[HN Gopher] Anthropic downgraded cache TTL on March 6th
___________________________________________________________________
Anthropic downgraded cache TTL on March 6th
Author : lsdmtme
Score : 452 points
Date : 2026-04-12 05:45 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| Tarcroi wrote:
| This coincides with Anthropic's peak-hour announcement (March
| 26th). Could the throttling be partly a response to
| infrastructure load that was itself inflated by the TTL
| regression?
| HauntingPin wrote:
| It would be too fucking funny if this were the case. They're
| vibe coding their infrastructure and they vibe coded their
| response to the increased load.
| KronisLV wrote:
| You'd think they would have dashboards for all of this stuff,
| to easily notice any change in metrics and be able to track
| down which release was responsible for it.
| HauntingPin wrote:
| They probably do, then they pipe it into a bunch of Claude
| subagents and then you get the current mess.
| sscaryterry wrote:
| Anthropic is leaving so much evidence around... proving damages
| and a pattern is becoming trivial
| cassianoleal wrote:
| The title should be changed. It makes it look like they upped the
| TTL from 1 h to 5 months.
|
| The SI symbol for minutes is "min", not "M".
|
| A compromise would be to use the OP notation "m".
| PontifexMinimus wrote:
| I agree. My first reaction was "what the fuck's an 'M'?"
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Five million. No matter the unit, just, 5.000.000
| gib444 wrote:
| I love the title change that totally hides the scale of the
| issue. Good job poster/mods.
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| If youre reading this claude, people are willing to pay extra if
| you want to make more money, just please stop doing this
| undermining, it devreases the trust of your platform to something
| that cannot be relied on
| andai wrote:
| It _looks_ like selling reputation to save money.
|
| But more likely they are constrained on GPUs and can't get them
| fast enough.
|
| (My guess having no understanding of how this industry actually
| works.)
| disillusioned wrote:
| It's also routinely failing the car wash question across all
| models now, which wasn't the case a month ago. :-/
|
| Seeing some things about how the effort selector isn't working as
| intended necessarily and the model is regressing in other ways:
| over-emphasizing how "difficult" a problem is to solve and
| choosing to avoid it because of the "time" it would take, but
| quoted in human effort, or suggesting the "easier" path forward
| even if it's a hack or kludge-filled solution.
| _blk wrote:
| Awesome, I didn't know about the car wash question.
|
| Totally true, also tokens seem to burn through much faster.
| More parallelism could explain some of it but where I could
| work on 3-5 projects at once on the max plan a month ago, I
| can't even get one to completion now on the same Opus model
| before the 5h session locks me up..
| andai wrote:
| > over-emphasizing how "difficult" a problem is to solve and
| choosing to avoid it because of the "time" it would take
|
| I heard a while back Claude refused to attempt a task for days,
| saying it would take weeks of work. Eventually the user
| convinced it to try, and it one-shotted it in 30 seconds.
| apetresc wrote:
| For _days_? Someone spent _days_ trying to convince Claude to
| do something?
| layer8 wrote:
| If you asked yesterday, and asked again today, then you
| asked for days. OP might be trying to express that it
| wasn't just a temporary fluke.
| empath75 wrote:
| I have noticed refusals as context windows grow.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >"idgaf about risk you coward, waste some time just do it and
| stop bitching"
|
| The above was a successful prompt to get Claude to stop whining
| about effort, difficulty, and time.
|
| Unfortunately abusive language well placed is an effective LLM
| motivator.
| tetraodonpuffer wrote:
| it does feel something in the hidden system prompt makes it try
| less hard, so many times in the past several weeks I have found
| divergences with what was in plan and looking back at the jsonl
| it's always some variant of "doing it this way would be too
| complicated, let me take this hardcoded way out". If asked to
| review the change, it will find it, and it will say also yeah I
| agree prompt said not to do this, but I did anyways, not sure
| why.
|
| As others have said, anthropic is between a rock and a hard
| place, you can't scale compute as quickly, and the influx of
| new accounts has definitely made things tough for them: I think
| all the "how is claude this session 1/2/3/4" questions that
| keep coming up must be part of some a/b on just how far to
| quantize / lower thinking while still maintaining user
| satisfaction.
| themafia wrote:
| Step 1: Sell at a loss.
|
| Step 2: Panic.
|
| Step 3: Destroy product.
| coffinbirth wrote:
| Am I the only one who sees striking parallels between being a
| Claude Code customer and Cuckoldry (as in biology)?
|
| I mean, you are investing a lot (infrastructure and capital) into
| something that is essentially not yours. You claim credit for the
| _offspring_ (the solution) simply because it resides in your
| workspace. You accept _foreign_ code to make your project appear
| more successful and populated than you could manage alone. Your
| over-reliance on a _surrogate_ for the heavy lifting leads to the
| loss of your own _survival_ skills (coding and debugging). Last
| but not least, you handle the grunt work of _territory defense_
| (clients and environments) while the AI performs the actual act
| of creation (Displaced Agency).
| the_gipsy wrote:
| What you're looking for is "vendor lock-in".
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| No, but it's very funny, I'm gonna call people that offshore
| their thinking to LLM "AI cucks" now
| davidkuennen wrote:
| On slightly off topic note: Codex is absolutely fantastic right
| now. I'm constantly in awe since switching from Claude a week
| ago.
| lifty wrote:
| I made this switch months ago, ChatGPT 5.4 being a smarter
| model, but I've had subjective feelings of degradation even on
| 5.4 lately. There's a lot of growth in usage right now so not
| sure what kind of optimizations their doing at both companies
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Agreed. Watching the intermediate "Thinking about X ... Now
| I'll do Y" text on GPT 5.4 lately has been like watching a
| hypothetical smart drug wear off.
|
| All of the major models have been getting worse lately, not
| just Opus.
| vidarh wrote:
| Codex has been good quality wise, but I hit limits on the Codex
| team subscription so quickly it's almost more hassle that it is
| worth.
| lores wrote:
| I would switch to Codex, but Altman is such a naked sociopath
| and OpenAI so devoid of ethical business practices that I can't
| in good conscience. I'm not under any illusion that Anthropic
| is ethical, but it is so far a step up from OpenAI.
| nh2 wrote:
| Cannot you use Codex (which is open source, unlike Claude
| Code) with Claude, even via Amazon Bedrock?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Codex with Anthrophic's models is not as good as using the
| models with the harness it was trained in mine for. Same
| goes vice-versa too.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I'm with you on the ethical part, but everything is a
| spectrum. All the AI leadership are some shade of evil.
| There's no way the product would be effective if they
| weren't. I don't like that Sam Altman is a lunatic, but
| frankly they all are. I also recognize that these are massive
| companies filled with non shitty engineers who are actually
| responsible for a lot of the magic. Conflating one charlatan
| with the rest of it is a tragedy of nuance.
| subscribed wrote:
| Yeah, but there's distinct difference between "risks their
| company because they refuse to help with killing little
| kids" and "happily helping with genocide".
|
| One of these is better.
| groundzeros2015 wrote:
| Enemy centered decision making
| toenail wrote:
| I have also switched from claude to codex a few weeks ago.
| After deciding to let agents only do focused work I needed less
| context, and the work was easier to review. Then I realized
| codex can deliver the same quality, and it's paid through my
| subscription instead of per token.
| onion2k wrote:
| I use Codex at home and Opus at work. They're both brilliant.
| yukIttEft wrote:
| I'm currently "working" on a toy 3d Vulkan Physx thingy. It has
| a simple raycast vehicle and I'm trying to replace it with the
| PhysX5 built in one (https://nvidia-
| omniverse.github.io/PhysX/physx/5.6.1/docs/Ve...)
|
| I point it to example snippets and webdocumentation but the
| code it gens won't work at all, not even close
|
| Opus4.6 is a tiny bit less wrong than Codex 5.4 xhigh, but
| still pretty useless.
|
| So, after reading all the success stories here and everywhere,
| I'm wondering if I'm holding it wrong or if it just can't solve
| everything yet.
| lukan wrote:
| " or if it just can't solve everything yet."
|
| Obviously it cannot. But if you give the AI enough hints,
| clear spec, clear documentation and remove all distracting
| information, it can solve most problems.
| shdh wrote:
| Most simple problems with plenty of prior art, sure
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| It works somewhat well with trivial things. That's where most
| of these success stories are coming from.
| shdh wrote:
| Exactly this, the SNR is polluted by this anecdata because
| someone was able to implement a CRUD backend they couldn't
| before
| wg0 wrote:
| Most of the folks are building CRUD apps with AI and that
| works fine.
|
| What you're doing is more specialized and these models are
| useless there. It's not intelligence.
|
| Another NFT/Crypto era is upon us so no you're not holding it
| wrong.
| MattRix wrote:
| This is pretty wrong. Anyone who thinks this stuff is
| similar to NFTs and crypto hasn't been paying attention.
| 73738488484 wrote:
| Indeed this time it's different
| layer8 wrote:
| My impression is that it always comes down to how well what
| you're trying to do pattern-matches the training set.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| When it comes to agents like codex and CC it seems to come
| down to how well you can describe what you want to do, and
| how well you can steer it to create its own harness to
| troubleshoot/design properly. Once you have that down, I
| haven't found a lot of things you cannot do.
| layer8 wrote:
| Breaking down and describing things in sufficient detail
| can be one way to ensure that the LLM can match it to its
| implicit knowledge. It still depends on what you're
| trying to do in how much detail you have to spell out
| things to the LLM. It's almost a tautology that there's
| always _some_ level of description that the LLM will be
| able to take up.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Well, not just breaking down the task at hand, but also
| how you instruct it to do any work. Just saying "Do X"
| will give you very different results from "Do X, ensure
| Y, then verify with Z", regardless of what tasks you're
| asking it to do.
|
| That's also how you can get the LLM to do stuff outside
| of the training data in a reasonably good way, by not
| just including the _what_ in the prompt, but also the
| _how_.
| neomantra wrote:
| While I've had tremendous success with Golang projects and
| Typescript Web Apps, when I tried to use Metal Mesh Shaders
| in January, both Codex and Claude both had issues getting it
| right.
|
| That sort of GPU code has a lot of concepts and machinery,
| it's not just a syntax to express, and everything has to be
| just right or you will get a blank screen. I also use them
| differently than most examples; I use it for data viz
| (turning data into meshes) and most samples are about level
| of detail. So a double whammy.
|
| But once I pointed either LLM at my own previous work -- the
| code from months of my prior personal exploration and battles
| for understanding, then they both worked much better. Not
| great, but we could make progress.
|
| I also needed to make more mini-harnesses / scaffolds for it
| to work through; in other words isolating its focus, kind of
| like test-driven development.
| nothinkjustai wrote:
| Nah, it only lives up to the hype for crud apps and web ui.
| As soon as you stop doing webshit it becomes way less useful.
|
| (Don't get mad at me, I'm a webshit developer)
| shdh wrote:
| I've noticed the models still can't complete complex tasks
|
| Such as:
|
| Adding fine curl noise to a volumetric smoke shader
|
| Fixing an issue with entity interpolation in an
| entity/snapshot netcode
|
| Find some rendering bugs related to lightmaps not loading in
| particular cases, and it actually introduced this bug.
|
| Just basic stuff.
| computerex wrote:
| They are definitely behind in 3D graphics from my
| experience. But surprisingly decent at HPC/low level
| programming. I think they are definitely training on ML
| stuff to perhaps kick off recursive self improvement.
| 59nadir wrote:
| LLMs can really only mostly do trivial things still, they're
| always going to do very bad work outside of what your average
| web developer does day-to-day, and even those things aren't a
| slam dunk in many cases.
| skullone wrote:
| I don't know about "only doing trivial things". I've built
| a fully threaded webmail replacement for Gmail using imap,
| indexes mail to postgres, local Django webapp renders
| everything in a Gmail/Outlook style threaded view with
| text/html bodies and attachments and a better local search
| than gmail, and runs all locally. Started as a "could I?"
| and ended up exceeding all my expectations
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Instead of "pointing it" at docs, you need to paste the docs
| into context. Otherwise it will skim small parts by
| searching. Of course if you're using an obscure tool you need
| to supply more context.
|
| Xhigh can also perform worse than High - more frequent
| compaction, and "overthinking".
| glerk wrote:
| Codex/GPT5.4 is just superior to Opus4.6 for coding. I swear it
| costs me 1/2 of the tokens to achieve the same results and it
| always follows through the plan to completion compared to Opus
| that takes shortcuts and sweeps things under the rug until I
| discover them through testing.
|
| I'm not accusing anyone of foul play and I don't have financial
| interests in either company, but it feels like "something"
| within Code Claude/Anthropic models is optimizing to make you
| spend more tokens instead of helping you complete the task.
| sunaurus wrote:
| Has anybody else noticed a pretty significant shift in sentiment
| when discussing Claude/Codex with other engineers since even just
| a few months ago? Specifically because of the secret/hidden
| nature of these changes.
|
| I keep getting the sense that people feel like they have no idea
| if they are getting the product that they originally paid for, or
| something much weaker, and this sentiment seems to be constantly
| spreading. Like when I hear Anthropic mentioned in the past few
| weeks, it's almost always in some negative context.
| jakobnissen wrote:
| Yeah I've seen this too. It's difficult for me to tell if the
| complaints are due to a legitimate undisclosed nerf of Claude,
| or whether it's just the initial awe of Opus 4.6 fading and
| people increasingly noticing its mistakes.
| kingkongjaffa wrote:
| Just one more anecdote:
|
| I'm on the enterprise team plan so a decent amount of usage.
|
| In March I could use Opus all day and it was getting great
| results.
|
| Since the last week of March and into April, I've had
| sessions where I maxed out session usage under 2 hours and it
| got stuck in overthinking loops, multiple turns of realising
| the same thing, dozens of paragraphs of "But wait, actually I
| need to do x" with slight variations of the same realisation.
|
| This is not the 'thinking effort' setting in claude code, I
| noticed this happening across multiple sessions with the same
| thinking effort settings, there was clearly some underlying
| change that was not published that made the model get stuck
| in thinking loops more for longer and more often without any
| escape hatch to stop and prompt the user for additional
| steering if it gets stuck.
| UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote:
| Whenever I see Opus say "but wait, ..."--which is all the
| time--I get a little bit closer toward throwing my computer
| out the window. Sometimes I just collapse the thinking
| section, cross my fingers, and wait for the answer. It's
| too frustrating watching the thinking process.
| natpalmer1776 wrote:
| I stop the thinking and manually correct with explicit
| instructions or direction. I treat my agents like well
| meaning ivy-league graduate interns. They lack the
| experience to know what to do sometimes and need a
| "common sense" direction every now and then.
| oldmanhorton wrote:
| Have you considered just... writing code? Like we used to
| in the good old days? If the tool drives you to that
| point of frustration, maybe it's time to give the tool a
| break.
| trollbridge wrote:
| A lot of folks aren't "allowed" to write code anymore.
| adahn wrote:
| I've seen the point raised elsewhere that this could be the
| double usage promo that was available from the 13th of
| March to the 28th. ie. people getting used to the promo
| then feeling impacted when it finished.
|
| Although it seems that enterprise wasn't included, so maybe
| not in your case.
|
| https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14063676-claude-
| march...
| cyanydeez wrote:
| its sounds like, tinfoil hat, they reduced the quant size
| of their model and tried to mask the change with the
| promo. your theory only addresses the spend not the
| reduced realiability
| derangedHorse wrote:
| It's probably because you didn't specify "make no mistakes"
| /s
|
| In all seriousness though, I've observed the same thing
| with my own usage.
| gfody wrote:
| this timing matches my experience, enterprise plan, but
| using opus from vscode - finished a heavy refactor of a
| large C# codebase mid march, tried to do basically the same
| thing early april and couldn't
| chrsw wrote:
| I'm also an enterprise user and this has been my experience
| exactly. Same asks, same code bases, same models, much
| worse results. Everyone on my team is expressing the same
| thing.
|
| Not only that, but the lack of transparency about what's
| happening, in clear and simple terms, directly from
| Anthropic is concerning.
|
| I've already told my org's higher ups that in the current
| situation we're not close to getting our money's worth with
| these models.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| I think there's a much more nefarious reason that you're
| missing.
|
| It's pretty clear that OpenAI has consistently used bots on
| social networks to peddle their products. This could just be
| the next iteration, mass spreading lies about Anthropic to
| get people to flock back to their own products.
|
| That would explain why a lot of users in the comments of
| those posts are claiming that they don't see any changes to
| limits.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| Judging from the number of GitHub issues on Anthropic,
| shamelessly being dismissed as "fixed", I doubt openai
| needs the bots to tarnish that competitor.
| javawizard wrote:
| The trouble with that argument, though, is that it works
| the other way as well: how do I, a random internet citizen,
| know that you're not doing the same thing for Anthropic
| with this comment?
|
| (FWIW I have definitely noticed a cognitive decline with
| Claude / Opus 4.6 over the past month and a half or so, and
| unless I'm secretly working for them in my sleep, I'm
| definitely not an Anthropic employee.)
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Oh it's pretty clear to me that Anthropic employs the
| same tactics and uses bots on socials to push its
| products too. On Reddit a couple of months ago it was
| simply unbearable with all the "Claude Opus is going to
| take all the jobs".
|
| You definitely shouldn't trust me, as we're way beyond
| the point where you can trust ANYTHING on the internet
| that has a timestamp later than 2021 or so (and even
| then, of course people were already lying).
|
| Personally I use Claude models through Bedrock because I
| work for Amazon, and I haven't noticed any decline.
| Instead it's always been pretty shit, and what people
| describe now as the model getting lost of infinite loops
| of talking to itself happened since the very start for
| me.
| felixgallo wrote:
| https://isitnerfed.org/
|
| in short, it looks like nothing has been nerfed, but
| sentiment has definitely been negative. I suspect some of
| the openclaw users have been taking out their
| frustrations.
| javawizard wrote:
| That's fascinating.
|
| Any idea what their test harness looks like? My
| experience comes primarily from Claude Code; this makes
| me wonder if recent CC updates could be more to blame
| than Opus 4.6 itself.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Both can be a thing at same time
| babaganoosh89 wrote:
| It's not just you, there is a github issue for it:
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796
| pxtail wrote:
| There's still plenty of "leave my fellow multbillion corp
| alone" type ones,it means that corp can and should screw it's
| loving customer base harder.
| simianwords wrote:
| The enshittification meme has been taken too seriously to the
| point where it is shoehorned into every single place
| possible.
|
| It is not in the interests for Anthropic to screw its
| customer base. Running a frontier lab comes with tradeoffs
| between training, inference and other areas.
| officialchicken wrote:
| The investors are their customers - not the users of the
| end-product.
| simianwords wrote:
| This shows a lack of understanding of how markets work.
| Investors make money when the valuation of the company
| increases. The valuation of the company is the best
| prediction of future profit risk adjusted.
|
| How would anthropic increase future profits without
| satisfying customers?
| bitwize wrote:
| Have you seen the business models for these companies?
| Literal underpants gnome memes. OpenAI's goes like this:
|
| 1. Build AGI
|
| 2. Use said AGI to tell us how to become profitable
|
| 3. Profit!
|
| Anthropic seems to be going all in on enterprise sales.
| Which means they don't actually have to please customers,
| or it's what ThePrimeagen humorously calls a "yacht
| problem"--a problem that only needs a solution _after_
| the IPO. For now all they have to do is convince
| corporate leadership that this is the future of work and
| sow enough FOMO to close those sales contracts and their
| projected sales, and stock valuation, goes through the
| roof.
|
| Of course that value will collapse if they go without
| delivering on their promises long enough. That's why they
| call it a bubble. But by then, hopefully, Dario and the
| early investors will be long gone and even richer than
| they were to start. Their only competitor, OpenAI, is
| confronted with the same issues: the scalability problems
| won't go away, and addressing them doesn't drive stock
| valuation the way promising high rollers that AGI and
| total workforce automation are just around the corner
| does.
| cowboylowrez wrote:
| Well sure, all market signals should be considered. As a
| casual observer, my received signals have been indicating
| that AI is getting sold at a loss to get market share,
| and more recent signals have indicated that users are
| really really sensitive to both costs and performance.
|
| The weakest signal to me is investor money, because when
| you think of it, investors are betting on a future that
| may or may not be there. Heck even trends aren't
| guaranteed, "past performance is no guarantee etc etc"
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Early investors make money when later investors buy them
| out at inflated valuations.
| georgemcbay wrote:
| It doesn't matter if it is in Anthropic's interest to screw
| its customer base, if their reported monthly revenue growth
| is accurate then it makes perfect sense why Claude would be
| getting dumber...
|
| Demand is way up and compute supply is extremely limited
| because data center buildouts can't keep up with demand.
|
| In the face of rising demand and insufficient compute their
| only practical options (other than refusing new business
| until demand can be met) are signicantly raising the price
| of tokens (and more tighly limiting subscription options)
| or doing behind the scenes inference optimizations that are
| likely to make the model dumber.
|
| It is very easy to believe that they took the route of
| inference optimizations that have reduced quality of the
| service and that that is where the perceived
| enshittification is coming from.
| echelon wrote:
| Anthropic isn't your friend.
|
| Phase 1: $200/mo prosumer engineer tool
|
| Phase 2: AI layoffs / "it's just AI washing"
|
| Phase 3: $20,000/mo limited release model "too dangerous" to
| use
|
| Phase 4: Accelerated layoffs / two person teams. Rehiring of
| certain personnel at lower costs.
|
| Phase 5: "Our new model can decompile and rewrite any
| commercial software. We just wrote a new kernel after looking
| at Linux (bye, bye GPL!) We also decompiled the latest Zelda
| game, ported the engine to Rust, and made a new game with it.
| Source code has no value. Even compiled and obfuscated code is
| a breeze to clone."
|
| Phase 6: $100k/mo model that replicates entire engineering
| teams, only large companies can afford it. Ordinary users can't
| buy. More layoffs.
|
| Phase N: People can't afford computing anymore. Everything is
| thin clients and rented. It's become like the private railroad
| industry. End of the PC era. Like kids growing up on
| smartphones, there's nothing to tinker with anymore. And
| certainly no gradient for entrepreneurship for once-skilled
| labor capital.
|
| Anothropic used to be cool before they started gating access.
| Limiting Claw/OpenCode was strike one. Mythos is strike two.
|
| Y'all should have started hating on their ethics when they
| started complaining about being distilled. For training they
| conducted on materials they did not own.
|
| We need open weights companies now more than ever. Too bad
| China seems to be giving up on the idea.
|
| "You wouldn't distill an Opus."
| marcus_cemes wrote:
| > We need open weights companies now more than ever.
|
| If you're objective it to democratize AI, sure. But for those
| fed up with it and the devastating effects it's having on
| students, for example, can opt to actively avoid paying for
| products with AI (I say this as someone who uses it every
| day, guilty). At some point large companies will see that
| they're bleeding money for something that most people don't
| seem to want, and cancel those $100k/mo deals. I've already
| experienced one AI-developer-turned company crash and burn.
|
| Personally, I don't think this LLM-based AI generation will
| have any significant positive impacts. Time, energy (CO2) and
| money would have been _far_ better spent elsewhere.
| Zetaphor wrote:
| There's plenty of valuable use cases for being able to give
| natural language instructions to a tool and have it act on
| that input. I do however agree that the current hype and
| valuations far exceed the real value being offered.
|
| Like with the dot com bubble there will be a crash and then
| whatever shakes out of that will be the companies and
| products who invested in understanding the actual strengths
| and weaknesses of the tech, instead of just trying to slap
| an "AI" sticker on everything.
| jhancock wrote:
| What leads you to say China AI is giving up on open weights?
|
| I've been using GLM for over 6 months and pretty happy.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Why would any company release open weights once the
| investment money stops ?
|
| Releasing open weights have been basically a PR move, the
| moment those companies need to actually make money they
| will cut it out as that reduces their client base.
|
| They DO NOT want you to run AI. They want you to pay them
| to do it
| cyanydeez wrote:
| open weights is a way to nerf your opponent and is
| meaningless to your business if you need to retrain a
| model because your trailing
|
| So, it makes a lot of sense to get people a "demo" and
| claim the paid product is better.
|
| i think a lot of people have no idea how capable local
| models are atm.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Two years ago a lot of people thought GPT-4o was usable
| for software development. I didn't really find that to be
| the case in general but certainly it could do a lot of
| useful things. And now Qwen3.5-8B is just as capable and
| runs fine on an M2 MacBook Air.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| QWEN3.5 coder next runs to ~84k context before it poops
| out on AMD395+ w/128GB. Most of what it's good at is
| boilerplate find/replace/copy/paste; but being able to
| scaffold things out and touch up 20-30% of the code is
| pretty sweet.
| jhancock wrote:
| ok. maybe. I don't know. I'm asking how you know.
|
| z.ai did go public on the HK exchange. They are under
| pressures similar to other public companies.
|
| I know that China models are increasingly being trained
| and run using Huawei chips instead of Nvidia. I know
| China has a surplus of electricity from renewables (wind,
| solar, hydro).
| Zetaphor wrote:
| Minimax just released a new model yesterday. You're
| conflating one company with a countries entire industry.
| There's more than just Qwen coming out of China.
| Zetaphor wrote:
| People keep repeating this without any real thought behind
| it because of the high profile resignations on the Qwen
| team. Meanwhile the Minimax team just released a new open
| weights version of their 229B model yesterday. So much for
| that narrative.
|
| The AI landscape in China is larger than just Qwen and
| Alibaba.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Of course, but for how long? Do you think that companies
| will keep giving away valuable assets for free forever,
| or do you think that in the near future there's going to
| be an open weights model that's so good that people keep
| using it indefinitely instead of going back to frontier
| model providers?
|
| The first one is just incredibly naive, the second might
| be true for some people, for some tasks, but it's not
| going to capture the majority who're chasing the latest
| and greatest to "keep up".
| Throaway199999 wrote:
| the asset's value is in being released, so yes
| dns_snek wrote:
| What does that mean?
| Throaway199999 wrote:
| Every time you release the models you even the playing
| field out for the competition, which ruins a lot of the
| advantage your bigger competitors had. It also lets
| smaller players work on the latest tech and then you can
| make deals with them.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > Do you think that companies will keep giving away
| valuable assets for free forever
|
| If China is forced to choose between giving the entire AI
| market to the US or releasing free models, they'll be
| releasing free models as long as it's necessary.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _do you think that in the near future there 's going to
| be an open weights model that's so good that people keep
| using it indefinitely instead of going back to frontier
| model providers?_
|
| We are almost at that point now, where the harnesses and
| tools are more important drivers of functionality and
| performance than the model weights themselves. We'll get
| there.
| andriy_koval wrote:
| > Meanwhile the Minimax team just released a new open
| weights version of their 229B model yesterday.
|
| its under new license prohibiting any commercial use.
| Zetaphor wrote:
| The statement was that China was giving up on open
| weights, they didn't say anything about licensing.
| Licensing on these models has always been hit or miss
| depending on which lab and which release.
| andriy_koval wrote:
| but context of the statement is discussion about corps do
| grab and rent strategy. My understanding is that
| referenced Chinese model can't be argument in this
| context, and there is no recent 200B+ params Chinese
| models with friendly license.
|
| That license is more like business source license vs open
| source license.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Who in the world would care about that, and why?
|
| You know what else was under a license prohibiting
| commercial use? The training data.
| magic_hamster wrote:
| > End of the PC era, there's nothing to tinker with anymore.
| And certainly no gradient for entrepreneurship for once-
| skilled labor capital.
|
| This one seems too far fetched. Training models is
| widespread. There will always be open weight models in some
| form, and if we assume there will be some advancements in
| architecture, I bet you could also run them on much leaner
| devices. Even today you can run models on Raspberry Pis. I
| don't see a reason this will stop being a thing, there will
| be plenty of ways to tinker.
|
| However, keep in mind the masses don't care about tinkering
| and never have. People want a ChatGPT experience, not a
| pytorch experience. In essence this is true for all tech
| products, not just AI.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Stop thinking billion dollar publicly traded companies are
| "cool" just because they make widget you like.
|
| You will be backstabbed
|
| You will be squeezed for all they can.
|
| And you will be betrayed.
|
| > Phase N: People can't afford computing anymore. Everything
| is thin clients and rented. It's become like the private
| railroad industry. End of the PC era. Like kids growing up on
| smartphones, there's nothing to tinker with anymore. And
| certainly no gradient for entrepreneurship for once-skilled
| labor capital.
|
| Thankfully none of them actually makes money and just runs on
| investment so there is a good chance bubble will drop and the
| price of PC equipment will... continue to rise as US gives up
| Taiwan to China
| dns_snek wrote:
| > Stop thinking billion dollar publicly traded companies
| are "cool" just because they make widget you like.
|
| Anthropic is a private company but nevertheless, the
| sentiment is accurate and applies to all kinds of
| corporations.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| They are already preparing to go public.
|
| But I wrote public because it is at least possible for
| privately held company to not do all evil (see Steam, tho
| in case of Steam it is more "do your thing and look as
| competitors are shooting themselves in foot"...)
| hirako2000 wrote:
| Good read on the situation.
|
| It all boils down to a brilliant but extremely expensive
| technology. Both to build and to run.
|
| We've been sold a product with heavy subsidy. The idea (from
| Sam) scale out and see what happens.
|
| Those who care to read between the lines can see what's
| happening. A perfect storm of demand that attract VCs who
| can't understand they are the real customers. Once they
| understand that it will be too late.
|
| Regarding open weight models: eventually we will, as
| humanity, benefit from the astronomical capital poured into
| developing a technology ahead of its time. In a few years
| this and even more will run on edge.
|
| Written by open source developers, likely former openai and
| anthropic employees who got so much cash in the bank they
| don't need to worry about renting their knowledge.
| andai wrote:
| What I want to know is how did they make the only LLM that
| doesn't sound cringe?
|
| I think it has something to do with mode collapse (although
| Claude certainly has its own "tells"), but I'm not sure.
|
| It sounds trivial but even for Agentic, I found the writing
| style to be really important. When you give Claude a persona,
| it sounds like the thing. When you give GPT a persona, it
| sounds like GPT half-assedly pretending to be the thing.
|
| ---
|
| Some other interesting points about Anthropic's models. I
| don't know if any of these relate to my LLM style question,
| but seems worth mentioning:
|
| Claude models also use way less tokens for the same task (on
| ArtificialAnalysis, they are a clear outlier on this metric).
|
| And there's a much stronger common sense, subjectively. (Not
| sure if we have a good way to actually measure that, though.)
| It takes context and common sense into account, to a much
| greater degree.
|
| (Which ties in with their constitution. Understanding why
| things are wrong at a deeper level, rather than just surface
| level pattern matching.)
|
| Opus is great but it should be bigger. You notice the
| difference between Sonnet and Opus, but with heavy use you
| notice Opus's limitations, too.
| slashdave wrote:
| When did Hacker News become a fountain of dystopian science
| fiction?
| Throaway199999 wrote:
| from its inception lol
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| I certainly noticed a significant drop in reasoning power at
| some point after I subscribed to Claude. Since then I've
| applied all sorts of fixes that range from disabling adaptive
| thinking to maxing out thinking tokens to patching system
| prompts with an ad-hoc shell script from a gist. Even after all
| this, Opus will still sometimes go round and round in illogical
| circles, self-correcting constantly with the telltale "no wait"
| and undoing everything until it ends up right where it started
| with nothing to show for it after 100k tokens spent.
|
| Whether it's due to bugs or actual malice, it's not a good
| look. I genuinely can't tell if it's buggy, if it's been
| intentionally degraded, if it's placebo or if it's all just an
| elaborate OpenAI psyop.
| babaganoosh89 wrote:
| There's a github issue for this:
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yes, I commented on it and applied all remedies suggested.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47664442
|
| Configuration and environment variables seem to have
| improved things somewhat but it still seems to be hit or
| miss.
| watt wrote:
| That issue now is closed, probably as "not planned".
| beering wrote:
| The real question I see nobody asking is how GPT-5.4 beats
| Opus at a fraction of the price. I doubt it's only a question
| of subsidization. My impression from the past is that GPT-5
| was around a Sonnet-sized model, and 5-mini was Haiku-sized.
| At least on my codebase anyways, Codex one-shots tricky
| things that Opus needs several tries to fully get right.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| I wanted to choose Anthropic because they were apparently
| more ethical compared to OpenAI, but... Yeah.
|
| Right now the only blocker for me is the lack of Linux
| support.
| trollbridge wrote:
| Cursor?
| andai wrote:
| Well, off the top of my head:
|
| - Banning OpenClaw users (within their rights, of course, but
| bad optics)
|
| - Banning 3rd party harnesses in general (ditto)
|
| (claude -p still works on the sub but I get the feeling like if
| I actually use it, I'll get my Anthropic acct. nuked. Would be
| great to get some clarity on this. If I invoke it from my
| Telegram bot, is that an unauthorized 3rd party harness?)
|
| - Lowering reasoning effort (and then showing up here saying
| "we'll try to make sure the most valuable customers get the
| non-gimped experience" (paraphrasing slightly xD))
|
| - Massively reduced usage (apparently a bug?) The other day I
| got _21x_ more usage spend on the same task for Claude vs
| Codex.
|
| - Noticed a very sharp drop in response length in the Claude
| app. Asked Claude about it and it mentioned several things in
| the system prompt related to reduced reasoning effort, keeping
| responses as brief as possible, etc.
|
| It's all circumstantial but everything points towards
| "desperately trying to cut costs".
|
| I love Claude and I won't be switching any time soon (though
| with the usage limits I'm increasingly using Codex for coding),
| but it's getting hard to recommend it to friends lately. I told
| a friend "it _was_ the best option, until about two weeks
| ago... " Now it's up in the air.
| risyachka wrote:
| >> apparently a bug?
|
| it's a bug only if they get a harsh public response,
| otherwise it becomes a feature
| OtomotO wrote:
| A bug for one side can be a feature for another
| esperent wrote:
| > claude -p still works on the sub but I get the feeling like
| if I actually use it, I'll get my Anthropic acct. nuked
|
| I've used it with a sub _a lot_. Concurrency of 40 writing
| descriptions of thousands of images, running for hours on
| sonnet.
|
| I have a lot of complaints. I've cancelled my $200
| subscription and when it runs out in a few days I'll have to
| find something else.
|
| But claude -p is fine.
|
| ... Or it was 2 week ago. Who knows if they've silently
| throttled it by now?
| andai wrote:
| The other day I read that letting another agent invoke
| claude -p was considered a violation (i.e. letting OpenClaw
| delegate to Claude Code).
|
| Not sure how that's enforced though. I was in OpenClaw
| discord a while ago and enforcement seemed a bit random.
|
| I'll try to find the source, I might have gotten the
| details mixed up.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| It's not a "violation" but they said it would be charged
| as extra usage.
| zackify wrote:
| This is a funny cat and mouse game. They offer a built in
| loop command.
|
| Just tmux and use that.
|
| Soon if they drop -p people will just vibe code in 5
| minutes a way to type inside it remotely similar to their
| own built in remote access tool. Seems like a losing game
| from anthropics side
| joshstrange wrote:
| > (claude -p still works on the sub but I get the feeling
| like if I actually use it, I'll get my Anthropic acct. nuked.
| Would be great to get some clarity on this. If I invoke it
| from my Telegram bot, is that an unauthorized 3rd party
| harness?)
|
| 100% this, I've posted the same sentiment here on HN. I hate
| the chilling effect of the bans and the lack of clarity on
| what is and is not allowed.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| In this case, they handled things pretty well. You can
| still use openclaw etc with your regular Anthropic
| subscription, it will just count towards your extra credits
| / usage which you can buy for a 30% discount compared to
| API pricing. And they gave everyone one month's value in
| credits.
|
| I don't think they could have done that much better I'd
| say.
| cedws wrote:
| That does not address joshstrange's concerns.
|
| There is very poor clarity about what is and isn't
| allowed with the Claude SDK/claude -p. Are we allowed to
| use it to automate stuff? What kind of tasks is it
| permitted to be used for? What if you call your script
| 'OrangeClaw' and release that on GitHub? What if your
| script gets super popular, does it suddenly become
| against TOS?
| joshstrange wrote:
| This is exactly my point. At what point does it become a
| ToS violation? Right now it's a huge grey area and the
| idea of getting my account banned because I crossed an
| invisible line with zero recourse other than to switch
| providers is... frustrating.
| deaux wrote:
| It's pretty easy to read between the lines tbh. Personal,
| non-automated use is fine. Using it as a means to
| automate depleting your 5-hour limit 24/7 ("leftover
| usage") is not fine. They don't want to put in in the ToS
| because it's almost impossible because writing what I
| just said will still have people going "well what's
| automated, where's the exact line!" when it's all pretty
| clear what the intended use case here is. The Anthropic
| peeps have said about as much.
|
| I get that the traditional dev is allergic to the concept
| of reading between the lines and demands everything to be
| spelled out explicitly, but maybe you should just see it
| as something to learn because it's an incredibly useful
| life skill.
| cedws wrote:
| Ok, let's say I'm not using it to deplete leftover usage,
| the task just happens to run down the 5 hour window
| usage.
|
| Are you willing to bet your account over whether you've
| read between the lines correctly? Anthropic aren't going
| to listen to appeals.
| deaux wrote:
| > the task just happens to run down the 5 hour window
| usage.
|
| In a single prompt? From zero usage? That doesn't "just
| happen".
| cedws wrote:
| When you're using the SDK, yes it can. Example: I used
| the Python SDK to translate a bunch of source code
| recently. I spawned a subagent for each module that
| needed translating and left it to run for a few hours
| with a parallelism limit of 5. It blasted through the 5
| hour usage and dug into extra usage credits.
|
| I have zero assurances that the above can't result in a
| ban. The usage pattern is not distinct from OpenClaw.
| deaux wrote:
| As I said, it doesn't just happen, you explicitly had to
| set it up so it could happen.
| kuboble wrote:
| I'm confused about this comment.
|
| The GP has described a task which feels like a task very
| well within intended usage of CC, but can easily eat up
| the usage limit.
|
| What should we read between the lines about this
| scenario?
|
| Is it a bannable offense?
| joshstrange wrote:
| That "non-automated" part is where I feel like there is a
| lack of clarity. They even have some stuff in to allow
| for scheduling in Claude Code. Seems similar to a cron
| but "non-automated" would rule out using a cron (right?).
| I'd love to feel comfortable setting up daily/hourly
| tasks for Claude Code but that feels iffy. Like I said, I
| don't think the line is clear.
| deaux wrote:
| The lack of clarity doesn't matter because they obviously
| can't tell if _you_ ran a claude -p a few times today
| with usual prompts or whether your cron job did. It 's
| impossible for them to reliably tell.
|
| It _can_ tell if your cron is running them every 10
| minutes 24 /7, because basic biology rules out you doing
| that for more than a day or so.
| andai wrote:
| Wait, this is news to me. I thought 3rd party use of the
| sub was unequivocally prohibited?
|
| If I'm understanding you correctly: they changed that
| policy, you can now use 3rd party software unofficially
| with the undocumented Claude Code endpoint, and their
| servers auto-detect this and charge you extra for it?
|
| EDIT: Yeah, something like that?
|
| > Starting April 4 at 12pm PT / 8pm BST, you'll no longer
| be able to use your Claude subscription limits for third-
| party harnesses including OpenClaw. Instead, they'll
| require extra usage.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47633568
|
| This seems to mean that unauthorized usage of the sub
| endpoint is tolerated now (and billed as though it were
| the regular API). And possibly affects claude -p, though
| I don't know yet.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| One month's value in credits does not equal the value of
| one month's subscription. They could have done better.
| politelemon wrote:
| Why were third party harnesses banned? Surely they'd want
| sticking power over the ecosystem.
| cedws wrote:
| There's the argument that Anthropic has built Claude Code
| to use the models efficiently, which the subscription
| pricing is based on.
|
| Maybe there's some truth to that, but then why haven't
| OpenAI made the same move? I believe the main reason is
| platform control. Anthropic can't survive as a pipeline for
| tokens, they need to build and control a platform, which
| means aggressively locking out everybody else building a
| platform.
| Zetaphor wrote:
| Alternatively products like openclaw have an outsized
| impact on Anthropic's infrastructure for essentially no
| benefit to them. Especially when you're taking advantage
| of the $200 plan.
|
| OpenAI has never shyed away from burning mountains of
| cash to try and capture a little more market share. They
| paid a billion dollars for a vibe coded mess just for the
| opportunity to associate themselves with the hype.
| plusplusungood wrote:
| > Taking advantage of the $200 plan.
|
| No, I'm paying $200 a month for a premium product that I
| expect premium service for. It's the single most
| expensive IT expense I have. Taking advantage my foot.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It's not a premium product. It's just expensive.
| infecto wrote:
| You are simply a bit too entitled. It's not a premium
| product and honestly not that expensive in my opinion
| either (though that is going to depend on your location).
|
| You are more than able to pay for API rates.
| siva7 wrote:
| You may want to learn the difference between someone
| being able to pay API rates and someone willing to pay
| API rates. I'm sure many people on HN are able to pay API
| rates and almost all of them aren't willing to pay API
| rates. The providers know this hence why subscriptions
| exist. API is almost solely used by companies as almost
| no private person would be willing to pay that.
| infecto wrote:
| "You may want to learn" such choice way to introduce your
| position which is really not much of one.
|
| If you are going to come and complain about a $200
| subscription that gives you $400 worth of API tokens
| there is only so much room to complain. Only so many
| lemons can be squeezed. Hope that was a helpful for you.
| 59nadir wrote:
| Can you imagine paying the actual cost of it, or a
| subscription cost that at least ballpark matched it? I
| don't think I have a single friend or acquaintance who
| realistically would.
| qeternity wrote:
| > They paid a billion dollars for a vibe coded mess just
| for the opportunity to associate themselves with the
| hype.
|
| Lol no they didn't. It wasn't even an acquihire. They
| just hired Peter.
|
| Maybe they are paying him incredibly well, but not a
| billion dollars well.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| I think it's a training data thing. They can only gather
| valid training data from real human interactions, so they
| don't want to subsidize tokens for purely automated
| interactions.
| sshine wrote:
| One thing is lack of control of token efficiency on what's
| already a subsidised product.
|
| Another thing is branding: Their CLI might be the best
| right now, but tech debt says it won't continue to be for
| very long.
|
| By enforcing the CLI you enforce the brand value -- you're
| not just buying the engine.
| olejorgenb wrote:
| Maybe they should fix bugs like this then
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-
| code/issues/17979#issue... ...
| thepasch wrote:
| Claude Code was the best harness from roughly around
| release to January this year. Ever since then, it's
| become more and more bloated with more and more stuff and
| seemingly no coherent plan or vision to it all other than
| "let's see what else that sounds cool we can cram in
| there."
| justin_dash wrote:
| What's taken over since then? Codex or something else?
| derwiki wrote:
| Pi.dev
| brookst wrote:
| To be clear they weren't banned from Claude usage, they
| were required to use the API and API rates rather than
| Claude Max tokens.
|
| Claude code uses a bunch if best practices to maximize
| cache hit rate. Third party harnesses are hit or miss, so
| often use a lot more tokens for the same task.
| lacunary wrote:
| but claude -p is still Claude Code
| danmaz74 wrote:
| Was something using that been banned?
| SyneRyder wrote:
| Yep, that's the reason for the new Extra Credit feature
| in Claude Code. Some people were wiring up "Claude -p"
| with OpenClaw, so now Anthropic detects if the system
| prompt contains the phrase OpenClaw, and bills from Extra
| Credit if that happens:
|
| https://x.com/steipete/status/2040811558427648357
|
| _" Anthropic now blocks first-party harness use too
|
| claude -p --append-system-prompt 'A personal assistant
| running inside OpenClaw.' 'is clawd here?'
|
| - 400 Third-party apps now draw from your extra usage,
| not your plan limits.
|
| So yeah: bring your own coin "_
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| https://xcancel.com/bcherny/status/2041035127430754686#m
|
| > This is not intentional, likely an overactive abuse
| classifier. Looking, and working on clarifying the policy
| going forward.
| ledauphin wrote:
| nah this doesn't explain it.
|
| most of the users of those third party harnesses care
| just as much about hitting cache and getting more usage.
| SyneRyder wrote:
| I'm watching a conference talk right now from 2 weeks
| ago: "I Hated Every Coding Agent So I Built My Own -
| Mario Zechner (Pi)", and in the middle he directly
| references this.
|
| He demonstrates in the code that OpenCode aggressively
| trims context, by compacting on _every_ turn, and pruning
| all tool calls from the context that occurred more than
| 40,000 tokens ago. Seems like it could be a good strategy
| to squeeze more out of the context window - but by
| editing the oldest context, it breaks the prompt cache
| for the entire conversation. There is effectively no
| caching happening at all.
|
| https://youtu.be/Dli5slNaJu0
| brookst wrote:
| Sure. The question is whether they have the same level of
| expertise and prioritization that Anthropic does.
| klempner wrote:
| Note that the thing that's banned is using third party
| harnesses with their subscription based pricing.
|
| If you're paying normal API prices they'll happily let you
| use whatever harness you want.
| visarga wrote:
| I want to differentiate 2 kinds of harnesses
|
| 1. openclaw like - using the LLM endpoint on subscription
| billing, different prompts than claude code
|
| 2. using claude cli with -p, in headless mode
|
| The second runs through their code and prompts, just calls
| claude in non-interactive mode for subtasks. I feel
| especially put off by restricting the second kind. I need
| it to run judge agents to review plans and code.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Why were third party harnesses banned? Surely they'd want
| sticking power over the ecosystem.
|
| Third-party harnesses are the exact opposite of stickiness!
|
| Ditching Claude Code for a third party harness while using
| the Claude Code subscription means it's trivial to switch
| to a different model when you {run out of credits | find a
| cheaper token provider | find a better model}.
| rlpb wrote:
| > It's all circumstantial but everything points towards
| "desperately trying to cut costs".
|
| I have been wondering if it's more geared at reducing
| resource usage, given that at the moment there's a known
| constraint on AI datacenter expansion capability. Perhaps
| they are struggling to meet demand?
| sshine wrote:
| > _Perhaps Anthropic is struggling to meet demand?_
|
| Yes, definitely, they're gracefully failing to meet demand.
| They could also deny new customers, but it would probably
| be bad for business.
| leesalminen wrote:
| I once decided to deny new customers in order to be able
| to service current demand at the quality we wanted. It
| backfired and made people want our product even more. Our
| phones were blowing up. That approach can have unintended
| consequences!
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| You unintentionally used a common sales tactic; by
| decreasing supply you increase demand.
| ayewo wrote:
| Another knob you could have turned is: raise prices. Did
| you try this?
| 59nadir wrote:
| Bad for business and probably unwise for the type of
| product people will pop their head in to check on, then
| stop paying and return much later to see whether it's
| still not much more than a parlor trick for them.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| It's more that Anthropic knows that the models themselves
| are non-sticky, and the real moat is in the ecosystem
| around it.
|
| It only makes sense for them to get users to use their
| ecosystem, rather than other tools.
| oorza wrote:
| See: Claude Cowork trying to establish an entire new
| group of people in their ecosystem.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| I wish they would just rip the bandaid to stop everybody's
| entitled whining.
|
| "We're sorry, what we were able to give you for $100/mo
| before now needs to be $200/mo (or more). We
| miscalculated/we were too generous/gave too much away for
| too little. It's a new technology, we are seeing a ton of
| demand, we are trying to run a business, hope you
| understand. If you don't want it, don't pay for it."
| schmookeeg wrote:
| This is my take too, although I'm not prepared for a
| max400 reality to replace the max200, but... I hate all
| of the whingeing. Piggies at the buffet line seem to be
| the loudest on this subject.
| 73738488484 wrote:
| It is one thing to pay 100 a month to make calendar apps
| for your linkedin and birds on bicycles to get invited to
| talks, paying 200 HOWEVER
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| If we didn't have the birds on bicycles, how would we
| know the models are getting better?
| oorza wrote:
| Are we at the point where there are external constraints
| that cash can't solve?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| can't tell if you're being facetious but yes, there's not
| enough cash in the world to double energy/silicon fab
| capacity in a year. Infrastructure takes time, hardware
| is hard, and you have to be willing to bet that the
| demand will be there 5 years from now to make an
| investment today.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| Until one has the entire supply of world GPU production,
| cash can solve it by out bidding others
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Just put everyone on pay per use with the API and rip the
| band aid off.
| coldtea wrote:
| Even the pay per use is heavily VC subsidied at current
| prices.
| djeastm wrote:
| I would understand the move, but boy would it play right
| into the "AI is only here to make the rich even richer"
| feeling wouldn't it?
| fluidcruft wrote:
| claude -p not working would be instant unsubscribe downgrade
| from Max to Pro and further drive my use of codex. I use both
| but overall have noticed I reach for Claude less than codex
| lately because claude keeps getting slower and slower (I have
| not noticed a drop off in quality, but I use it less and less
| so maybe I'm not in a good position to notice).
|
| Generally I find codex and claude make a good team. I'm not a
| heavy user, but I am currently Claude Max 5x and ChatGPT
| Plus. Now that OpenAI has a $100 offering and I am finding
| myself using Claude less, I am considering switching to
| Claude Pro and ChatGPT Pro x5. The work hours restriction on
| Claude Max x5 really pisses me off.
|
| I am not a heavy user. Historically I only break over 50%
| weekly one week a month and average about 30-40% of Max x5
| over the entire month. I went Max because of the weekly
| limits and to access the better models and because I felt I
| was getting value. I need an occasional burst of usage, not
| 24/7 slow compute. But even for pay-as-you-go burst usage
| Anthropic's API prices are insane vs Max.
|
| I have yet to ever hit a limit on codex so it's not on my
| mind. And lately it seems like Claude is likely to be having
| a service interruption anyway. A big part of subscribing to
| Claude Max was to get away from how the usage limits on Pro
| were causing me to architect my life around 5hr windows. And
| now Anthropic has brought that all back with this don't use
| it before 2pm bullshit. I want things ready to go when the
| muses strike. I'm honestly questioning whether Anthropic
| wants anyone who isn't employed as a software engineer to use
| their kit.
|
| Anyway for the last month or so codex "just works" and Claude
| has been an invitation for annoyances. There was a time when
| codex was quite a bit behind claude-code. They have been
| roughly equal (different strength and weaknesses) since at
| least February (for me).
| visarga wrote:
| I might consider switching to codex from claude pro 20x but
| I need the post tool use, pre file write and post user
| message hooks. Waiting on codex to deliver.
|
| - pre file write -> block editing code files without a task
| and plan of work
|
| - post tool use -> show next open checkbox in the task to
| the agent, like an instruction pointer
|
| - post user message -> log all user messages for periodic
| review of intent alignment
|
| These 3 hooks + plain md files make my claude harness.
| glasner wrote:
| I am cooking up an abstraction that enables these hooks
| on codex. Would love to have you kick the tires.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| Why couldn't you use Claude code harness with codex? The
| requests can be proxied to OpenAI.
| tinodb wrote:
| I use codex through the pi agent. It's wonderful and easy
| to create whatever extension or hook you want!
|
| I'd use it with Claude too if they hadn't banned it...
| deaux wrote:
| > (claude -p still works on the sub but I get the feeling
| like if I actually use it, I'll get my Anthropic acct. nuked.
| Would be great to get some clarity on this. If I invoke it
| from my Telegram bot, is that an unauthorized 3rd party
| harness?)
|
| How often? Realistically, if you invoke it occasionally, for
| what's clearly an amount that's "reasonable personal use",
| then no you don't get nuked.
| ls612 wrote:
| It's the same problem people have with Google. If they ban
| you for some AI hallucinated reason you have no recourse
| other than going viral on Hacker News.
| deaux wrote:
| I haven't seen a single case of that happening with
| Anthropic yet. Every time someone has gotten banned it's
| because they either used third party harnesses which went
| to great lengths to impersonate claude code (obvious
| evasion), or because they set things up so it maxxed out
| their usage 24/7.
|
| I'll change my mind when I see otherwise.
|
| And this isn't being positive about Anthropic support or
| their treatment of users, as I too have seen lots of
| people here getting billed by them for stuff they never
| paid for, blatant fraud. That's even worse than Google.
| I'm only talking about getting banned for usage.
| oooyay wrote:
| I plugged this question into Claude and told it to limit
| me to 10:
|
| 1. _Cancer patient banned mid-payment_ --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46675740
|
| 2. _Hobbyist coder, VPN trigger, forms into void for 10+
| months_ -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47286867
|
| 3. _" Reinstated" but still locked out -- two systems out
| of sync_ -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46007408
|
| 4. _Banned for testing vision API_ --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39988137
|
| 5. _Banned on first ever prompt ( "What do you know about
| Hacker News?")_ --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39698788
|
| 6. _Mass banning wave, some banned before first use_ --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39672765
|
| 7. _Entire company banned without warning, thousands of
| users stranded_ --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42210199
|
| 8. _Forced new account (no email change support) -
| immediately banned_ --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46339741
|
| 9. _Banned for scaffolding a Claude.md file, support
| email never arrives_ --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46723384
|
| 10. _$81 billing overcharge, human promised, month of
| silence_ -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47693679
| rendaw wrote:
| They also screwed up the API token detection and also blocked
| a bunch of 1st party tool users for ~24h.
|
| Support consisted of AI bots saying you did something stupid,
| you did something wrong, you were abusing the system,
| followed by (only when I asked for it explicitly) claiming to
| file a ticket with a human who will contact you later (and it
| either didn't happen or their ticket system is /dev/null).
|
| (By the way this is the 2nd time I've been "please hold"
| gaslit by support LLMs this exact same way, the other being
| with Square)
| Bolwin wrote:
| Claude -p is allowed. They're not going to give you a feature
| then ban you for using it.
|
| What they changed is that it now uses extra usage, which is
| charged at api rates
| wild_egg wrote:
| It only switches to charging API rates if some part of your
| prompt triggers their magic string detector. Lot of
| examples of that floating around where swapping "is" for
| "are" or whatever will magically allow the request against
| your subscription plan again.
| infecto wrote:
| Most of those are issues are coming from a very small
| minority. A lot of times its good for businesses to focus on
| the customers that are driving them the highest margin, most
| likely not users like yourself.
|
| 1) Nobody should expect to use OpenClaw without API usage.
|
| 2) We have known for a long time that the plans are
| subsidized. It was not as big of a deal but now that demand
| has continued to explode at a multiple and tools like
| OpenClaw were creating a lot of usage from a small minority
| of customers, prices change.
|
| Everything for me points more towards, we have made a service
| people really want to use and we are trying to balance a
| supply shortage (compute) with pricing. Nothing is stopping
| folks like yourself from simply paying the API rates. It is
| the simple no hassle way to get around any issue you are
| having, pay the API cost and you will have no limitations!
| stefan_ wrote:
| I think we are about a month away from a class action
| lawsuit, at their revenue they are a juicy target. And god
| knows they got the entirely self inflicted unholy combination
| going on, marketing & sales that borders on fraud (X times
| the usage of plan Y which has Z times of free tier which has
| unknowable "magic tokens") and then of course the actual
| fraud, reducing usage in fifteen different non obvious non
| public ways.
| timtimmy wrote:
| Perhaps Anthropic should put a freeze on new signups until
| they can increase capacity. This is the best kind of problem
| for a business, I'm cheering for them.
| greenavocado wrote:
| If there is one thing that is crystal clear, its that LLM
| providers will always take your money, no matter how bad
| the service is.
| sscaryterry wrote:
| This requires ethics.
| retinaros wrote:
| i dont know why ppl are surprised. you just need to see what
| they say on china, open source and fake safety blogs to
| understand they re not a company that devs should give their
| code for free to
| aftbit wrote:
| Huh I've noticed that! Opus hallucinates answers and provides
| contradictory reasoning to me much more regularly during the
| past couple of weeks than it did in February.
|
| For example, after a question about a script that used
| taskset and CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES to handle NUMA domains on a
| parallel GLUE evaluation run:
|
| >Round 2 tasks reuse GPU slots that Round 1 may still be
| occupying. Cola, SST-2, and QQP are small datasets and will
| likely finish before MNLI, but QNLI is sizable. If QNLI (GPU
| 3, slot 3) is still running when Round 2 launches, that's
| fine -- they're on different slots. But more importantly,
| Round 2 uses slots 5/6/7 (GPUs 7/0/1), while Round 1 uses
| slots 0/1/2/3/4 (GPUs 4/5/2/3/6). So there's no GPU collision
| -- you're good here actually. Disregard, this is clean.
| siva7 wrote:
| Anthropic has become shady as hell in less than a few weeks.
| The DoD Story and the overall popularity among developers got
| them a huge leap over OAI but i certainly won't renew my
| subscription with them. The Claude SDK feels like a constant
| fight against its own limitations compared to Codex and other
| Harnesses.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| I will say I have noticed none of these things in my
| enterprise account. Is this is a known targeting of non-
| enterprise clients only?
| zazibar wrote:
| A month ago the company I work at with over 400 engineers
| decided to cancel all IDE subscriptions (Visual Studio,
| JetBrains, Windsurf, etc.) and move everyone over to Claude
| Code as a "cost-saving measure" (along with firing a bunch of
| test engineers). There was no migration plan - the EVP of
| Technology just gave a demo showing 2 greenfield projects he'd
| built with Claude Opus over a weekend and told everyone to copy
| how he worked. A week later the EVP had to send out an email
| telling people to stop using Opus because they were burning
| through too many tokens.
|
| Claude seems to be getting nerfed every week since we've
| switched. I wonder how our EVP is feeling now.
| dickersnoodle wrote:
| Hopefully that EVP feels embarrassed that a big bet was made
| that not only didn't pay off but left the company in a worse
| position. Some schadenfreude may be all you can expect, since
| this is an executive.
| derangedHorse wrote:
| Pretty bad decision on his part. I've been telling other
| engineers within my company who felt threatened by AI that
| this would happen. That prices would rise and the marginal
| cost for changes to big codebases would start to exceed the
| cost of an engineer's salary. API credits are expensive,
| especially for huge contexts, and sometimes the model will
| use $200 in credits trying to solve a problem that could be
| fixed in an hour by a good engineer with enough context.
|
| It kind of reminds me of the joke where a plumber charges
| $500 for a 5 minute visit. When the client complains the
| plumber says it's $50 for labor and $450 for knowing how to
| fix the problem.
| christoph wrote:
| A good lesson for all - I always really liked the Picasso
| version:
|
| In a bustling restaurant, an excited patron recognized the
| famous artist Picasso dining alone. Seizing the moment, the
| patron approached Picasso with a simple request. With a
| plain napkin and a big smile, he asked the artist for a
| drawing. He promised payment for his troubles. Picasso,
| ever the creator, didn't hesitate. From his pocket, he
| produced a charcoal pencil and he brought to life a
| stunning sketch of a goat on the napkin--a clear mark of
| his unique style. Proudly, he presented it to the patron.
|
| The artwork mesmerized the patron, who reached out to take
| it, only to be stopped by Picasso's firm hand. "That will
| be $100,000," Picasso declared.
|
| Astonished, the patron balked at the sum. "But it took you
| just a few seconds to draw this!"
|
| With a calm demeanor, Picasso took back the napkin,
| crumpled it, and tucked it away into his pocket, replying,
| "No, it has taken me a lifetime."
| airstrike wrote:
| Good story but not applicable at all
| breton wrote:
| > the model will use $200 in credits trying to solve a
| problem that could be fixed in an hour by a good engineer
| with enough context
|
| So the price for fixing the problem is equal. Sounds like a
| great argument for AI.
| OlivOnTech wrote:
| Most good engineers are way cheaper than that. The world
| is bigger than the united states.
| malinens wrote:
| 99% of software developers earn less than 200 USD a hour
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| That "with enough context" is doing a lot of work here.
| If you take a great engineer, drop them in front of an
| unfamiliar codebase, it'll take them more than an hour to
| do most non-trivial tasks.
| collingreen wrote:
| Equal sounds like a terrible argument given all the other
| problems with replacing engineering thought with ai. I
| don't know where the line is but I expect it's far beyond
| equal AND there needs to be a level of "this can debug
| effectively in production" before that makes any sense
| for a real business case.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >That prices would rise
|
| Competition will prevent that from happening. When anyone
| can host open models and there is giant demand for LLMs
| companies can not easily raise token prices without sending
| a lot of traffic to their competitors.
| jrpear wrote:
| Even if you take it as true that prices have risen
| recently, and may continue to rise as the VC subsidies dry
| up, they _will_ fall again long-term. Inference will get
| more power efficient with model-on-chip solutions like
| Taalas and God willing we will get cheaper and cheaper
| renewable energy.
|
| Despite this I don't think engineers should feel
| threatened. As long as there is a need for a human in the
| loop, as today, there will still be engineering jobs. And
| if demand for engineering effort is elastic enough, there
| could easily be even more jobs tomorrow.
|
| Rather than threatened, I think engineers should feel
| _exposed_. To danger, yes, but opportunity as well.
| travoc wrote:
| Increased demand will not drive down energy costs.
| lobf wrote:
| Why not?
| sgt wrote:
| But cancelling IDE subscriptions? You need a proper IDE to
| along side AI augmented development unless you want to simply
| be along for the ride.
| derwiki wrote:
| Free VS Code is probably fine
| sgt wrote:
| I'm using the JetBrains IDE's and it's definitely worth
| paying for, even in the age of AI.
| slashdave wrote:
| Well, you can resubscribe in an afternoon. The fired
| workers? No real recovery from that.
| groundzeros2015 wrote:
| I can't believe how many small to mid size companies are
| being destroyed by bad decisions like this.
|
| A friend's company fired all EMs and have engineers reporting
| to product managers. They aren't allowed to do refactors
| because the CTO believes the AI doesn't need organized code.
| aerhardt wrote:
| How do people like that ascend to CTO?
| pbowyer wrote:
| The Peter Principle:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
| philpem wrote:
| Or more cynically they reach their level of competence,
| go one level further and stay there to keep them from
| ruining the productivity of the people doing the work...
| 59nadir wrote:
| CTO is in many cases a rank more than a role, and given
| out accordingly. You should never take someone seriously
| based on their rank alone, much less a CTO.
| kubb wrote:
| He must be feeling pretty good, after all he still believes
| that it was the right call, and he definitely won't be
| admitting a mistake.
|
| There's 0 chance of him facing the consequences for it
| either.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| lol. dude is so incompetent. changing tool for cost cutting
| is so stupid, we all know real cost cutting is firing people.
| if he is really good at he's doing, just fire 10% people and
| replace them with his Claude. If that didn't get backfired in
| 3 months, he will be CT0.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| Wow, that sounds like you have a astoundingly terrible EVP.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Should have started slowly instead of being so aggressive
| with it.
| oezi wrote:
| On OpenRouter token consumption is up 5x since November 2025.
| If this is indicative of the industries growth then I can't
| fathom how we will not hit resource constraints.
| faangguyindia wrote:
| This is actually great feature, you can do bait and switch with
| AI.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| I can't believe how quickly they went from riding high on anti-
| OpenAI sentiment post-DOD fiasco, to shooting themselves and
| all their users new and old in the foot.
|
| The ideal time to make your product worse is probably not at
| the same point that all of your competitor's customers are
| looking. Anthropic really, really fucked up here.
|
| And beyond that, there's a ton of people who are just regular
| 9-5 Claude CLI users with an enterprise subscription who are
| getting punished with a worse model at the same price just as
| if we were Claw users. This kind of thing does not make one
| feel warm and fuzzy. I feel like I just got a boot to the
| teeth.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| The hypothesis that makes the most sense is not that they are
| idiots, but that they have no choice. They cannot meet the
| new demand. So they've quantized the model.
| stavros wrote:
| It feels like I'm getting less and less for my money every day.
| A few weeks ago I was programming all week and never getting
| close to the limit, yesterday half my weekly limit went away in
| a day. Changing the limits mid-subscription is just theft.
| nojs wrote:
| My working theory is that all models are approximately the
| same, and the variance in quality mostly depends on how long
| they think for.
|
| So the trick is to always set to max, and then begin every task
| with "this is an extremely complex task, do not complete it
| without extensive deep thinking and research" or whatever.
|
| You're basically fighting a battle to make the model think
| more, against the defaults getting more and more nerfed to save
| costs.
| beering wrote:
| My experience has been that this isn't generally true, mainly
| because worse models pursue red herrings or get confused and
| stuck. a better model will get to the correct solution in
| fewer tokens, and my surface-level understanding of how RL
| works supports this.
| felixgallo wrote:
| https://isitnerfed.org/
| drzaiusx11 wrote:
| At some point these AI companies need to pay the piper as it
| were and actually provide a return for their investors. Expect
| cost cutting attempts to continue unless backlash is great
| enough to pose an existential threat to these companies.
| AznHisoka wrote:
| Its not just engineers, and its not just about the 3rd
| party/rate limiting stuff. I feel like the reasoning
| capabilities have deteriorated too for non-coding tasks.
| ruler88 wrote:
| Anthropic seems to be playing the giant-tech-rent-capture game
| that all of the old guards have done for the past few years. We
| thought that the new age of AI might bring some fresh air into
| the mix, but I guess that optimism quickly faded.
| swasheck wrote:
| it has been my go-to provider for things but i noticed
| extraordinarily high usage rate last month on a little side
| project i started so that i could learn about things that are
| interesting to me while helping my day to day responsibilities
| (creating an iceberg data lake from my existing parquet files).
| i used my month's worth of corporate subscription allocated
| tokens in 3 days. never seen that before so now i'm a lot more
| apprehensive about getting into the weeds with claude but i'm
| also so much less impressed with the other available models for
| work in this domain.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Developers are a tough crowd, stubborn, know it alls.
| pstuart wrote:
| The past two weeks I've had code that was delivered and
| declared as done (it did pass tests) but failed in a review by
| Codex. This has looped to a painful extent. The code in
| question deals with concurrency issues so there's an
| acknowledgement that its tricker, but still, I expect more from
| Claude.
| jitl wrote:
| I saw a big hit to Claude's intelligence w/ the 1M context
| window model and the change to adaptive reasoning (github issue
| linked elsewhere in this thread).
|
| I'm pretty much using 90% Codex now, although since Claude is
| consistently faster at answering quick questions, I still keep
| it open for that and for code-reviewing codex/human work before
| commit.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| I'm pretty sure this is an attempt by both companies to shape a
| reasonable finance story for their eventual IPO. They need to
| make this look a lot better than a pump and dump (raising on
| wild valuations then offloading onto public investors).
| motbus3 wrote:
| I think so, but more than that, the performance of those tools
| seems to be terribly degrading when they keep saying they have
| created some crap like AGI which we know is a lie.
|
| And to me, this lie is mostly a fight to see who bites the
| biggest chunk of the war death machine.
| trashface wrote:
| The $20 a month plan still seems like a pretty good deal for me
| (intermittent coding and not doing it for income).
| taf2 wrote:
| I switched off claude when they nerfed opus 4.5 in August 2025,
| since then codex has clearly produced better code with fewer
| bugs. Opus 4.6 was more a temporary de-nerf of 4.5 but did not
| materially improve. codex has now a proven track record of
| producing stable results while introducing far fewer bugs.
| OtomotO wrote:
| I measured it for my specific usecases and have cancelled my
| Anthropic subscription (the Max x20 Plan)
| sneak wrote:
| They broke my openclaw last week; I switched to "extra usage"
| and prepaid a grand for same.
|
| A few days later it simply stopped working again, API
| authentication error. What must I do to have working, paid,
| premium service?
|
| Screwing around with it today, it works 5x slower and times out
| all of the time. I'm paying more and getting waaaaay less. Why
| can't companies just raise prices like normal?
| jclardy wrote:
| Just anecdotal, but I was using Claude Code for everything a
| few months ago, and it seemed great. Now, it is making a ton of
| mistakes, doing the wrong thing, misunderstanding context, and
| just generally being unusable.
|
| I now have been using Codex and everything has been great (I
| still swap back and forth but generally to check things out.)
|
| My theory is just that the models are great after release to
| get people switching, then they cut them back in capabilities
| slowly over time until the next major release to increase the
| hype cycle.
| MattDamonSpace wrote:
| Part hypecycle, part desperate attempts to rein in usage
| oorza wrote:
| Is it the models themselves or the tools around them? There's
| that patch[1] that floats around for Claude Code that's
| supposed to solve a lot of these problems by adjusting its
| tool-level prompts. Also, if it were the models themselves,
| wouldn't Cursor users have the same complaints (do they? I
| haven't heard anything but the only Cursor users I talk to
| are coworkers)?
|
| I think it's more likely they're trying to optimize the
| Claude Code prompts to reduce load on their system and have
| overcorrected at the cost of quality.
|
| 1: https://gist.github.com/roman01la/483d1db15043018096ac3bab
| f5...
| throwpoaster wrote:
| Generally, across AI providers, I have come to interpret sudden
| degradation in existing capabilities as a signal that a new,
| more expensive, product tier is about to launch.
| Papazsazsa wrote:
| Yes. Anthropic is burning much of the goodwill they built up in
| contrast to OAI, and I personally am taking it as a sign to
| limit dependencies. Luckily for me I am not at all dependent on
| frontier models, and it's increasingly apparent that nobody
| else is too.
|
| It looks like the spreadsheet-touchers over at Anthropic won
| out over the brand leaders, which is too bad as good will can
| be a trench if you don't abuse your customers.
| beering wrote:
| I think on HN we always underestimate how much momentum
| matters. Anthropic has so much clout and mindshare that even
| if they continue burning goodwill and everyone on HN ditches
| Claude Code and stops recommending it, they will still be
| revenue leader for years to come. Those enterprise contracts
| aren't month-to-month.
| raincole wrote:
| That's a seasonal phenomenon. You can save this comment and
| look back three to six months later. By the time people will be
| like "is it just me or ChatGPT has been so bad lately?"
|
| If you don't believe me you can search HN posts about
| Codex/Claude six months ago.
| LunaSea wrote:
| > people feel like they have no idea if they are getting the
| product that they originally paid for
|
| They do indeed get the product they originally paid for.
|
| It's simply that they were suckers and didn't read the "fine"
| print of the product they bought.
|
| The label says "more tokens than the lower tier".
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Is it perhaps not a model problem but a Claude Code harness
| problem?
|
| For instance on exe.dev VMs with Shelley agent/harness and Opus
| 4.5/4.6, I haven't noticed any deterioration.
|
| Any similar feedback perhaps from Opencode / GH Copilot
| subscription-provided Opus models?
| jrockway wrote:
| I have read the HN articles and seen the grumbling from
| coworkers, but I haven't felt it myself. I am not really a one-
| shotter, though. I kind of think about how I would refactor /
| write something myself and walk Claude through that, and
| nitpick it at each step... and the recent changes haven't
| really bothered me there. Likely due to being new at it.
|
| Sometimes Claude can be a little weird. I was asking it about
| some settings in Grafana. It gave me an answer that didn't
| work. I told it that. "Yeah, I didn't really check, I just
| guessed." Then I said, "please check" and it said "you should
| read the discussion forums and issue tracker". I said "YOU
| should read the discussion forms and issue tracker". It
| consumed 35k tokens and then told me the thing I wanted was a
| checkbox. It was! I am not sure this saved me time, Claude. I
| am not experienced enough to say that this is a deal breaker.
| While this is burned into my mind as an amusing anecdote, it
| doesn't ruin the service for me.
|
| My coworkers have noticed a degradation and feel vindicated by
| some of the posts here that I link. A lot of them are using
| Cursor more now. I have not tried it yet because I kind of like
| the Claude flow and /effort max + "are you sure?" yield good
| results. For now. I'm always happy to switch if something is
| clearly better.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| How exactly do you use Claude Code, in the browser? Claude
| Code? The Desktop App (which has a "Code" tab) or some other
| way? I feel like people who have issues with Claude /
| Anthropic are not conveying where they are struggling. I see
| people say they tried "Claude" and didn't like it, but the
| secret sauce is Claude Code. Claude Code is what most people
| enjoy using, even if we all wish they would open up the
| harness, because there's so many more improvements that could
| go into it.
| jrockway wrote:
| Yeah, sorry. Claude Code in my case.
|
| I do use the browser version on occasion. I have no strong
| feelings one way or the other there. I like it better than
| Google search in many cases, but probably just search more
| often.
| blueboo wrote:
| Wait till Codex doubles prices/halves quotas on May 31
| simianwords wrote:
| There's a case for intelligent caching: coarse grained 1h and
| 5min type TTls are not optimal.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Caching LLM is not like caching normal content; the longer it
| is the more beneficial it is and it only stops being worth when
| user stops current session.
|
| So you'd need some adaptive algorithm to decide when to keep
| caching and when to purge it whole, possibly on client side,
| but if you give _client_ the control, people will make it use
| most cache possible just to chase diminishing returns. So fine
| grained control here isn 't all that easy; other possible
| option is just to have cache size per account and then
| intelligently purge it instead of relying just on TTL
| cyanydeez wrote:
| keep in mind, efficient KV caching needs to be next to the
| GPU, so you sls need you HA to keep routing the user to the
| same hardware.
|
| the hardware VM model is almost identical. Each session can
| go anywhere to start but a live session cant just be routed
| anywhere without penalty.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Since I (until Anthropic decided to remove access for subs) used
| Anthropic models extensively with pi I explored the two caching
| options and the much higher cost of 1h caches is almost never a
| good tradeoff.
|
| Since the caching really primarily is something they can be
| judged at scale from across many users I can only assume that
| Anthropic looked at their infra load and impact and made a very
| intentional change.
| ares623 wrote:
| AGI finding bugs again. Actual Guys/Gals Instead.
| perks_12 wrote:
| Just give us the option to get the quality back, Anthropic. I get
| that even a $200 subscription is not possible eventually, but
| give us the option to sub the $1000 tier or tell us to use the
| API tier, but give us some consistency.
| jwr wrote:
| This. I get much more value than 90EUR from my Claude Code
| subscription. I am willing to pay more for consistency and not
| having to watch my back all the time, because I might get
| screwed over.
| throwaway2027 wrote:
| I also noticed this, just resuming something eats up your entire
| session. The past two weeks also felt like a substantial
| downgrade and made me regret renewing my subscription, it sucks
| because I wish I kept my Codex subscription instead and renewed
| that.
| beering wrote:
| Are you locked into your current subscription?
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Well, how entirely expected. The money man comes to collect and
| they are squeezing for money
| throwaway2027 wrote:
| It's absolutely ridiculous how stupid Claude is now. I sometimes
| notice it and last year too but it feels like it's just last year
| before December model.
| config_yml wrote:
| Feels similar to Claude last August/September. Knowing Claude
| some Agent probably reverted the fix from back then ^^
|
| https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/a-postmortem-of-three-...
| taffydavid wrote:
| This is the same shit openAI used to do last year, quietly
| downgrading their offerings while hyping the next big thing. I
| thought Anthropic were different but it seems they're playing the
| exact same long con with Mythos.
|
| They can't really revolutionize AI again so they make the product
| worse and worse and then offer you a "better" one
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| Changing "regression" to "Anthropic silently downgraded"
| sensationalizes the story
|
| Why the FUD?
|
| I notice some interesting public opinion weather change since
| Anthropic passed OpenAI wrt revenue
| subscribed wrote:
| From the response in the linked issue:
|
| >> Was there a change? Yes -- March 6, intentional, part of
| ongoing cache optimization. You pinpointed the date correctly.
|
| The entire issue lays out how and why it's a silent downgrade.
| Also silent because it just happened, without announcing.
|
| I don't understand how is this FUD?
| poly2it wrote:
| One of the largest AI companies on Earth cannot figure out an
| algorithm for when not to drop caches in long-running sessions?
| mrdw wrote:
| I noticed another limitation: "An image in the conversation
| exceeds the dimension limit for many-image requests (2000px).
| Start a new session with fewer images."
|
| So I can't continue my claude code session I started yesterday.
| beering wrote:
| makes sense, "a picture is worth a thousand tokens" as they
| say. They probably lowered the limit due to capacity issues.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| Double tap ESC and revert the conversation.
| eaf7e281 wrote:
| I think they changed the quantification to save computer power
| for their new model. This might be why the benchmark scores look
| good, but the real world performance is much worse. I'm wondering
| if they're testing the model internally and didn't find anything
| wrong with the new parameter.
|
| I canceled my subscription and switched to a codex, but it's not
| as good. I'm tired of Anthropic changing things all the time. I
| use Claude because it doesn't redirect you to a different model
| like OpenAI does. But now it seems like both companies are doing
| the same thing in different way.
| throwaway2027 wrote:
| Claude is worse, they don't tell you when your experience has
| degraded and don't even let you use worse models if you run out
| any.
| eaf7e281 wrote:
| i mean, openai does same, even worse, they change the model,
| like gpt 5.4 to -mini
|
| anthropic for now, at least just seems to change quantization
| of the model
| hirako2000 wrote:
| There is a chef, he opens a restaurant. Delicious food.
|
| It costs him more in ingredients alone than he charges. He even
| offers some pseudo unlimited buffet, combo sets, and happy hours.
|
| He announced a new restaurant, apparently it will be even better,
| so good he's a bit worried. He makes sure to share his worries
| while he picks a few select enterprise for business parties and
| the likes.
|
| In the meantime he cracks down on free buffet goers who happen to
| eat too much, and downgrades all ingredients without notice to
| finally hope to make a profit.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Pretty much capitalism in a nut shell, yeah.
| MattRix wrote:
| This is close, but the real problem isn't that the food is
| underpriced, it's that the supply of ingredients is severely
| limited.
| stri8ted wrote:
| Those are the same thing
| greycol wrote:
| They are not if there aren't customers who are willing to
| pay more. For instance imagine a widget that lasts 1 year
| and is just under 1/2 the price of one that lasts 2 years.
| There may be high demand because it's the more economical
| option. If you raise the price so that it's 1/2 the price
| of the 2 year widget then demand collapses without
| effecting supply.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| Is this not the same thing?
| albert_e wrote:
| So a side effect of this is -- even at 1 hour caching -- ...
|
| If you run out of session quota too quickly and need to wait more
| than an hour to resume your work ... you are paying even more
| penalty just to resume your work -- a penalty you wouldnt have
| needed if session quota was not so restrictive in first place,
| and which in turn causes you to burn through next session quota
| even faster.
|
| Seems like a vicious cycle that made the UX very poor. I remember
| Claude Code with Pro became virtually unuseable in middle of
| March with session quota expiring within first hour or less for
| me -- which was wildly different experience from early March.
| azuanrb wrote:
| As a Pro user, even though these issues and bugs are "new," the
| downgrade has been noticeable since January. I've unsubscribed
| because the Pro plan is no longer usable for me.
|
| It's only making the news now because it's affecting Max users as
| well ($100/$200 plans). I understand the need for change, but
| having zero communication about it is just wrong.
| layer8 wrote:
| From the recent-ish Dwarkesh podcast, Anthropic seems to be wary
| about buying/building too much compute [0]. That probably means
| that they have to attempt to minimize compute usage when there is
| a surge in demand. Following the argument in the podcast,
| throwing more money after them, as some in this thread are
| suggesting, won't solve the issue, at least not in the short
| term.
|
| [0] https://www.dwarkesh.com/i/187852154/004620-if-agi-is-
| immine...
| shdh wrote:
| Likely accurate
|
| This tends to happen during pretraining phase of new models
|
| Happened with 3.x too
| bsaul wrote:
| could it be that anthropic is experiencing a massive shortage of
| compute capacity, and is desperately trying to find means to
| overcome it ?
|
| All the news i hear about this company for the past weeks made it
| sound like they're really desperate.
| foobar10000 wrote:
| So, this especially bites if your validation step (let's say
| integration tests) take 1hr plus. The harness is just waiting,
| prefix caching should happily resume things with just a minor new
| prefill chunk of output from the harness, and bam - completely
| new prefill.
| siscia wrote:
| Lately I am finding myself doing more and more of what I called
| "ambient coding" so that I am not directly using anymore all of
| those coding harnesses.
|
| https://redbeardlab.gitbook.io/acem/essays/ambient-developme...
|
| I basically wrote a small GitHub app and I simply create a GitHub
| issue, the bot read it, run an LLM loop and come up with a PR (or
| a design)
|
| Then I simply approve the pr (or the design)
|
| I find it much calmer and much more productive
| motbus3 wrote:
| The TOS basically states you need to deal with whatever they
| want.
|
| Meanwhile their 'best' competitor just announced they want to
| provide unreliable mass destruction guidance tools but they don't
| wanna feel said.
|
| Honestly speaking, we are wrong whenever we do business with this
| sort of people
| bigyabai wrote:
| > The TOS basically states you need to deal with whatever they
| want.
|
| FWIW that's what most TOSes say for the majority of online
| services. Some even include arbitration clauses to prevent
| civil suits and class-action cases.
| benced wrote:
| Anthropic responded: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-
| code/issues/46829#issue...
| supermdguy wrote:
| Bizarre reading the thread, it feels like their Claude
| responding to the other posters' Claudes
| phreack wrote:
| That was my immediate impression too! It feels like it's all
| AI maximalists who seem to have a need to filter their every
| interaction through an LLM. And the result looks and reads
| just like Moltbook.
| dnw wrote:
| Interesting that they actually acknowledge there was a change
| on March 6th. Kudos to the prompt analysis work that uncovered
| it!
| TheTaytay wrote:
| This should be the top comment. The OP misunderstands the
| change and has their LLM write an expose. The company responds
| with a well-reasoned explanation that it would actually cost
| MORE money if there was a global 1h default for ALL prompts. It
| gets downvoted and the pitchforks stay out because...I presume
| the words like "cache read likelihood" sounds like made up
| fluff to the audience, rather than an actual explanation?
| glenngillen wrote:
| Because it is made up fluff for this audience. There is a
| wall of data and evidence + anecdotes from many people
| pointing to the exact problem here and giving concrete
| examples of how this absolutely does cost more.
|
| And an admittedly uncharitable TLDR on the response is:
| "yeah... but most users just ask one thing and barely use the
| product so they never need the cache. Also trust me bro".
|
| Which sure, fine. I'm willing to bet is technically true. I'd
| also bet those users never previously came close to hitting
| their session limits given their usage because their usage is
| so low. But now people who were previously considered low to
| moderate users are hitting limits within minutes.
|
| They may as well have just said "we've looked at the data and
| we're happy with this change because it's a performance
| improvement for people we make the most margin on. Sucks to
| be you".
| lordmoma wrote:
| Claude Code is not performing on par since September 2025, there
| was already a huge backlash then, and many people just keep
| cheering for CC every time it made some model upgrade or TUI
| change, it just feels so unreal.
| c16 wrote:
| I've definitely noticed in evenings it stops trying as hard to
| solve the issue and suggests I go find the answer. Never the case
| in the morning.
| taf2 wrote:
| I don't understand who's still using anthropic? The model
| produces more bugs and agrees to solutions that are clearly wrong
| at a much higher rate then codex. Codex produces significantly
| better code with fewer bugs and far less oversight. with /fast on
| codex it's not even slower then claude and consider it implements
| working code more reliably you have to use it less anyway. Beside
| anthropic appears to be more focused on fear mongering and other
| types of FUD and is a more closed solution I do not understand
| why so many people still appear to care what anthropic does and
| have not already moved on? </rant>
| willworktill4pm wrote:
| This Friday CC wrote wall off gibberish text for me. No reason,
| happened twice with different gibberish text
|
| https://ibb.co/4wcVQG5k
| beering wrote:
| maybe numerics issues after quantization? Looks like it really
| went off the rails
| hattimaTim wrote:
| Classic scammer tactics: first, lure users in by promising a huge
| deal, then scam the hell out of them.
| pkaye wrote:
| Actually I remember the change being reported in the Reddit
| /r/claueai chat back around that time frame. I was concerned that
| it would increase costs but nobody made a fuss so I presumed it
| was not a big deal.
| snowstormsun wrote:
| Well, the 10x promised revenue increase must come from
| somewhere...
| zeckalpha wrote:
| I find similar happening with Gemini Pro. Despite paying for Pro,
| it regularly locks me out, without visibility into consumption.
| Nothing on the plan comparison page indicates limits.
| https://one.google.com/about/plans
|
| Edit: I may have conflated these two threads.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47739260
| yobid20 wrote:
| i thought it was always 5 minutes? ive been telling people 5
| minutes for months so i dont think this is anything new?
| foofloobar wrote:
| Claude Code and the subscription are now less useful than a few
| months ago. Claude Code and the service seem to pick up more and
| more issues as time goes by: more bugs, fast quota drain, reduced
| quota, poor model performance, cache invalidation problems, MCP
| related bugs, potential model quantization and other problems.
|
| Claude Code was able to implement something in one shot. It was
| decent for a proof of concept initial implementation. It's barely
| able to do work now with full specs and detailed plans.
|
| ChatGPT is also being watered down.
|
| It seems obvious that Anthropic and OpenAI aren't the solution to
| any problem.
| trollbridge wrote:
| I caught up with a friend who said he's really happy with
| Cursor (currently using the multi-model option where it
| composes, and reserving use of Opus 4.6 for only when he
| actually needs the extra power).
|
| Quite interesting considering all the claims that Cursor was
| dead a few months ago.
| foofloobar wrote:
| I wouldn't trust another company either. Some people have
| reported some issues with Cursor. The solution is probably
| not a cloud API with unknown quotas or pay as you go pricing.
| ecocentrik wrote:
| They are clearly straining under new demand and everyone is
| being served highly quantized models without notice.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Every single one of these AI services are running at loss, they
| are subsidized. Anybody who is surprised that these services
| are going to get degraded and their cost go up substantially
| learned nothing from the last 20 years of SAAS. It never gets
| cheaper.
| computerex wrote:
| Good job anthropic. You had a clear lead with all devs singing
| the praises of Opus. Way to lose all that by Enshittifying the
| experience.
| par wrote:
| Claude code has gone down hill in a really bad way. It is often
| far too quick to make significant changes, and requires much
| higher level of hand-holding and explanation than I am used to.
| r/claudecode on reddit shows a litany of complaints!
| espeed wrote:
| Does Anthropic's real time data ingestion effect its model
| behavior globally? Could a file read by your agent effect the
| behavior of mine?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-12 23:00 UTC)