Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonzzzies | Hacker News Reader

Yep, it's worse than it was, like the other poster in this thread, i am back just copying to and fro to claude and chatgpt as it just works better.

I am starting to wonder how this will all end up. For instance with API use, we (my company) can burn $100s/day with sometimes insanely bad results all of a sudden. Now I bet I signed away all my rights, but in some countries that doesn't cut mustard for consumers buying things. If an API delivers very solid results one day and crap the next and I spent a lot of money, how does that work? There are many people on reddit/youtube speculating why claude sometimes responds like a brilliant coder and sometimes as if it had a full frontal lobotomy. I see this in Cursor too.

View on HN

I'm sympathetic to the issue of services getting worse, it sucks, but

> If an API delivers very solid results one day and crap the next and I spent a lot of money, how does that work? There are many people on reddit/youtube speculating why claude sometimes responds like a brilliant coder and sometimes as if it had a full frontal lobotomy. I see this in Cursor too.

This seems like an incredible over-reach. There's no predatory behaviour here. You're free to cancel at any time.

It's an incredibly fast moving field, a frontier field in software. To say that, in order to charge for something, you are legally bound to never make mistakes and have regressions, is an incredibly hostile environment to work in. You'll stifle growth if people think experiments might come with lawsuits unless they're positive it leads to improvement.

If they decided they were going to lock everything to gpt-2 and refuse to pay back any people who bought yearly subscriptions, sure I would be agreeable to considering this a bait-and-switch hoodwink. But that is clearly not happening here.

How is it possible that users report that but we now see Mr Levels on twitter posting an example of a ThreeJS game thing that he allegedly 100% Cursor'd his way to?

Is behavior that inconsistent?

I've used GitHub copilot plenty, and I've observed various "regressions" and inconsistencies, but I've never come even close to that much of a project being totally LLM-generated.

Levels is a programmer though; if you have the patience you can make software like that; you might have to be very precise telling it what to fix when it's stuck and cannot fix it itself, which is then just basically voice coding. Typing is much faster and less frustrating, but you can do it; a non programmer would not be able to though.

I’ve been noticing this too. The other day, cursor’s version of Claude sonnet (3.7) added a

with open(file) as f:

  pd.read_csv(f)

This was a mistake not worthy of even gpt3… I’ve also noticed I get overall better suggestions from Claude desktop app.

I wonder why

I cannot find it anymore, but there is a youtube video of someone making / training an llm who showed a lower precision switch switching his small model from bad to lobotomised and he even mentions he thinks it is what Anthropic does when the servers are overloaded. I notice it, but have no proof. There seems to be a large opportunity for screwing people over without consequences though, especially when using these API's at scale.

I'm a solo founder in SF building something to fix this, let's talk? Email in my profile

Reply on news.ycombinator.com