Hacker News Reader

Comment by greenavocado | Hacker News Reader

I pray the benchmark figures are true so I can stop paying Anthropic after screwing me over this quarter by dumbing down their models, making usage quotas ridiculously small, and demanding KYC paperwork.

View on HN

Absolutely. Thing is, I'd actually rather take a worse model than Anthropic, so long as it's consistent. Like, a model that can successfully do well for 80% of tasks is much better than Anthropic that some days will be 90% other 60%.

When you have a consistent model, you can incorporate fixes/prompts into your workflow to make it behave better. But this, always having to guess if Anthropic has quantised the model today, wastes so much time and effort.

Codex has a lot better limits, and 5.5 will be out soon

Anthropic has done horrible PR and investors should be livid.

My theory is they pushed retail off their systems to make room for their new corporate fat cat clients. In which case, they'll do just fine.

> dumbing down their models,

This should be so easy to prove if it were true. Yet there is none of it, just vibes.

Still, your other two points are completely valid. The opaqueness of usage quotas is a scam, within a single month for a single model it can differ by more than 2x. And this indeed has been proven.

> This should be so easy to prove if it were true.

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796

https://scortier.substack.com/p/claude-code-drama-6852-sessi...

First link is about the harness, Claude Code, defaulting to less thinking over time. This isn't "the model getting worse".

Second link is just a discussion of the first link.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com