[HN Gopher] Claude's Max Plan
___________________________________________________________________
Claude's Max Plan
Author : nanfinitum
Score : 112 points
Date : 2025-04-09 18:07 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.anthropic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.anthropic.com)
| serjester wrote:
| Bold to launch this before the roll out their own reasoning
| models / deep research. Seems like table stakes if you want to
| capture power users but maybe that's just my workflow.
| oidar wrote:
| They already have a reasoning model out. I don't think deep
| research is on the agenda atm.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Anthropic have recently said that they don't like the
| "reasoning" label and don't intend to have separate base and
| reasoning models, but rather one model that does it all. The
| current Claude 3.7 already seems to be doing some reasoning,
| displaying "pondering" and "analyzing" messages between
| different stages of output generation.
| logicchains wrote:
| Regardless of naming, they don't have a model competitive
| with o1 Pro for coding (or with Gemini 2.5, for that matter).
| As someone who pays $200/month for GPT Pro I definitely
| wouldn't pay the same for Claude (and am considering
| cancelling GPT Pro if they don't deliver something better
| than Gemini 2.5 soon).
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Gemini 2.5 is awesome, but when it screws the pooch, it
| _really_ screws the pooch (e.g.,
| https://gemini.google.com/share/374ac006497d ). It has
| delivered some of the best responses I've seen lately but
| also some of the worst.
|
| I have been tempted several times to kill my GPT Pro
| account, but it is still valuable for cases where Gemini
| and Claude don't get the job done for whatever reason.
| tesch1 wrote:
| I tried gemini 2.5 just once for coding and it immediately
| spit out hilariously invalid python, not even clearing the
| lowest of bars.
|
| What (language/topic) are you coding in that gemini (or
| even chatgpt) is better than claude? Very surprised to hear
| this.
| logicchains wrote:
| For Golang and Haskell I found o1 Pro and Gemini 2.5 are
| much better at generating code that works first try than
| Claude. Gemini 2.5 in particular can generate thousands
| and thousands of lines of code that correctly use types
| and functions that were generated earlier in the context,
| with minimal errors.
| shmoogy wrote:
| I've been using Gemini pro 2.5 over Claude 3.5 in cursor
| all week - some people have Gemini do a prd and tasks and
| Claude do the actual coding. I switch between them but
| have been pretty impressed with Gemini.
|
| Gemini sometimes fucks up diffs or doesn't actually apply
| the edits - Claude is rock solid at that. They're both
| very good though - but 3.7 really likes refactoring
| unneeded shit and removing code sometimes.
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| Their reasoning is called "extending thinking". It was released
| alongside Claude Sonnet 3.7.
|
| They have web search, but it's true, no "deep research". It
| honestly is not very good and it's WAY too trigger-happy with
| it. As a result, if you accidentally leave it on, you get
| terrible answers to simple questions that non-search mode would
| have answered well.
|
| (And for context Claude Sonnet 3.7 is my model of choice)
| smallerfish wrote:
| At last. I honestly think the product engineering org at
| Anthropic has serious issues. They are slow to ship, and quality
| of the webapp has been decidedly mixed in the past 6 months. Some
| of the UX decisions they've made are bone-headed.
|
| (OpenAI launched their pro plan 4 months ago!)
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I just assumed most people at this point are using a client.
| tener wrote:
| It is hardly better though. Aside from MCP support (with
| rather poor UX, just compare it with anything else out there)
| it really has nothing to offer.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I've been satisfied with msty and code/cursor.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I actually like Claude over ChatGPT specifically because of how
| their web UI distinguishes.
|
| Its clear that neither company prioritizes their flagship chat
| UI, over their other offerings. So if it will be in stasis, I
| definitely like it
|
| There are other web AI offerings now (deepseek web, perplexity,
| to name a few). This is what I like between these two:
|
| The speed of responses.
|
| The reliability. ChatGPT web UI often times out or has server
| errors for random things.
|
| Different censorship. Overall better for my use cases, and how
| errors are handled.
|
| Initially search of old chats was a first class citizen in
| Claude. ChatGPT didnt have it, needed third party plugins, it
| has since updated, but is still lackluster in this regard.
|
| The diagrams, charting and coding interface is great and
| better. Easier for seeing how something compiles and runs,
| easier to copy and paste.
| jtwaleson wrote:
| A bit off-topic, but I wonder when Cursor is going to see a
| massive price increase. I've tried Aider (granted, this was when
| GPT4 prices were still much higher) and spent $10 in one hour
| easily. Now I use cursor a LOT (100h focussed programming time
| per month) and mostly stay within my $20 monthly fee. I think
| they must be losing money on customers like me.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Have you tried Roo Code or Cline instead? I never felt the need
| to use Cursor after trying them and they're just extensions, so
| it's easy to install and use your own API key.
| jtwaleson wrote:
| How bad is the bill?
| seunosewa wrote:
| With Gemini 2.5 the bill is zero for now.
| danialtz wrote:
| it is already super expensive if you want to get an actual work
| done using their max model. On a midsize project, it cost ca.
| EUR200 for my vibe coding tests to get something reasonable
| done (each call, each tool costs 0.05c). Their normal claude
| window is super short, and almost unusable for serious work.
| Stack was python and Nuxt.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| > to get an actual work done using their max model
|
| I get plenty of work done without the max model.
|
| The key is breaking out a planning step before
| implementation.
| podgorniy wrote:
| Lol. The best they can propose for 200 is "not throttling"
| CosmicShadow wrote:
| I already had to go through so many hoops to sign up for a teams
| account for 5 separate accounts for myself, I wonder if this will
| be any better or not. At least if one account starts getting dumb
| or somehow runs out of context, I can just switch, but if
| something goes wrong and your $200 account exponentially loses
| context, then you are stuck waiting. Anyone have any idea of the
| actual differences?
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| I use the free model and API, when I look at the pricing page I
| see (for the extant $20 Pro plan) - More usage
| - Access to Projects to organize chats and documents -
| Ability to use more Claude models - Extended thinking for
| complex work
|
| What does "more usage" mean? It doesn't say anywhere what the
| free tier usage limits are. What are "more" models? It also
| doesn't make clear what models are available with each tier
| (except for "extended thinking" which is a separate bullet point)
|
| The only thing I can reason is that they want to keep this vague
| so that they don't have to update their marketing copy each time
| they update their offerings, but that's absurd.
| mathgeek wrote:
| Not sure if it still holds, but it was 5x at launch:
| https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-pro
|
| FAQ agrees:
| https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/8324991-about-clau...
| mvdtnz wrote:
| 5x what though? Even if we assume this is the true figure,
| everyone who uses Claude regularly knows that usage limits
| fluctuate over the course of days and weeks.
| section_me wrote:
| Surge pricing? I'm not sure if my remark is sarcasm or a
| prediction on the future.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| In the near future, everyone will have an intelligence
| meter in their hall and pay IQCoin to the National
| Intelligence Utility based on how much intelligence they
| use each month.
| fragmede wrote:
| not just limits, but response times. I swear there's a Cron
| job or something that kicks in a 2300 pacific because
| Claude backs up right around then.
| jsheard wrote:
| > It doesn't say anywhere what the free tier usage limits are.
|
| Ah, I see they've been to the Cloudflare school of free tier
| bait-and-switching.
| pdyc wrote:
| can you elaborate you mean CF workers or the pro plans?
| jsheard wrote:
| I mean how CF has advertises "unlimited bandwidth" and
| "unmetered DDOS protection" on their free and flat-rate
| paid plans, which abruptly turns into not-unlimited pay-
| per-gigabyte if they decide you're using them too much, but
| you're not allowed to know where that line is so you can
| plan around it. It's a fun surprise where they suddenly ask
| you to pay 10x more out of nowhere.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| Can you point to a single example of CF doing this to a
| legitimate entity that wasn't obviously abusing their
| plan? Every time this comes up it's always some shady
| website that's getting the limited treatment.
|
| And it's not "unlimited bandwidth", it's "unlimited
| bandwidth with restrictions". That's an important and
| critical distinction. I'm not sure I understand the
| position that somehow CF needs to subsidize every
| customer.
| webstrand wrote:
| Nobody said CF needs to subsidize every customer. The
| rules need to be clear though, not secret. Same with
| anthropic's usage limits, since they're not public they
| can degrade the service you're paying for at any point in
| time with no notice.
| Veen wrote:
| The oxymoronic style of marketing bullshit: unlimited
| with restrictions, free but only if you pay, lifetime
| membership for three years, etc.
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Just a tiny nit, 10x more of 0 is still 0. Your point
| still makes sense though
| miki123211 wrote:
| "more" usage likely means that they have a limited number of
| GPUs, and what models you get access to depends on how much
| you've used them recently, but also on how busy the GPUs are at
| this moment.
|
| This is also how batching works for API users. If you don't
| need the results immediately, you can give them a batch with an
| attached 24-hour deadline, and they'll slot you in whenever
| they expect low usage, in exchange for better prices.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I have been a heavy user of Claude but cancelled my Pro
| subscription yesterday. The usage limits have been quietly
| tightened up like crazy recently and 3.7 is certainly feeling
| dumber lately.
|
| But the main reason I quit is the constant downtime. Their status
| page[0] is like a Christmas tree but even that only tells half
| the story - the number of times I have input a query only to have
| Claude sit, think for a while then stop and return nothing as if
| I had never submitted at all is getting ridiculous. I refuse to
| pay for this kind of reliability.
|
| [0] https://status.anthropic.com/
| bakugo wrote:
| Can confirm. As an API user, "overloaded" errors have been
| happening pretty often lately.
| tesch1 wrote:
| At 99.38+ uptime - seems like the reds in the xmas tree are
| OR'd into the bars rather averaged in, making them look worse
| than they actually are, which is refreshingly honest to see in
| an uptime monitor.
| bayarearefugee wrote:
| Also cancelled Claude Pro due to a combination of unreasonable
| amounts of downtime and Gemini 2.5 just doing a better job for
| me.
|
| I'd estimate there's probably like another 6 months to a year
| where I'll jump around to whatever 'cloud' LLM is currently
| winning on quality of the model (in terms of usefulness as a
| coding assistant) and just basic UI/availability and then I'll
| build a locally hosted system and just use that.
|
| I certainly don't have anything like brand loyalty to any of
| them, so I'm down for a race to the bottom.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| They are a bit of ripoff, especially cli thing. It will
| hallucinate tons of things, add things that break code and then
| you pay again (quite a lot) to fix it.
| pphysch wrote:
| Sounds like a great business model
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Yep. Being inconsistent makes it even more addictive than
| being perfect every time.
| brunoqc wrote:
| The email subject line was "We heard you: Introducing the new Max
| plan for more Claude usage".
|
| What the hell?
| Mystery-Machine wrote:
| Can you elaborate which parts are frustrating to you? It wasn't
| clear who the email came from just from the subject?
| brunoqc wrote:
| Sorry. The "we heard you" and then offered a ridiculous price
| tier.
| ZeroTalent wrote:
| People were complaining about rate limits on the $20 plan.
|
| How is $200/month ridiculous for groundbreaking technology?
| prompt_overflow wrote:
| F
|
| I can't believe we're going to high pricing based subscription.
| This makes me think we need than ever open source models like
| qwen and deepseek.
| yahoozoo wrote:
| It's because these companies are burning billions of dollars.
| Pikamander2 wrote:
| On the other hand, the free options are better than ever. I've
| only used the free versions of ChatGPT, Claude, and ImageFX and
| have been impressed by how much you get without spending a
| dime. The only real limitation I regularly feel is not being
| able to upload something like a 1GB CSV file for analysis, but
| I guess that's a fair restriction for a free web tool.
| johnisgood wrote:
| I am impressed by the free version of ChatGPT, not so much
| with Claude's (claude.ai). I love Claude Pro, more so than
| the paid version of GPT, but damn, the free version of Claude
| is awful, you reach the limit extremely quickly. The free
| version of ChatGPT works quite well.
| int_19h wrote:
| The problem is that comparable-quality open models will still
| require lots of hardware to run at reasonable speeds, so even
| then it's not cheap.
| woadwarrior01 wrote:
| Their pricing page says $100/month
| beklein wrote:
| - Expanded Usage: 5x more usage than Pro => $100 per month
|
| - Maximum Flexibility: 20x more usage than Pro => $200 per
| month
| ozten wrote:
| I want different capabilities at $200.
|
| I paid for that to get access to Deep Research from OpenAI and I
| feel I got more than $200 of value back out.
|
| These companies have a hard time communicating value.
| Capabilities make that easier for me to understand. Rate-limiting
| and outages don't.
| matwood wrote:
| I waited until Deep Research came to the normal paid plans, but
| it's been very useful the times I have thought to use it.
| tibbon wrote:
| My current dream is a model that's good at coding with a ~10m
| token content window. I understand Llama 4 has a window
| approximately that size, but I'm hearing mixed results on its
| coding capacity.
|
| If it had deep research and this, with a large number of API
| requests, I'd consider $200/month.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| I mean you get a 2 Million token context window and by far my
| favorite coding model with Gemini 2.5 Pro.
| siva7 wrote:
| Has someone tried the 2m context window for a code base and
| can report how it compares over claude or o1?
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| I mean I've tried it with Gemini 2.5 Pro + Roo and then
| tried Claude 3.7 + Roo on the same task and Gemini blew
| Claude away. Haven't spent anymore OpenRouter credits,
| because Gemini was so much better.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Does Gemini have a web interface similar to claude.ai? I
| am lazy[1], but I am also poor. I would not be able to
| afford 100 USD per month.
|
| [1] But if it is cheap enough, has large context window,
| then I might consider setting up something akin to
| claude.ai with Gemini's API.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Yeah AI Studio is free with decent rate limits, though
| obviously more developer focused:
| https://aistudio.google.com/
|
| The official Gemini app works well for me too and there's
| a nice free tier and it's free if you have a newer Pixel
| phone. Otherwise $20/month for the Advanced tier. There's
| no $200/month option.
|
| https://gemini.google.com/app
| johnisgood wrote:
| I mostly use LLMs on PC, as I use LLMs mainly for coding.
|
| Does AI Studio allow you to have projects with project
| files and whatnot?
|
| How about its context window length, more or less than
| Claude's?
|
| I am also interested in open-source alternatives to the
| web interface that claude.ai has, I know there are some
| but I have forgotten their names, would be cool to have a
| list here.
| simonw wrote:
| The best open source UI I know of is
| https://openwebui.com/ - you can point it at any OpenAI
| API compatible endpoint and both Gemini and Anthropic
| offer those now.
|
| You can use the Gemini API for free with quite generous
| allowances, including for 2.5 Pro.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Thanks Simon, will take a look.
|
| Extremely off-topic: are you still around DS?
| simonw wrote:
| DS?
| indigodaddy wrote:
| There's also Google's https://idx.dev - which is a
| webide/vscode dealio and you can use gemini in agentic
| mode (mix of 2.0/2.5 but if you use your own gemini key
| you can guarantee 2.5 Pro i think)
|
| edit, well it now appears to be https://firebase.studio/
| - that is a recent change I haven't used it since it
| changed its name..
| bionhoward wrote:
| AI studio is only developer focused if you're not working
| on AI, which is a prohibited use case according to the
| Gemini API / AI Studio "Additional Terms"
| khromov wrote:
| Made a video comparing Gemini 2.5 Pro to Claude Sonnet
| 3.7 recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVdVJ_hD_vo
| sva_ wrote:
| I just subscribed to the free trial yesterday, and I've
| been hooked tbh. I haven't subscribed to any of the other
| LLM companies so far. I hope something else comes out
| within a month because I really don't want to spend 22 Euro
| per month for it.
|
| The 1M context window (2M?) really sets it apart.
| baq wrote:
| 22 euro per month is less than 1 per day. Less than one
| espresso.
|
| I get the subscription fatigue, but there are splurges
| and there are truly valuable things.
| simonw wrote:
| I believe you can still use Gemini 2.5 Pro for free via
| https://aistudio.google.com and their gemini-2.5-pro-
| exp-03-25 model ID through their API.
|
| The free tier is "used to improve our products", the paid
| tier is not.
| vessenes wrote:
| The results are not mixed, Llama 4 is terrible at coding. I
| agree on longer context window being the dream.
| imiric wrote:
| Has anyone found the output at these large context windows
| usable at all?
|
| IME the quality of all models goes down considerably after
| just a few thousand tokens. The chances of hallucinating,
| mixing up prompts, forgetting previous prompts, etc., are
| much more likely as context size increases. I couldn't
| imagine a context of 1M tokens, let alone 10M, being usable
| at all. Not to mention that any query is going to come to a
| crawl just to move that amount of data around (which still
| annoyingly happens on every query...).
|
| So usually at around 10K tokens I ask it to summarize what
| was discussed, or I manually trim down the current state, and
| start a new fresh chat from there. I've found this to work
| much better than wasting my time fighting bad output. This is
| also cheaper if you're on a metered plan (OpenRouter, etc.).
| mohsen1 wrote:
| I cancelled my OpenAI plan. Gemini 2.5 Pro is extremely good
| compared to OpenAI and Anthropic models. Unless things change, I
| don't see why I need to pay those subscription fees?
| nanfinitum wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not really sure what the long play is here. $200 is
| what I spend on groceries for an entire month.
| paulddraper wrote:
| I'm impressed.
|
| A pound of chicken breast, a pound of apples, a third loaf of
| bread cost at least $7. And that's only 1500 kcal.
| yzydserd wrote:
| Probably spends another $600 on takeout.
| ZeroTalent wrote:
| and $1,000 on APIs :D
| fragmede wrote:
| COL isn't the same everywhere. That $8 of chicken in
| downtown San Francisco whole foods that closed is $4
| elsewhere and those differences add up.
| throwup238 wrote:
| A ten pound bag of russet potatoes costs $2-3 here (high
| CoL SoCal), and that's >3,000 kcal. A four pound bag of
| pinto beans is $4, that's >5,000 kcal. That's four days of
| 2,000 kcal per day for $7. Likewise 32,000 kCal of rice at
| Costco is $24 so it gets even cheaper when you buy those
| 20-40 pound bags. That goes for quinoa, lentils, and all
| kinds of other staples. Base caloric requirements are
| really cheap to cover with the basics, and should cost
| $50-60/mo. The rest can be spent on fresh meat, veggies,
| and fruit.
|
| Under $200/mo is relatively easy to achieve as long as you
| know how to cook or can tolerate a repetitive diet.
| Stretching it to $250-300/mo takes it up a notch and makes
| it a very balanced and varied diet with whatever fruit and
| vegetables you want. I only run it up to $300/mo when I buy
| higher quality meats at Costco and eat an avocado a day.
| boringg wrote:
| How is Gemini 2.5 Pro v Deep Research? I've found that function
| on OpenAI quite impressive.
| simonw wrote:
| They upgraded Gemini Deep Research to use the 2.5 model a few
| days ago and the stylist shot up - I've seen a bunch of
| people comparing the new version favorably to OpenAI's, I
| agree that it's as good and maybe even better now.
| petercooper wrote:
| I'd rather just be able to paste an API key into the desktop
| client and PAYG it.
| ChadMoran wrote:
| I basically do this using self-hosted LibreChat. Can even use
| MCP with it.
| codingwagie wrote:
| You can just go on AWS bedrock and use the thinking claude 3.7.
| You can tune the output size. I doubt you would spend 200 bucks a
| month in AWS on bedrock even with daily use of claude.
| threeducks wrote:
| Amazon Bedrock has even worse uptime than Anthropic (see
| "Uptime" column).
|
| https://openrouter.ai/anthropic/claude-3.7-sonnet:thinking/p...
|
| But I agree with the general point that using the API (with
| different providers) will have better uptime and that it will
| almost certainly be cheaper.
| codingwagie wrote:
| If its not cheaper, just subscribe, but subscribing outright
| doesnt make sense
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| > I doubt you would spend 200 bucks a month in AWS on bedrock
| even with daily use of claude.
|
| I can _easily_ burn $20/hour of credits in Cline/RooCode.
| Before switching to Cursor, full-time software dev could easily
| burn $100+/week.
| g42gregory wrote:
| With intensive coding with claude 3.7, you could easily be at
| $5/hr - $10/hr. Per token pricing rans the meter very fast.
| joshjob42 wrote:
| Yeah if you're doing a big coding session up near the limits
| of context even with prompt caching each reply can be ~80C/
| or something, so you can definitely blow through $200 on the
| API if you are using it heavily.
| plandis wrote:
| Their comparison is not clear at all what you're getting out of a
| rather large subscription price, IMO.
|
| > Substantially more usage to work with Claude
|
| Compared to pro or free what does this mean? More requests /
| time? More tokens / time? Something else?
|
| > Scale usage based on specific needs
|
| Are there limits with pro that this is removing or increasing?
| What kinds of specific needs?
|
| > Higher output limits for better and richer responses and
| Artifacts
|
| So Claude will do more thinking before responding compared to
| pro? Is that due to a new variant of 3.7 model?
|
| > Be among the first to try the most advanced Claude capabilities
|
| Okay so you'll get access before people who pay less but not
| before well known tech people who get early access for testing,
| I'm assuming?
|
| > Priority access during high traffic periods
|
| If you're paying for pro and they throttle you wtf are you paying
| them for? This seems like an admission they suck at capacity
| planning based on their current and predicted user base?
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| Turned out to be four months, not one Leadership
| at this crop of tech companies is more like followership. Whether
| it's 'no politics', or sudden layoffs, or 'founder mode', or
| 'work from home'... one CEO has an idea and three dozen other
| CEOs unthinkingly adopt it. Several comments in this thread
| have used Anthropic's lower pricing as a criticism, but it's
| probably moot: a month from now Anthropic will release its own
| $200 model.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42333969
| zamadatix wrote:
| This is just pricing the same model to higher limits at a
| volume discount (which makes the pricing per usage lower, not
| higher). To actually "release a $200 model" they'd have to make
| something expensive to run like a ChatGPT 4.5 and then have the
| only plan which can use it worth a damn be that price. Given
| how bad 4.5 flopped in terms of performance I doubt many will
| go that route though, it'd have to be different kinds of
| services not in the current plan instead.
| aranw wrote:
| I currently pay for Claude and I still find it best for coding
| but it's definitely bit unreliable at times and I find it rate
| limited or responses limited and also unresponsive at times. I
| wouldn't be upgrading to a $100/$200 packages unless the
| reliability improved on the $20 offering first
| Maxious wrote:
| As per https://www.anthropic.com/pricing, the reliability of
| the $20 offering will be further deteriating to prioritise
| $100+ package traffic "Priority access during high traffic
| periods"
| creddit wrote:
| I had not had almost any issues with reliability until recently
| and suddenly I'm getting transient UI and server issues on a
| daily basis. Not happy with it.
|
| Even worse is I bought a yearly subscription from a deal they
| offered. However, now that reliability will be going down, I'm
| feeling a bit scammed!
| siva7 wrote:
| How does this compare to o1 pro for coding? I can't figure out
| what exactly the max plan offers besides usage limits. Claude
| also has some interesting novel features but i can't try them out
| as a European. That's one thing OpenAI does better.
| KTibow wrote:
| Claude is better at design but isn't as strong a reasoner. I'd
| expect the Max plan to add a Deep Research like feature too
| soon.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Seems inferior to OpenAIs offering given is same price and
| capabilities, but OpenAI always have better models first other
| than code. But code is only useful when using Antvripic API.
| faizshah wrote:
| Everyday it is looking better and better to self host. I really
| don't feel like ChatGPT $200/mo is 10x better than $20/mo and
| after trying QwQ 32B myself I just can't justify paying these AI
| subscriptions. Gemini Flash is also dirt cheap as an api and Groq
| is dirt cheap and fast for QwQ and other OSS models.
| parhd9 wrote:
| api + lobechat has been stellar for me
| ChadMoran wrote:
| I was using LobeChat religiously until LibreChat added MCP
| support. Game changer.
| joshstrange wrote:
| I really like Claude and have the money to spend on something
| like this if I wanted to but it's not compelling at all.
|
| No new models, no new capabilities, just higher limits. Which I
| know some people are asking/begging for but that's not been an
| issue for me. If I needed more I'd probably use the API.
|
| I only continue to pay because some of the features in Claude Web
| are better than what I've seen elsewhere but their latest web
| redesign is making me seriously reconsider that stance. It's
| /bad/, breaks scrolling while it's generating a response, break
| copy/paste/selection, etc. It's incredibly hostile and I have to
| assume anyone seriously using Claude internally is using a
| different client.
| gwd wrote:
| > If I needed more I'd probably use the API.
|
| The API gets overloaded and you get blocked out as well;
| yesterday I had to go look up a bunch of bash runes on
| stackoverflow because Claude's API was busy in the one day a
| year* I happened to be writing bash scripts. (Maybe I should
| have tried out Gemini for a change.)
|
| Part of the promise here isn't just usage, but _priority_ : you
| pay your $200/mo, and (I presume) you never have to worry about
| being locked out.
|
| * This is an exaggeration but not much of one
| attentive wrote:
| you can use sonnet3.7 on aws or gcloud and you shouldn't hit
| any reasonable limits
| annieli442 wrote:
| A little off topic, but how does o1 and o1-pro compare to 3.7/3.5
| claude for coding and system design/architecture? I currently
| have the $20 chatgpt plus and claude pro plans but want to
| upgrade for a month to do some heavy coding. Thanks!
| spudlyo wrote:
| If they had something better than OpenAI's Advanced Voice Mode
| and it came with unlimited access I'd consider it. If Advanced
| Voice Mode was just 15% better than it is now, I'd find $200 a
| month to give to OpenAI for unlimited access.
| swyx wrote:
| as far as i know anthropic has zero voice stuff?
| spudlyo wrote:
| There is a rumor that they're preparing a voice version of
| Claude. I assume it's a voice modality rather than simply
| tts.
| jackstraw14 wrote:
| Find a way to send them that feedback. I've been doing that
| more lately and I'm noticing features/bugs I request/report get
| added pretty quickly. Obviously YMMV but from my experience it
| seems like they listen to feedback like this.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| I have a bridge to sell to all those who are paying these
| companies $100 / $200 a month. Obviously they aren't hackers, I
| get that, but even normies should have a better sixth sense?
| jjcm wrote:
| Aside from the more ambiguous access to newer features first, is
| there any benefit to this over just leveraging the API?
|
| Going via the API with your own interface seems like it's
| objectively the better way to handle things like this at high
| usage, since you'll always have priority, wont have usage limits,
| and you'll pay as you go.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| lol no. Claude Pro gave me like, 20-40 questions every 12 hours
| before it would throttle, and half of those were mistakes we
| already corrected that it was trying to re-integrate. Plus Claude
| is always trying to censor itself. I got suckered in by the
| "claude is better at code" shit, but wow was that BS.
|
| Compared to ChatGPT, where 20 bucks gets you hundreds of prompts,
| and if you ask it hard questions it actually answers instead of
| lecturing about morals, and why you shouldn't be asking these
| questions in the first place.
|
| Other than using Free Claude to generate resumes to apply to job
| postings at anthrowhatever, it is by far and away the most
| useless of the LLMs.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Can you even do an agentic approach with a Claude backend as a
| daily driver these days without something like this $200 plan?
| ashirviskas wrote:
| That explains why ~24h ago I reached my first rate limit on
| Claude (3.7 seems to misunderstand stuff a lot and you have to
| retry constantly which makes you hit those limits faster). I
| loved 3.5, possibly my favourite model. Might need to shop around
| soon for something better.
| winterrx wrote:
| The text for claude.ai/upgrade directs to claude.ai, did AI write
| this post?
| karn97 wrote:
| These models are all stupid af. Ask one to make a simple react
| native page and it will keep getting it wrong. Even O3 mini high
| is better than 3.7
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-09 23:02 UTC)