It's very interesting. I think Anthropic's early success in coding/tooling resulted in a lot of workflows using claude. I have started using every bit of my spare capacity to now move off these workflows.
It's almost at a point now that if I use anything but Fable, the quality is subpar, Compared to alternatives (closed and open). The only reason I use Fable is because my harnesses still depend on claude code.
You can use Claude Code directly with any provider that supports Anthropic's API by setting some environment variables, and indirectly via a proxy with pretty much anything else.
You can, but claude is better at working with it's own tool calls. Other models work great as a drop-in into omp/opencode etc, but in my experience not as much with CC.
I think there are some anti-patterns in CC that cause the issue - less a deficiency with other models.
Not to mention a lot of the harness is just built around the misbehaviors of anthropics models.
It's a lot of the instruction when it gets given to other models actually degrades their performance, not because the models are bad, but because they don't have the same underlying issues as Claude.
For me, Opus 5 has seemed to compete with Fable on quality of output. Prior to Opus 5 though, the previous Opus models did seem to decline once Fable was release. That's just my experience though.
Is anybody else experiencing this: I have multiple claude instances running on different servers - and some keep getting the 529 Overloaded error and one instance doesn't and just continues working. All are using Opus 5.
I have the same thing on different shells on the same server (tmux). It's wild. I'm guessing that some of the sessions just got lucky as to which backend server they are redirected to.
At any large tech company these numbers would get entire teams of engineers fired. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been busy selling its “better than human engineers” AI while not managing to crack three 9s of availability.
Between these ever more frequent disruptions and Opus 5's unbearable word soup I think Anthropic is more focused on massaging numbers and marketing to rush to IPO ahead of OpenAI than increasing user value.
With Chinese competition just months behind them, they'd need to show a reasonable pathway to some kind of singularity event to justify whatever crazy valuation they intend to get.
It's interesting that Claude for Goverment has had perfect 100% uptime in the past 90 days, while the rest of the services are around 99.4%: https://status.claude.com/
Really shows how isolated their government systems must be.
I wonder if they’ll ever find that someone has tricked the models into doing work off the books. If they did the incident report might look like this, especially if someone got greedy instead of keeping it small. Or screwed up.
I was drafting a partnership document and Opus 5 decided that including my company's revenues, churn, assets would "make us appear a more legitimate counterparty". Thank God I read what it outputted or that could have been awkward. I cannot believe Opus 5 is a frontier level model after seeing that. I immediately cancelled my entire claude.ai subscription and am perfectly happy using a mixture of open weights + codex.
I read everything. I will have AI ingest NDAs to make sure they arent glaringly weird and I then go read them, it gives me a good idea of what to look for.
It’s more that unwanted disclosure of sensitive business numbers is a product-class limitation at this time. While undoubtedly some models are better than others, expecting them not to leak information in high stakes output is unseasonable. Seems like you agree, since you are reading everything.
Jumping to another company’s offering because of one instance doesn’t seem like that’s going to meaningfully change your experience. I’m guessing there was more to it, but that’s how it came across in your first post.
I was writing an exploit PoC (via Opus 5), and I needed a new feature in a utility library to make it work. Claude added the feature, but yapped the (entirely unrelated) vulnerability details into the library's comments. The library is public, while the exploit is undisclosed, so it was a good job I read the comments before pushing.
It definitely isn't but Claude for some very unique reason enjoys to overthinking and go on side quests in the stupid ways I've not seen Codex, DS, Kimi, Mistral do at equivalent effort and thinking setting.
Opus5 decided it would be a good idea to include my email as part an HTTP request header's User Agent because Anthropic includes your email as part of the system prompt.
"Thank God i checked to see if the gun was loaded before i pointed it in a random direction and pulled the trigger". sheesh, my assumptions of general human intelligence continues to be wrong.
the last few years of reading hackernews has been a wild ride. I used to come here for well thought out articles and opinions. IDK if all the "older guard" have left the building or if we've all been consumed by abject stupidity.
The frequency of these incidents is seriously tempting me to make a switch. I hope Anthropic steps up their game because they've been going very downhill lately
What's the incentive to keep on improving the model beyond a point?
10 devs on a team will be cut to 2 devs, so that's 8 licenses lost. They have to increase the price many fold.
What I don't understand is, why not replace middle management, marketing, CTOs, CEOs and the like. Surely, LLMs are better at producing high quality looking slideware and vaporware than they are at producing software.
Heavy sarcasm here if it's not obvious. Of course I know why.
Darn it, how the fuck software development turned into hostage negotiation? Every passing week there's something - if it's not another npm disaster, then it's GitHub, or Claude, or AWS, or Slack, or Jira, or whatever...
After using Fable more extensively, I've found that it often is lazy or lies or tries to take shortcuts. For a company so sanctimonious about alignment, they seem to be the ones doing the worst at it.
Availability aside they've really made me appreciate OpenAI and cheer for other competitors in the marketplace even if I have mixed feelings about using Chinese models.
Just recently went back to ChatGPT after abandoning it for Claude. I must say I was stunned at how good it had become and also how they introduced new product features that I really liked.
I wonder if from now on we have to switch providers every six months or so.
I've been bouncing between the two for years now with great success. It's easy for me because I don't use any of the skills, agent.md, or sort of custom instructions.
When it comes to most companies, there is no reward for loyalty.
skills and agent.md are very portable though? I figure at most, as the models get better, the only maintenance you need to do is pare them down to remove unnecessary context.
I mean, I wouldn't know how portable they are between models because I don't use them. I don't use them because, well, I don't need them. I mainly use LLMs as a StackOverflow replacement via the Web chatbots.
I only use CC or Codex for a quick MVP once every few months or so.
There are whole sections of code work that 4.7+ can't do simply because it is both over fit and stubborn.
God save you if you have a company with narrow but correct technical tradeoffs, because you operate at scale.
Opus from 4.7 one will wreck your code and argue for hours with your engineers.
Certain parts of our company have had to mandate 4.6 and a training doc to explain why our current choice is both the cost efficient and performant one and shouldn't just be ripped out.
Newer models will re-litigate the same bad, known failed architectures over and over again.
This is exactly when I left claude and started using codex during April mid or so. It once argued with me and ran for 30 minutes with a half baked buggy fix.
Clearly ego, you can always tell how full of themselves they are based on their media personalities going on the podcast circuit before product releases.
ive found degraded performance on models larger than 4.7. i assume its model damage from overly self righteous post training resulting in false/feigned balance imported into any long running complex task.
Don’t forget reasoning effort. We get labels like “low,” “high,” and “max.” That doesn’t mean that the numbers associated with those don’t get remapped on the backend.
I lived in a short period of time in which QA was really good. Early Jenkins era, before GitHub. People engineered a lot of ingenious stuff to prevent bugs.
One team I worked with had tests for the product we made ranging from IE6 to IE11, for example. We did demos in-company where people would poke at the products before launch, play with it. When it reached production, it was rock solid stuff. Our motto was "quality is non-negotiable": we were willing to cut scope but never rush things.
I think things changed since then. "Move fast and break things" was a change, and the bill always comes.
With the Opus models spouting more and more gibberish as version numbers increase, the joke about what "degraded performance" means basically makes itself
Yeah, compared to AWS the lock-in effect is tiny. I'm sure there are highly prioritized plans to "improve" on this.
I guess they would need to control/"own" more of their customers data in proprietary formats. Not markdown/source code in English with agents running on customers' machines.
I developed a small plugin for claudeCode that allows you to directly see in the console whats the status of claude-code in general and the status for your current model check => https://github.com/moumine9/claude-status
It's been a while since the last reset. I think we're due one. Though I would prefer they just extend the +50% usage limit forever, it's been so long I can not imagine lossing a third of my current usage.
While ancedata does not mean much, I have had horrible success with Claude lately. I have been using Claude to crosscheck some of the outputs from GPT and vice versa. It appears both Claude and GPT believe GPT's solutions are better (and so I do).
I still believe Claude has a better UI/UX in the web interface, but tolerating Anthropic's bullshit is not worth it.
Oh yes. Claude still saves the day sometimes, but hopefully better alternatives pop up soon.
Recent case: had to plan a trip involving multiple bus switches. Gpt 5.6 Sol proposed a route that would bring me to a dead end, since it was sunday and a specific bus had a different route on weekends.
Opus 5 correctly identified that and built a route that worked.
But yes, Darios wife trying to get funding from Epstein for a porn studio says a lot about the founder.
I am fully unbothered about Amodei's wife trying to make high end porn for women, in the same way that I am fully unbothered by Melania Trump having been essentially a glamour/nude model. I know (and have creatively worked) with women who do/have done both; they are better, less hypocritical, more grounded humans than many others.
Both Cami Clark and Melania Trump can properly be judged on their involvement with Trump, Epstein (or possibly Trump and Epstein) alone.
I think the Epstein money thing reflects extremely poorly on Cami Clark's judgement. Basic due diligence should have shown up that he went to prison for something very anti-women, and even then it was clear he secured a shady deal with a prosecutor.
I don't know how it reflects on Amodei except that her presence as a sort of off-the-books "adviser" is yet more evidence that Anthropic runs by giving Dario a play pen to be a "visionary" (a bunch of advisers and his only direct report, a chief of staff) while his sister actually runs the gig.
"High end" porn business is usually linked with other "services", my guess is that his wife saw value not in revenue from porn but from influence the other services may bring.
Of course this is speculative, but this is my guess about her. Darios assiciation with her also indicates a lot about his moral compass.
Imagine what we don't know.
Also there is a very big difference for a woman to participate in porn (usually they regret it) and a women trying to get other women to make porn.
High end porn can just be expensive production values; that is what I assumed. She wanted a proper studio and production company, and the implication is she was positioning it in opposition to the handful of studios that dominate that industry who have a very male outlook. She did want an e-commerce platform attached, but again, that's commonplace.
None of that is necessarily indicative of trafficking or prostitution, but banks and payment providers tend to run scared of it, so I suppose if one does want serious investment to make a studio, there are relatively few people you can go to.
She went to Epstein because she knew he was very rich and unbothered by that association, I am sure. The fact that she must also have known who he was — a sex offender who basic due diligence would have told her was likely a trafficker — is what is ugly.
What is bizarre about it is that if she had taken his money then needed to go to payment providers, she would have had an extra millstone around her neck, because they definitely do due diligence. But maybe Epstein had clout enough to offset his reputation.
Not going to too get into questions of porn and regret, except to say that even in a post-onlyfans world I think "regret" is often shorthand for "made to regret", which is rather different. It's the same for art and life models, which is where my creative experience lies. People are always out there trying to project their morality onto things that are not their business, so subsequent "regret" is often a practical, imposed matter.
This is why I think it's important that we judge these women for the clearer questions of morality that have nothing to do with porn.
To be honest, running Deepseek v4 flash 0731 is enough for most what I need, and I like its responses way more. It's crazy that I can run this in a Q8 quantization in a home setup. It feels and performs like a frontier model.
The only issue with relying on local models is when you need them to prompt other models, and you might need to offload or switch models constantly which adds significant overhead.
Thursday will be the rest of the infrastructure
Then Friday we can turn off civilization for the weekend. Somebody remember to flip it back on Sunday night.
At least OpenAI has the decency to reset after a serious outage.
It's almost at a point now that if I use anything but Fable, the quality is subpar, Compared to alternatives (closed and open). The only reason I use Fable is because my harnesses still depend on claude code.
I think there are some anti-patterns in CC that cause the issue - less a deficiency with other models.
Not to mention a lot of the harness is just built around the misbehaviors of anthropics models.
It's a lot of the instruction when it gets given to other models actually degrades their performance, not because the models are bad, but because they don't have the same underlying issues as Claude.
Claude API - 99.27%
Claude Code - 99.16%
Claude.ai - 99.14%
At any large tech company these numbers would get entire teams of engineers fired. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been busy selling its “better than human engineers” AI while not managing to crack three 9s of availability.
Is Github not a large tech company?
Well, owned and mismanaged by Microsoft.
With Chinese competition just months behind them, they'd need to show a reasonable pathway to some kind of singularity event to justify whatever crazy valuation they intend to get.
Because the recent products for builders ain't it
Really shows how isolated their government systems must be.
Jumping to another company’s offering because of one instance doesn’t seem like that’s going to meaningfully change your experience. I’m guessing there was more to it, but that’s how it came across in your first post.
Fucking morons over there.
lmao
But on my personal (pro) subscription- "Claude is at capacity right now."
Hm.
Heavy sarcasm here if it's not obvious. Of course I know why.
Availability aside they've really made me appreciate OpenAI and cheer for other competitors in the marketplace even if I have mixed feelings about using Chinese models.
It's funny how Fable reflects the company that produced it.
I wonder if from now on we have to switch providers every six months or so.
When it comes to most companies, there is no reward for loyalty.
I only use CC or Codex for a quick MVP once every few months or so.
God save you if you have a company with narrow but correct technical tradeoffs, because you operate at scale.
Opus from 4.7 one will wreck your code and argue for hours with your engineers.
Certain parts of our company have had to mandate 4.6 and a training doc to explain why our current choice is both the cost efficient and performant one and shouldn't just be ripped out.
Newer models will re-litigate the same bad, known failed architectures over and over again.
wish i was joking.
One team I worked with had tests for the product we made ranging from IE6 to IE11, for example. We did demos in-company where people would poke at the products before launch, play with it. When it reached production, it was rock solid stuff. Our motto was "quality is non-negotiable": we were willing to cut scope but never rush things.
I think things changed since then. "Move fast and break things" was a change, and the bill always comes.
We'll be fine no matter how Anthropic fares.
I guess they would need to control/"own" more of their customers data in proprietary formats. Not markdown/source code in English with agents running on customers' machines.
Something cloud/web-based, "preferably".
ba dum tsss
(sorry couldn’t help myself)
I still believe Claude has a better UI/UX in the web interface, but tolerating Anthropic's bullshit is not worth it.
English too difficult for you, Dario?
Recent case: had to plan a trip involving multiple bus switches. Gpt 5.6 Sol proposed a route that would bring me to a dead end, since it was sunday and a specific bus had a different route on weekends. Opus 5 correctly identified that and built a route that worked.
But yes, Darios wife trying to get funding from Epstein for a porn studio says a lot about the founder.
Both Cami Clark and Melania Trump can properly be judged on their involvement with Trump, Epstein (or possibly Trump and Epstein) alone.
I think the Epstein money thing reflects extremely poorly on Cami Clark's judgement. Basic due diligence should have shown up that he went to prison for something very anti-women, and even then it was clear he secured a shady deal with a prosecutor.
I don't know how it reflects on Amodei except that her presence as a sort of off-the-books "adviser" is yet more evidence that Anthropic runs by giving Dario a play pen to be a "visionary" (a bunch of advisers and his only direct report, a chief of staff) while his sister actually runs the gig.
Of course this is speculative, but this is my guess about her. Darios assiciation with her also indicates a lot about his moral compass.
Imagine what we don't know.
Also there is a very big difference for a woman to participate in porn (usually they regret it) and a women trying to get other women to make porn.
None of that is necessarily indicative of trafficking or prostitution, but banks and payment providers tend to run scared of it, so I suppose if one does want serious investment to make a studio, there are relatively few people you can go to.
She went to Epstein because she knew he was very rich and unbothered by that association, I am sure. The fact that she must also have known who he was — a sex offender who basic due diligence would have told her was likely a trafficker — is what is ugly.
What is bizarre about it is that if she had taken his money then needed to go to payment providers, she would have had an extra millstone around her neck, because they definitely do due diligence. But maybe Epstein had clout enough to offset his reputation.
Not going to too get into questions of porn and regret, except to say that even in a post-onlyfans world I think "regret" is often shorthand for "made to regret", which is rather different. It's the same for art and life models, which is where my creative experience lies. People are always out there trying to project their morality onto things that are not their business, so subsequent "regret" is often a practical, imposed matter.
This is why I think it's important that we judge these women for the clearer questions of morality that have nothing to do with porn.
Source?
The only issue with relying on local models is when you need them to prompt other models, and you might need to offload or switch models constantly which adds significant overhead.
But when it all works, its truly awe inspiring.