Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Code weekly rate limits

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 724 posts

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#481

Post by const_cast »

Tokumei-no-hito wrote: post #219
alwillis wrote: post #175

From Anthropic’s Reddit account: One user consumed tens of thousands in model usage on a $200 plan. Though we're developing solutions for these advanced use cases, our new rate limits will ensure a more equitable experience for all users while also preventing policy violations like account sharing and reselling access. This is why we can’t have nice things.

guy was bragging about it on twitter yesterday. $13,200 of spend for his $200 account. he said he had like 4-5 opus only agents running nonstop and calling each other recursively. clearly that's abusive and should be targeted. but in general idk how else any inference provider can handle this situation. cursor is fucked because they are a whole layer of premium above the at-cost of anthropic / openai etc. so everyone…

> clearly that's abusive and should be targeted.

You can't abuse a company by buying their services and using them to their own terms and conditions. The T&C is already stacked against you, you're in a position of no leverage.

The correct solution is what Anthropic is doing here - change the T&C so you can make money. If you offer unlimited stuff, people will use it... unlimitedly. So, don't let them call your bluff.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#483

Post by const_cast »

jedberg wrote: post #398
serial_dev wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is still not the users fault, pricing is not their responsibility. As a user, I check the price and what the service offers, then I subscribe and I use it. If these users did something illegal or breaking some conditions, any service would be free to block them. But they didn’t, meaning the AI tools promised too much for the price so they update their conditions, they are basically figuring out the pricing. I don’…

Tragedy of the commons. You are totally right, they didn't violate any policy. But they violated their moral obligation to not abuse a shared resource.

It's not a public good - these people weren't shitting in the park. It's a paid-for service and they were paying customers, getting their money's worth.

The price simply did not reflect the cost, and that's a problem. It happens to a lot of business and sometimes consumer's call their bluff. Whoops.

You wanna cheat and undercut competitors by shooting yourself in the foot with costs that exceed price? Fine. It's a tale as old as time. Here, have your loss lead - xoxo, every consumer.

Just charge per unit.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#484

Post by 48terry »

jedberg wrote: post #398
serial_dev wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is still not the users fault, pricing is not their responsibility. As a user, I check the price and what the service offers, then I subscribe and I use it. If these users did something illegal or breaking some conditions, any service would be free to block them. But they didn’t, meaning the AI tools promised too much for the price so they update their conditions, they are basically figuring out the pricing. I don’…

Tragedy of the commons. You are totally right, they didn't violate any policy. But they violated their moral obligation to not abuse a shared resource.

Just in case everybody in this comment tree forgot: Claude is not some common, public good. It barely even qualifies as a digital commons, if it does. It is a private tool owned by a private, for-profit company. Nobody has a common obligation to make Anthropic profitable or to reduce its expenses.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#485

Post by jedberg »

const_cast wrote: post #483
jedberg wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tragedy of the commons. You are totally right, they didn't violate any policy. But they violated their moral obligation to not abuse a shared resource.

It's not a public good - these people weren't shitting in the park. It's a paid-for service and they were paying customers, getting their money's worth. The price simply did not reflect the cost, and that's a problem. It happens to a lot of business and sometimes consumer's call their bluff. Whoops. You wanna cheat and undercut competitors by shooting yourself in the foot with costs that exceed price? Fine. It's a ta…

I never said it was a public good. I said it was a shared resource.

The tragedy of the commons is the concept that, if many people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource, such as a GPU farm, they will tend to overuse it and may end up destroying its value altogether.

That is exactly what happened here. The price was fine if everyone upheld their moral obligation not to abuse it.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#486

Post by jedberg »

48terry wrote: post #484
jedberg wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tragedy of the commons. You are totally right, they didn't violate any policy. But they violated their moral obligation to not abuse a shared resource.

Just in case everybody in this comment tree forgot: Claude is not some common, public good. It barely even qualifies as a digital commons, if it does. It is a private tool owned by a private, for-profit company. Nobody has a common obligation to make Anthropic profitable or to reduce its expenses.

I never said anything about a public good. See my sibling comment.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#487

Post by const_cast »

jedberg wrote: post #485
const_cast wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a public good - these people weren't shitting in the park. It's a paid-for service and they were paying customers, getting their money's worth. The price simply did not reflect the cost, and that's a problem. It happens to a lot of business and sometimes consumer's call their bluff. Whoops. You wanna cheat and undercut competitors by shooting yourself in the foot with costs that exceed price? Fine. It's a ta…

I never said it was a public good. I said it was a shared resource. The tragedy of the commons is the concept that, if many people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource, such as a GPU farm, they will tend to overuse it and may end up destroying its value altogether. That is exactly what happened here. The price was fine if everyone upheld their moral obligation not to abuse it.

There is no moral obligation, only the terms and conditions. That's your actual obligation.

There's only one person who made a mistake here - Anthropic. They purposefully make their terms and conditions bad, and then when people played by the contract they set forth, they lost money. It's calling a bluff.

Anthropic purposefully priced this far too aggressively to undercut their competitors. Companies with stupid amounts of investor capital do that all the time. They flew too close to the sun.

You can't create a contract, have all the power in the world to rig the contract in your favor, and then complain about said contract. Everyone was following the rules. The problem was the rules were stupid.

To be more specific - abuse requires an exercise of power. End-users have no power at all. They have literally zero leverage over the contract and they have no power to negotiate. They can't abuse anything, they're too weak.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#488

Post by mattkrause »

zamadatix wrote: post #478
xpe wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pressures users to hoard As a pedantic note, I would say 'ration'. Things you hoard don't magically go away after some period of time.

FWIW neither hoard nor ration imply anything about permanence of the thing to me. Whether you were rationed bread or you hoarded bread, the bread isn't going to be usable forever. At the same time whether you were rationed sugar or hoarded sugar, the sugar isn't going to expire (with good storage). Rationed/hoarded do imply, to me, something different about how the quantity came to be though. Rationed being given or…

For me, the difference between ration and hoard is the uhh…rationality of the plan.

Rationing suggests a deliberate, calculated plan: we’ll eat this much at these particular times so our food lasts that long. Hoard seems more ad hoc and fear-driven: better keep yet another beat-up VGA cable, just in case.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#489

Post by Tokumei-no-hito »

const_cast wrote: post #481
Tokumei-no-hito wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guy was bragging about it on twitter yesterday. $13,200 of spend for his $200 account. he said he had like 4-5 opus only agents running nonstop and calling each other recursively. clearly that's abusive and should be targeted. but in general idk how else any inference provider can handle this situation. cursor is fucked because they are a whole layer of premium above the at-cost of anthropic / openai etc. so everyone…

> clearly that's abusive and should be targeted. You can't abuse a company by buying their services and using them to their own terms and conditions. The T&C is already stacked against you, you're in a position of no leverage. The correct solution is what Anthropic is doing here - change the T&C so you can make money. If you offer unlimited stuff, people will use it... unlimitedly. So, don't let them call your bluff.

we differ on the opinion that you can be abusive without breaking ToS. perhaps a charitable view is that this type of [abuse || acceptable use] helps lawyers stay employed so they can [eliminate exploitation of || more adequately describe] their ToS.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#490

Post by const_cast »

Tokumei-no-hito wrote: post #489
const_cast wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clearly that's abusive and should be targeted. You can't abuse a company by buying their services and using them to their own terms and conditions. The T&C is already stacked against you, you're in a position of no leverage. The correct solution is what Anthropic is doing here - change the T&C so you can make money. If you offer unlimited stuff, people will use it... unlimitedly. So, don't let them call your bluff.

we differ on the opinion that you can be abusive without breaking ToS. perhaps a charitable view is that this type of [abuse || acceptable use] helps lawyers stay employed so they can [eliminate exploitation of || more adequately describe] their ToS.

IMO abuse requires an exercise of power. End-users have no power - they hold zero leverage over the contract, and they have zero room to negotiate. It's a fully take-it-or-leave-it deal, and pray they do not alter the deal further.

Because of that, IMO end-users can't abuse the contract, no matter how hard they try. It's not on them to do that, because they have zero control over the contract. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too problem.

Anthropic simultaneously retains complete control of the contract, but they want to "outsource" responsibility for how it's used to their end-users. No... it's either one or the other. Either you're in complete control and therefore hold complete accountability, or you share accountability.

Post reply on HN