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

531–540 of 724 posts

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#531

Post by ookblah »

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.

okay? why not just ban or create a special pricing for the 1% of less of users obviously abusing it. i get that they had to do this, but to frame it as some kind of community benefit is a little disingenuous. we know you're operating at a loss and trying to figure out a path forward.

pointing to the most extreme example as if you can't stop it in it's tracks is a bad argument. its like saying we will now restrict sending of emails for everyone because this one spammer was sending 1000x the amount of an avg or even power user when you should just be solving the actual problem (identifying and stopping those that disrupt).

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#532

Post by forty »

stingraycharles wrote: post #529
forty wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes me sad that devs start relying on proprietary online services to be able to work. We have been lucky enough to have FOSS tools to do everything and not to have to rely on any specific service or company to work and some of us are deciding to become like Monsanto-addicted farmers who forgot how to do their jobs without something they have to pay every month.

Devs have been doing this for years. If Github goes down, it has a huge impact on dev productivity.

Has it? We don't use GitHub in my company, but our self hosted Gitlab occasionally goes down, and while it prevents us from merging (including doing code reviews) and deploying code, it does not prevent us from doing most of our work (ie designing and creating software). It merely delays the moment when things are shipped.

If you meant goes down for good, then I'm sure it would be annoying for a few weeks for the FOSS ecosystem, just the time to migrate elsewhere, but there is not much GitHub specific we would really miss.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#533

Post by matt_cogito »

Let's start with stating, that Opus 4 + Sonnet 4 are a gift to humanity. Or at least to developers.

The two models are not just the best models for coding at this point (in areas like UX/UI and following instructions they are unmatched); they come package with possibly the best command line tool today.

The invite developers to use them a lot. Yet for the first time ever, I can feel how I cannot 100% fully rely on the tool and feel a lot of pressure, when using it. Not because I don't want to pay, but because the options are either:

> A) Pay $200 and be constantly warned by the system that you are close to hitting your quota (very bad UX) > B) Pay $$$??? via the API and see how your bill grows to +$2k per month (this is me this month via Cursor)

I guess Anthropic has the great dilemma now: should they make the models more efficient to use and lower the prices to increase limits and boost usage OR should they cash in their cash cows while they can?

I am pretty sure no other models comes even close in terms of developer-hours at this point. Gemini would be my 2nd best guess, but Gemini is still lagging behind Claude, and not that good at agentic workloads.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#534

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

If you wanted a more equitable experience for all you wouldn't just limit the high-end users, but return the money to low-end users.

Charging a low flat fee per use and still warning when certain limits hit is possible. But it's market segmentation not to do it. Just charge a flat fee, then lop off the high-end, and you maximize profit.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#535

Post by forty »

arvinsim wrote: post #522
forty wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes me sad that devs start relying on proprietary online services to be able to work. We have been lucky enough to have FOSS tools to do everything and not to have to rely on any specific service or company to work and some of us are deciding to become like Monsanto-addicted farmers who forgot how to do their jobs without something they have to pay every month.

I think it's less about reliance and more about competition. Sure, devs can still work without AI. But if the developer who uses AI has more output than the one that doesn't, it naturally incentives everyone to leverage AI more and more.

That's a big if. People might feel faster because there is more "movement", but it's not clear if overall they are actually signicantly faster (though everyone would like us to believe so).

And note that I objected online services, local LLM don't have the same issues.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#536

Post by xdennis »

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.

>> preventing policy violations like account sharing and reselling access.

> This is why we can’t have nice things.

We're living in the worst world that Stallman could have predicted. One in which even HN agrees that people shouldn't be allowed to share or resell what they pay for.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#537

Post by what »

reasonableklout wrote: post #425
QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #340

Their business model with the pro plan is to sell a dollar for 80 cents for a while to gain market share. Once they have spent the money allocated to this plan and bring it to a close, don’t expect them to resume it in response to righteous indignation: the money will be gone. See also Uber, MoviePass etc

Inference costs have been in freefall since ChatGPT[1], so this is different than Uber/MoviePass. The primary cost is a technology which is getting cheaper as more investment is put into algorithm + hardware R&D. [1]: https://epoch.ai/data-insights/llm-inference-price-trends

Just because they’re slashing they’re prices while they compete for users doesn’t mean the cost of inference came down at the same rate or at all.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#538

Post by matt3210 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #88

I'm probably not going to hit the weekly limit, but it makes me nervous that the limit is weekly as opposed to every 36 hours or something. If I do hit the limit, that's it for the entire week —a long time to be without a tool I've grown accustomed to! I feel like someone is going to reply that I'm too reliant on Claude or something. Maybe that's true, but I'd feel the same about the prospect of loosing ripgrep for a…

>If I do hit the limit, that's it for the entire week

Now your vibes can be at the beach.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#539

Post by SlowTao »

Aurornis wrote: post #231
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.

I worked at a startup that offered an unlimited option. It's amazing how fast you go from thinking nobody could ever use that much of your service to discovering how many of your users are creatively abusing the service. Accounts will start using your service 24/7 with their request rating coming at 95% of your rate limiter setting. They're accessing it from a diverse set of IPs. Depending on the type of service and…

Not only startups, when OneDrive (was still SkyDrive at that point) started to offer unlimited online storage, from memory they said there was about 70 users that had over a petabyte of data each on the system.

Essentially people had all their security cameras and PVR units uploading endlessly to the cloud and Microsoft was footing the bill.

Then the 1TB limit came in to stop that.

Re: Claude Code weekly rate limits

#540

Post by jmaker »

canada_dry wrote: post #491
landl0rd wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell how it’s intentional with both OpenAI and Anthropic by how they’re intentionally made opaque. I cant see a nice little bar with how much I’ve used versus have left on the given rate limits so it’s pressuring users to hoard. Because it prevents them from budgeting it out and saying “okay I’ve used 1/3 of my quota and it’s Wednesday, I can use more faster.”

OpenAI's "PRO" subscription is really a waste of money IMHO for this and other reasons. Decided to give PRO a try when I kept getting terrible results from the $20 option. So far it's perhaps 20% improved in complex code generation. It still has the extremely annoying ~350 line limit in its output. It still IGNORES EXPLICIT CONTINUOUS INSTRUCTIONS eg: do not remove existing comments. The opaque overriding rules that…

There are things it’s great at and things it deceives you with. In many things I needed it to check something for me I knew was a problem, o3 kept insisting it were possible due to reasons a,b,c, and thankfully gave me links. I knew it used to be a problem so surprised I followed the links only to read black on white it still wasn’t. So I explained to o3 that it’s wrong. Two messages later we were back at square one. One week later it didn’t update its knowledge. Months later it’s still the same.

But at things I have no idea about like medicine it feels very convincing. Am I in hazard?

People don’t understand Dunning-Kruger. People are prone to biases and fallacies. Likely all LLMs are inept at objectivity.

My instructions to LLMs are always strictness, no false claims, Bayesian likelihoods on every claim. Some modes ignore the instructions voluntarily, while others stick strictly to them. In the end it doesn’t matter when they insist on 99% confidence on refuted fantasies.

Post reply on HN