaslighting are weak, you should really ask your bosses for a new guidebook on how to deal with reports of models performing at worse levels than before. Just writing "because I say so" is not cutting it.

> "we know they don't serve quants"

How do you know that unless you are working at Antrhopic? Yet another evidence of you being an Anthropic shill.

Good luck to them! I recently had the misfortune of fighting Copilot on a Github PR and it made me want to never contribute to the project again.

You have no substantive arguments other than calling people you disagree with shills.

> so the anecdata does gradually become data.

No, it does not. Countless social phenomena demonstrate how factually incorrect misconceptions spread rapidly. Frequency illusion is real and contagious.

> How do you know that [they are not serving quants]

Lots of ways to tell, if you weren't busy calling people shills.

First, Anthropic and OpenAI have both stated they don't serve quants. Weak protection, but it's there.

Second, no one has shown an A/B or eval proving a regression.

Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution. Despite having access to this data, no one has any evidence proving a quant has been served.

> You are an Anthropic shill

I'd explain the reasons I favor Anthropic over the others, but you'd just go back to yelling "shill" instead of engaging in a real conversation. That said, I am a fan of GDM as well, and think Gemini is better than Anthropic for everything other than code.

I've seen nothing resembling sane, reasoned thought from you in this thread. Just anger.

You haven't substantively debated a single point, it's like "shill" is the only word in your vocabulary. Again, this isn't Reddit.

Nothing to do with disagreement, I only call "Anthropic shills" people who are explicitly and shamelessly shilling for Anthropic. You still ignore the point that shilling adds bias to all your comments, so other readers have to actively keep it in mind to adjust for it. Stating that you are an Anthropic shill helps everyone around. And somehow you managed to be peddling LLM-hype shit so hard, that you are the only one called out on that by me.

> No, it does not.

Yes, it does, it is literally the definition of data - collection of points, observations, anything really. Try gaslighting harder, Anthropic shill. As I said, ask for better playbook on how to deal with people actually experiencing degradation before replying again.

> First, Anthropic and OpenAI have both stated they don't serve quants.

What's the point of stating this other than trying to pad your baseless "proof"? LLM-level argument.

> Second, there have not been evals showing a real regression test proving that a quant was served

This is how I know you have no idea what you are talking about and resort to LLMs for all your argumentation. Benchmarks are gamed so hard that even quantized models would achieve on them non-quantized level reliably. Moreover, benchmarks (that matter) are not run continuously all the time.

> Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution. Despite having access to this data, no one has any evidence proving a quant has been served.

You really are an LLM. What do you think different token distribution means? It literally means different, arguably worse performance in coding tasks. The evidence is in your face, but you have to keep it straight, since you are an Anthropic shill. You wrote yourself an argument why the models ARE quantized over time and did not even understand it. Makes sense, since you are paid to not understand stuff but peddle LLM-hype for Anthropic instead.

> I'd explain the reasons I favor Anthropic over the others

It is perfectly visible why you favor Anthropic, because you are an Anthropic shill and they pay you your salary, duh.

> real conversation

This is the type of conversation everyone should have whenever they read something written by an Antrhopic shill. You are actively poisoning this forum by astroturfing for Antrhopic, so we should take measures against it.

> You haven't substantively debated a single point

Obviously an Anthtropic shill would ignore everything of substance I wrote and instead focus on being called out. Fortunately, it is not you who I have to convince of anything, since your very well-being relies on getting salary from Anthropic peddling LLM-hype on HN and elsewhere, so you are physically incapable of understanding pretty much anything that contradicts your talking points.

Thank you for sharing!