Hacker News Reader

Comment by samlinnfer | Hacker News Reader

Is there compensation for the tokens because Claude wasted all of them?

You are funny. Anthropic refuses to issue refunds, even when they break things.

I had an API token set via an env var on my shell, and claude code changed to read that env var. I had a $10 limit set on it, so found out it was using the API, instead of my subscription, when it stopped working.

I filed a ticket and they refused to refund me, even though it was a breaking change with claude code.

Anthropic just reduced the price of the team plan and refunded us on the prior invoice.

YMMV

So they have no durable principles for deciding who or what to refund… doesnt that make them look even worse…?

Or they do, and two sentences from two different experiences don't tell a full story?

Okay “they do” based on what more compelling evidence?

Its not like the credibility of the two prior HN users are literally zero…

I am saying there is no evidence either way: they had contrasting experiences and one GP established this means that company has no standardized policies. Maybe they do, maybe they don't — I don't think we can definitively conclude anything.

So if you acknowledge the prior claims have more than literally zero credibility… then what’s the issue?

That I dont equally weigh them with all possible yet-to-be claimed things?

I object to your conclusion that "they have no durable principles": not sure how do you get to that from two different experiences documented with a single paragraph.

Because I can assess things via probability… without needing 100% certain proof either way?

This is becoming futile: this is not even about proof, but there not even being a full account of two cases you are basing your opinion on.

Obviously, you can derive any opinion you want out of that, but while I am used to terms like "probability" being misused like this, I've generally seen a higher standard at HN.

To each their own, though. Thank you for the discourse and have a good day.

Codex seems to give compensation tokens whenever this happens! Hope Claude gives too.

It is possible that degradation is an unconscious emergent phenomenon that arises from financial incentives, rather than a purposeful degradation to reduce costs.

You’re lucky they have even admitted a problem instead of remaining silent and quietly fixing it. Do not expect ethical behaviour from this company.

Why not, can you expand? Asking because I’m considering Claude due to the sandbox feature.

FYI the sandbox feature is not fully baked and does not seem to be high priority.

For example, for the last 3 weeks using the sandbox on Linux will almost-always litter your repo root with a bunch of write-protected trash files[0] - there are 2 PRs open to fix it, but Anthropic employees have so far entirely ignored both the issue and the PRs.

Very frustrating, since models sometimes accidentally commit those files, so you have to add a bunch of junk to your gitignore. And with claude code being closed source and distributed as a bun standalone executable it's difficult to patch the bug yourself.

[0]: https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/sandbox-runtime/is...

Hmm, very good point indeed. So far it’s behaved, but I also admit I wasn’t crazy about the outputs it gave me. We’ll see, Anthropic should probably think about their reputation if these issues are common enough.

So quiet…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com