The first comment claims that Anthropic "are having to quantise the models to keep up with demand", to which the parent comment agrees with "This can't be understated". So based on this discussion so far Anthropic has [1] great models, [2] models that used to be great but now aren't due to quantization, [3] models that used to be great but now aren't due to a bug, and [4] models that constantly feel like a "bait and switch".

This most definitely feels like people analyzing the output of a random process - at this point I am feeling like I'm losing my mind.

(As for the phrasing I was quoting the OP, who I believe took it in the spirit in which it was meant)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45183587

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45182714

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45183820

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45183281

I am not sure why you are loosing your mind Anthropic dynamically adjusts knobs based on capacity and load Those knobs can be as simple as reducing usage limits to more advanced like switching to more optimized paths that have anything from more aggressive caching to using more optimized models etc. Bugs are a factor in quality of any service.

The part I was saying I agree with is:

> New features like this feel pointless when the underlying model is becoming unusable.

I recognize I could have been clearer.

And for what it's worth, yes, your comment's phrasing didn't bother me at all.