| ▲ | cromka 2 hours ago |
| Anyone can explain why do they fail so often and so seriously? Is this inherent to managing LLMs or is their Ops really just that bad? |
|
| ▲ | ifwinterco an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Because coding is solved and there’s no need for software engineers any more. Being charitable to Anthropic though: coding is sort of solved for a very limited definition of “solved”. Software engineering of huge distributed systems at massive scale is very much not solved, and it seems Anthropic don’t have the human capital to do it particularly well |
| |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | If we want to be even more charitable to Anthropic, they're going from nothing to hyperscaler in like 3 years. I'm as happy as anyone to dunk on the general bubble situation and people claiming their technology is too dangerous to share, then something like this happens, it's hilarious. But it's still actually hard to build a service with that much usage and every org has had some outages on their way to figure it out. | |
| ▲ | chrisjj 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Anthropic's product is inherently unreliable even when operating at its best. Why would they bother with reliable delivery when their customers are the type clearly not interested in reliability? |
|
|
| ▲ | Recursing 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it's because customers don't seem to mind enough to switch. I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism, but it's getting harder and harder to justify on technical merits. Sol is just faster, cheaper, and more reliable, and as good as Opus for my use cases |
| |
| ▲ | lxgr an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism If you're really committed to the ideas of EA, shouldn't you dispassionately select whatever model works best for you, then make as much money as possible using that and donate it? :) | | | |
| ▲ | integricho an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you actually believe in their altruistic goals? | | | |
| ▲ | chrisjj 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [delayed] | |
| ▲ | jcfrei an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've recently started using codex for most of my coding. Haven't looked back so far: It seems to reason deeper about the code it writes and has much less downtime. | |
| ▲ | nicce an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism They are doing the opposite while saying the other. Zero trust about that. They are using every malicious playbook tactic these days to increase users and be more profitable and lock-in the users. Even OpenAI feels better these days. | | |
| ▲ | puelocesar an hour ago | parent [-] | | I mean, that’s exactly what “effective altruism” is about? Getting filthy rich and powerful no matter the methods and then the vague promise of doing something good? | | |
| ▲ | nicce 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not really. They seems to chase IPO so that alone proves that they can’t hold any promise about doing something good. They would need to stay as private company to have any power to do some ”good” in the end. |
|
| |
| ▲ | therein 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > commitments to effective altruism That's a downside if anything. | | |
| ▲ | eru an hour ago | parent [-] | | Different folks have different preferences. | | |
| ▲ | KingMob an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, some people think effective altruism means helping people here and now as efficiently as possible. Others think the sheer number of potential sentients in the future justify any amount of suffering tolerated in the here and now. Notably, people in the latter group never assume THEY will be the ones suffering for the future. | | |
| ▲ | Smaug123 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Estimate of the number of people in that latter group? Nick Beckstead is probably the cleanest example of an extreme longtermist, but even he has taken the GWWC pledge. Similarly, Nick Bostrom argues in a pretty longtermist way and is neither vegan nor has taken the pledge, but I don’t see any particular evidence that he has a morality that an average person would call evil. Toby Ord and Will MacAskill are both visibly mundanely extra-super-ethical despite their longtermist views. | |
| ▲ | eru 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Notably, people in the latter group never assume THEY will be the ones suffering for the future. What makes you think so? What evidence do you have? > Yes, some people think effective altruism means helping people here and now as efficiently as possible. Most effective altruists seem pretty relaxed about the 'here' part, but you are right that the 'now' part receives different answers from different subgroups. > Others think the sheer number of potential sentients in the future justify any amount of suffering tolerated in the here and now. There's also the people who care a lot about shrimp. They are less crazy than it seems at first. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vinni2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because they can’t keep up with the demand? |
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | tvbusy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Struggling with demands is a performance problem, not a reliability problem. | | |
| ▲ | swe_dima 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | overly high demand can often put a system in an unstable state | | |
| ▲ | therein 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Only if you're incapable of throttling to assure quality of service. Are you saying they have so much demand that even their load balancers were overloaded? | | |
| ▲ | slopinthebag an hour ago | parent [-] | | There is no point having this discussion. Some people have had their brains genuinely broken by Anthropic and will defend them to the last breath, despite having no clue what they are talking about. | | |
| ▲ | 36799753298 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'll leave it to the retards to confidently claim load has no bearing on the stability of a distributed system. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ACCount37 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is a reliability problem - because if the API ends up rejecting 30% of the incoming queries, no one cares if it's 500 Internal Server Error or 529 Overloaded. Having your infrastructure at the knife's edge of load to capacity also means you have no redundancy when something fails. | | |
| ▲ | cherioo an hour ago | parent [-] | | If this incident had happened during the day I could buy that argument. But it is happening in the dead of the night. Are there really that much people scheduling claude runs over-night, taking more capacity than day-time? (assume most claude users are west coast programmers) My other guess is they are scheduling training runs and their capacity isolation is bad. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vasco an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Clearly they just want to be down all the time. They have the ability to throttle down traffic. I have no clue why they decide to throttle it down just enough to have the worst of both worlds, throttling and incidents. Throttle more and have zero incidents, what an incredible revelation. |
| |
| ▲ | Barbing an hour ago | parent [-] | | They didn’t want to be down so bad they rented capacity from Elon and uptime improved dramatically. Super flaky before that, they were even playing games with response quality to lighten their load nontransparently. Not sure what the issue is today. But on average, past 90 days, good availability and quality right? |
|
|
| ▲ | slopinthebag an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Everything is vibe coded, would you expect anything different? |
| |
