Bit surprised about the amount of flak they're getting here. I found the article seemed clear, honest and definitely plausible.

The deterioration was real and annoying, and shines a light on the problematic lack of transparency of what exactly is going on behind the scenes and the somewhat arbitrary token-cost based billing - too many factors at play, if you wanted to trace that as a user you can just do the work yourself instead.

The fact that waiting for a long time before resuming a convo incurs additional cost and lag seemed clear to me from having worked with LLM APIs directly, but it might be important to make this more obvious in the TUI.

▲ maronato 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that it’s plausible, and I hope they learn. But trust is earned, and Anthropic’s public responses this past month were dismissive and unhelpful.

Every one of these changes had the same goal: trading the intelligence users rely on for cheaper or faster outputs. Users adapt to how a model behaves, so sudden shifts without transparency are disorienting.

The timing also undercuts their narrative. The fixes landed right before another change with the same underlying intent rolled out. That looks more like they were just reacting to experiments rather than understanding the underlying user pain.

When people pay hundreds or thousands a month, they expect reliability and clear communication, ideally opt-in. Competitors are right there, and unreliability pushes users straight to them.

All of this points to their priorities not being aligned with their users’.

	▲	xpe 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> All of this points to their priorities not being aligned with their users’. Framing this as "aligned" or "not aligned" ignores the interesting reality in the middle. It is banal to say an organization isn't perfectly aligned with its customers. I'm not disagreeing with the commenter's frustration. But I think it can help to try something out: take say the top three companies whose product you interact with on a regular basis. Take stock of (1) how fast that technology is moving; (2) how often things break from your POV; (3) how soon the company acknowledges it; (4) how long it takes for a fix. Then ask "if a friend of yours (competent and hard working) was working there, would I give the company more credit?" My overall feel is that people underestimate the complexity of the systems at Anthropic and the chaos of the growth. These kind of conversations are a sort of window into people's expectations and their ability to envision the possible explanations of what is happening at Anthropic.

▲ epsteingpt 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They gaslit people for months saying it wasn't an issue publicly.

That's the reason for the flak

▲ thomassmith65 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And still are gaslighting:

  We take reports about degradation very seriously. We never intentionally degrade our models [...] On March 4, we changed Claude Code's default reasoning effort from high to medium

Anthropic is the best company of its kind, but that is badly worded PR.

▲

sobjornstad 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Is adding JPEG compression to your software “intentional degradation” of the software? I wouldn't say providing a selectable option to use a faster, cheaper version of something qualifies as “degradation”.

It is certainly true that they did a poor job communicating this change to users (I did not know that the default was “high” before they introduced it, I assumed they had added an effort level both above and below whatever the only effort choice was there before). On the other hand, I was using Claude Code a fair bit on “medium” during that time period and it seemed to be performing just fine for me (and saving usage/time over “high”), so it doesn't seem clear that that was the wrong default, if only it had been explained better.

▲

xpe an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

To my eye, gaslighting is a serious accusation. Wikipedia's first line matches how I think of it: "Gaslighting is the manipulation of someone into questioning their perception of reality."

Did I miss something? I'm only looking at primary sources to start. Not Reddit. Not The Register. Official company communications.

Did Anthropic tell users i.e. "you are wrong, your experience is not worse."? If so, that would reach the bar of gaslighting, as I understand it (and I'm not alone). If you have a different understanding, please share what it is so I understand what you mean.

	▲	thomassmith65 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'd rather not speak too poorly of Anthropic, because - to the extent I can bring myself to like a tech company - I like Anthropic. That said, the copy uses "we never intentionally degrade our models" to mean something like "we never degrade one facet of our models unless it improves some other facet of our models". This is a cop out, because it is what users suspected and complained about. What users want - regardless of whether it is realistic to expect - is for Anthropic to buy even more compute than Anthropic already does, so that the models remain equally smart even if the service demand increases.

▲ xpe an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I know some people use the word "gaslighting" in connection with Anthropic. I've read some of those threads here, and some on Reddit, but I don't put much stock in them. To step back, hopefully reasonable people can start here:

    1. Degraded service sucks.
    2. Anthropic not saying i.e. "we're not seeing it" sucks.
    3. Not getting a fix when you want it sucks.

Try to understand what I mean when I say none of the above meet the following sense of gaslighting: "Gaslighting is the manipulation of someone into questioning their perception of reality." Emphasis on understand what I mean. This says it well: [1].

If you can point me to an official communication from Anthropic where they say "User <so and so> is not actually seeing degraded performance" when Anthropic knows otherwise that would clearly be gaslighting -- intent matters by my book.

But if their instrumentation was bad and they were genuinely reporting what they could see, that doesn't cross into gaslighting by my book. But I have a tendency to think carefully about ethical definitions. Some people just grab a word off the shelf with a negative valence and run with it: I don't put much stock in what those people say. Words are cheap. Good ethical reasoning is hard and valuable.

It's fine if you have a different definition of "gaslighting". Just remember that some of us have been actually gaslight by people, so we prefer to save the word for situations where the original definition applies. People like us are not opposed to being disappointed, upset, or angry at Anthropic, but we have certain epistemic standards that we don't toss out when an important tool fails to meet our expectations and the company behind it doesn't recognize it soon enough.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/tep32v/can...