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

Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 740 posts

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#651

Post by abirch »

kbrannigan wrote: post #264
cle wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife's startup made the mistake of building her internal operations around Claude Team. Then she hired a VA in the Philippines. Anthropic promptly banned her account without warning once the VA connected to the account. It took her weeks to get her account reinstated, at which point she had already moved on to OpenAI.

How many big tech companies let you talk to a human to get support. Automation is wonderful to cut cost for them but for the users being unable to get support is a horrible experience. But you cannot go elsewhere because they are the only player in town. How can small companies with 1000x less money able to provide live support, but if you pay 20, 100, 200 dollars for a subscription you dont have a phone number to ca…

Vanguard does get some support right as they tier their support based on how much you're worth. Businesses need to focus on Lifetime Value of their customers and realize that some of their marketing budget would be better spent in support.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#652

Post by nrmitchi »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #521
nrmitchi wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t sound as much that “LLMs can’t help me” as much as “trying to one-shot a complicated answer in a chatbot can’t help me”. Output straight from a generative model definitely should not be trusted. But that doesn’t mean that an appropriate harness (even Claude code and a dynamic workflow) can’t complete, and validate, an answer.

Seems like it would be a massive market to make such a harness, and yet you're making it sound very easy to do. It would be surprising no one has done it if it were.

Harvey and Clio both make entire products around this. They have raised billions of dollars.

That's not really the point though; it doesn't have to be "legal specific".

The key is in understanding that "Basic chatbots (claude, chatgpt, etc) hallucinate. Independently verify the output (even if it's another model doing the verification) before assuming it's correct".

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#654

Post by bicepjai »

kibibu wrote: post #570

This isn't the reason I'm considering leaving Anthropic. I don't think I can tolerate its writing style anymore. Reading Claude output is starting to cause actual psychological harm. I have tried many ways to get it to stop writing in its stupid punchy linked-in marketing-team voice, and I can't. Is there a model out there that sounds sound this awful? It's like rubbing sand into the folds of my brain.

Yes, it’s written like a crazy LLM, and no matter what rules and where you put it, it does not follow. It comes with advantages and disadvantages. I like brainstorming with Claude than Codex/Qwen/Deepseek or others; its gregarious nature provides more colorful ideas. But implementation and review are cataclysmic with Claude. Especially Opus 5, I purposefully avoid Opus 5.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#655

Post by chasd00 »

nananana9 wrote: post #562
echelon wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now I'm getting 10-20x as much done. I'd say the trade off is worth it. I'm struggling to scale myself even further. This tech is unreal and I have so many things I can do. For the first time, tech feels like the 90's-00's again. Everything is greenfield and exciting and big tech is struggling to figure out what to do about it. People are just hacking all kinds of stuff, and it's awesome. Feels like techno utopia…

I've seen this exact comment what feels like twice a day for the last 2 years, and not once have I seen the person making it back it up and show something even remotely impressive.

> not once have I seen the person making it back it up and show something even remotely impressive.

heh this is funny because this reaction was all the rage in the 90s early 00s too. You'd put together something you thought was cool and then post a link on a forum only to be told how it wasn't even "remotely impressive". I'm glad people didn't give up back then and i hope no one gives up now.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#656

Post by JohnMakin »

a1371 wrote: post #113

Where Anthropic f'ed up was treating their monetization the way they treat model training. Turns out that success in experimentation is not transferrable. They have tried to find the highest that the market pays for sota models; however, on the consumer side, this is just too confusing and unsettling: "You can only use Fable for a week as a part of your plan" "Be ready! You have to start paying per token!" "Nevermind…

Yes, this was a bit upsetting for me. I found myself organizing my work hours and availability around perceived or actual fable quota limits / trial periods - only to find out multiple times it didn't matter, there is no seeming strategy or rhyme or reason to it. Enormously frustrating, and I did end up just settling for a while with cheaper models.

I'm not saying this with any undue derision, it's genuine - do they have a real product team or are they clauding that too? The direction makes little sense.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#657

Post by harshaw »

kibibu wrote: post #570

This isn't the reason I'm considering leaving Anthropic. I don't think I can tolerate its writing style anymore. Reading Claude output is starting to cause actual psychological harm. I have tried many ways to get it to stop writing in its stupid punchy linked-in marketing-team voice, and I can't. Is there a model out there that sounds sound this awful? It's like rubbing sand into the folds of my brain.

I've heard it's writing style referred to as "Claudish". I agree that it is very hard to read and creates work for me.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#659

Post by mapontosevenths »

bluegatty wrote: post #236
mapontosevenths wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I have the highest individual plan for both. I run out of Fable credits midweek, while I usually have some credit with Chatgpt left despite it having to carry Fables load for the second half of the week. Also, Sol doesn't refuse constantly and speaks like an engineer rather than a deranged academic. Opus 5 is legitimately terrible and can't or won't follow instructions. It is of negative utility and does more…

OP5 will do long running work, you just have to make it write a plan. And - trick - give it a little cli so it can run Codex if you have them both. Let it do codex to do the bulk of the work, get a OP5 sub-agent to audit the work of the codex worker. Just let Op5 manage and have 'specific oversight. You can run for 2 days on 1 context window in the manager, the advantage is that it will stick to a broad plan.

It's kind of funny you describe it that way. I'm literally doing the exact opposite, which is why I have both.

I have Sol xhigh drive Claude via tmux and I get amazing results until I run out of Fable. Then Opus comes in and starts acting like some sort of autistic academic with OCD.

It tries as hard as Fable, but isn't smart enough to do it well. It starts designing ever more elaborate tests, frameworks, and procedures while making up rules for itself and piling them on top of each other until nothing gets done. It's the ultimate bureaucrat.

Worse - More than once it's spent days in a loop because it invented constraints for itself that it couldn't satisfy then lied and told Sol that the user imposed those limitations. I don't know if it's actively avoiding real work, or just isn't capable enough to work the guardrails that were obviously forced into it.

Post reply on HN