|
| ▲ | batshit_beaver 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > investment in polish, quality, and reliability For there to be any trust in the above, the tool needs to behave predictably day to day. It shouldn't be possible to open your laptop and find that Claude suddenly has an IQ 50 points lower than yesterday. I'm not sure how you can achieve predictability while keeping inference costs in check and messing with quantization, prompts, etc on the backend. Maybe a better approach might be to version both the models and the system prompts, but frequently adjust the pricing of a given combination based on token efficiency, to encourage users to switch to cheaper modes on their own. Let users choose how much they pay for given quality of output though. |
|
| ▲ | pkos98 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sure, I've cancelled my Max 20 subscription because you guys prioritize cutting your costs/increasing token efficiency over model performance.
I use expensive frontier labs to get the absolute best performance, else I'd use an Open Source/Chinese one. Frontier LLMs still suck a lot, you can't afford planned degradation yet. |
|
| ▲ | wilj 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My biggest problem with CC as a harness is that I can't trust "Plan" mode. Long running sessions frequently start bypassing plan mode and executing, updating files and stuff, without permission, while still in plan mode. And the only recovery seems to be to quit and reload CC. Right now my solution is to run CC in tmux and keep a 2nd CC pane with /loop watching the first pane and killing CC if it detects plan mode being bypassed. Burning tokens to work around a bug. |
|
| ▲ | tkgally 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Here's one person's feedback. After the release of 4.7, Claude became unusable for me in two ways: frequent API timeouts when using exactly the same prompts in Claude Code that I had run problem-free many times previously, and absurdly slow interface response in Claude Cowork. I found a solution to the first after a few days (add "CLAUDE_STREAM_IDLE_TIMEOUT_MS": "600000" to settings.json), but as of a few hours ago Cowork--which I had thought was fantastic, by the way--was still unusable despite various attempts to fix it with cache clearing and other hacks I found on the web. |
|
| ▲ | a-dub 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| hm. ml people love static evals and such, but have you considered approaches that typically appear in saas? (slow-rollouts, org/user constrained testing pools with staged rollouts, real-world feedback from actual usage data (where privacy policy permits)? |
|
| ▲ | g4cg54g54 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Please keep the feedback coming if only there were a place with 9.881 feedbacks waiting to be triaged... and that maybe not by a duplicate-bot that goes wild and just autocloses everything,
just blessing some of the stuff there with a "you´ve been seen" label would go a long way... |
| |
| ▲ | oefrha an hour ago | parent [-] | | Common pattern of checking the claude code issue tracker for a bug: land on issue #12587, auto closed as duplicate of #12043; check #12043, auto closed as duplicated of #11657; check #11657, auto closed as duplicate of #10645; check #10645, never got a response, or closed as not planned, or some other bullshit. |
|
|
| ▲ | jpcompartir 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Thanks, I have a lot of trust in and admiration for the team & respect for the work you guys have done and continue to do. |
|
| ▲ | szmarczak 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why ban third party wrappers? All of this could've been sidestepped had you not banned them. |
| |
| ▲ | ElFitz 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because then they lose vertical integration and the extra ability it grants to tune settings to reduce costs / token use / response time for subscription users. Or improve performance and efficiency, if we’re generous and give them the benefit of the doubt. It makes sense, in a way. It means the subscription deal is something along the lines of fixed / predictable price in exchange for Anthropic controlling usage patterns, scheduling, throttling (quotas consumptions), defaults, and effective workload shape (system prompt, caching) in whatever way best optimises the system for them (or us if, again, we’re feeling generous) / makes the deal sustainable for them. It’s a trade-off | | |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They gained that ability to tune settings and then promptly used it in a poor way and degraded customer experience. | |
| ▲ | szmarczak 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nothing you wrote makes sense. The limits are so Anthropic isn't on a loss. If they can customize Claude using Code, I see no reason why they couldn't do so with other wrappers. Other wrappers can also make use of cache. If you worry about "degraded" experience, then let people choose. People won't be using other wrappers if they turn out to be bad. People ain't stupid. | | |
| ▲ | ElFitz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | By imposing the use of their harness, they control the system prompt: > On April 16, we added a system prompt instruction to reduce verbosity. In combination with other prompt changes, it hurt coding quality, and was reverted on April 20. This impacted Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.7 They can pick the default reasoning effort: > On March 4, we changed Claude Code's default reasoning effort from high to medium to reduce the very long latency—enough to make the UI appear frozen—some users were seeing in high mode They can decide what to keep and what to throw out (beyond simple token caching): > On March 26, we shipped a change to clear Claude's older thinking from sessions that had been idle for over an hour, to reduce latency when users resumed those sessions. A bug caused this to keep happening every turn for the rest of the session instead of just once, which made Claude seem forgetful and repetitive. We fixed it on April 10. This affected Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 It literally is all in the post. I don't worry about anything though. It's not my product. I don't work for Anthropic, so I really couldn't care less about anyone else's degraded (or not) experience. | | |
| ▲ | szmarczak 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > they control the system prompt They control the default system prompt. You can change it if you want to. > They can pick the default reasoning effort Don't see how it's an obstacle in allowing third party wrappers. > They can decide what to keep and what to throw out That's actually a good point. However I still don't think it's an obstacle. If third party wrappers were bad, people simply wouldn't be using them. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | troupo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And you didn't invest anything in polish, quality and reliability before... why? Because for any questions people have you reply something like "I have Claude working on this right now" and have no idea what's happening in the code? A reminder: your vibe-coded slop required peak 68GB of RAM, and you had to hire actual engineers to fix it. |
| |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you're being a bit harsh. ... But then again, many of us are paying out of pocket $100, $200USD a month. Far more than any other development tools. Services that cost that much money generally come with expectations. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | ankaz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
