6 ms·

Anthropic: Developing a Claude Code competitor using Claude Code is banned

321 points by behnamoh 9mo ago

orochimaaru 9mo ago
Is this targeted at cursor?
- whimsicalism 9mo ago
  the controversy is related to the recent opencode bans (for using claude code oauth to access Max rather than API) and also Anthropic recently turning off access to claude for xAI researchers (which was mostly through Cursor)
akomtu 9mo ago
AI is built by violating all rules and moral codes. Now they want rules and moral code to protect them.
- nerdponx 9mo ago
  Might makes right.
- mystraline 9mo ago
  You're just now learning about corporate capitalism? Its always been socialize the losses, and capitalize the gains. And all the while, legislating rules to block upstart companies. Its never ever been "fair". He who has the most gold makes the rules.
  - hsaliak 9mo ago
    Does it follow then, that we should socialize our losses and ignore their TOS? It looks like yet again - fortune favors those who ask forgiveness later.
  - nerdponx 9mo ago
    This is extra ridiculous even for "capitalism". It would be like if Carnegie Steel somehow could have prohibited people from buying their steel in order to build a steel mill. And moreover in this case the entire industry as it exists today wouldn't exist without massive copyright infringement, so it's double-extra ironic because Anthropic came into existence in order to make money off of breaking other people's rules, and now they want to set up their own rules.
Lars147 9mo ago
Xcancel Link: https://xcancel.com/SIGKITTEN/status/2009697031422652461 https://xcancel.com/SIGKITTEN/status/2009697031422652461
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
starkeeper 9mo ago
[flagged]
- whimsicalism 9mo ago
  For chats, unless you explicitly disable it they absolutely are. Otherwise, these companies do have auditors.
- gpm 9mo ago
  Where the TOS allows them to, I would assume they are (and they aren't trade secrets anymore since reasonable measures weren't taken to protect them). Where the TOS forbids them from doing so - I'd generally assume the reputational risk is not worth the marginal value that could be extracted from the IP and trade secrets. Especially for companies with huge other businesses like Google. I'd worry more about Anthropic and OpenAI just because there's not this other huge billion dollar business that relies on trust. If I had trade secrets worth billions where money could easily be extracted from them (I'm thinking something like a hedgefunds current trading strategy) the trust wouldn't extend that far even for Google. I also find OpenAI's past business dealings suspect (with regards to effectively stealing value from the public non-profit and transferring it into a privately owned company) which makes me trust them less than Anthropic. I'd assume the NSA has access to anything they are interested in that you send to a US company.
- bink 9mo ago
  Their contracts prohibit it for certain classes of users, but if you're really worried about it Anthropic also offers a "bring your own cloud" version where the data supposedly never leaves your infrastructure.
- nerdponx 9mo ago
  I think the concern for the AI companies is that they're going to get sued into oblivion if they ever get found out. The bigger concern is not the AI companies doing it themselves, but insiders finding it in the chat logs and selling it on the black market. They're definitely going to monetize personal accounts with targeted advertising though. Nothing is stopping "ChatGPT Suggested" (i.e. sponsored) links in chat replies.
zingar 9mo ago
Is this a standard tech ToU item? Is this them saying that their human developers don’t add much to their product beyond what the AI does for them?
- oblio 9mo ago
  Imagine if Visual Studio said "you can't use VS to build another IDE".
  - FootballMuse 9mo ago
    Imagine if Visual Studio said "you can't use VS to build any product or service which may compete with a Microsoft product or service"
ctoth 9mo ago
I was all set to be pissed off, "you can't tell me what I can make with your product once you've sold it to me!" but no... This outrage bait hinges on the definition of "use" You can use Claude Code to write code to make a competitor for Claude Code. What you cannot do is reverse engineer the way the Claude Code harness uses the API to build your own version that taps into stuff like the max plan. Which? makes sense? From the thread: > A good rule of thumb is, are you launching a Claude code oauth screen and capturing the token. That is against terms of service.
- whimsicalism 9mo ago
  under the ToS, no - you cannot use claude code to make a competitor to claude code. but you’re right that that appears to mostly be unenforced. that said, it is absolutely being enforced against other big model labs who are mostly banned from using claude.
- tcdent 9mo ago
  This whole thing got blown out of proportion because the devs of third party harnesses that use the oauth API never disclosed that they were already actively sidestepping what is a very obvious message that the oauth API is for Claude Code only. What changed recently is that they added more restrictions for the shape of the payloads it accepts, not that they just started adding restrictions for the first time. TLDR You cannot reverse engineer the oauth API without encountering this message: https://tcdent-pub.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cc_oauth_api_error.png https://tcdent-pub.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cc_oauth_api_e...
  - BoorishBears 9mo ago
    There's also a meta aspect here, where the leading third party harness in this discussion is run someone who's chronically steeped in Twitter drama and is definitely not rushing to put this to bed. Add in various 2nd/3rd place players (Codex and Copilot) with employees openly using their personal accounts to cash in on the situation and there's a lot of amplification going on here.
- zzzeek 9mo ago
falloutx 9mo ago
Opencode is much better anyway and it doesnt change its workflow every couple weeks.
- whimsicalism 9mo ago
  i find cursor cli significantly better than opencode right now, unfortunately. e: for those downvoting, i would earnestly like to hear your thoughts. i want opencode and similar solutions to win.
- fgonzag 9mo ago
  Yeah, honestly this is a bad move on anthropic's part. I don't think their moat is as big as they think it is. They are competing against opencode + ACP + every other model out there, and there are quite a few good ones (even open weight ones). Opus might be currently the best model out there, and CC might be the best tool out of the commercial alternatives, but once someone switches to open code + multiple model providers depending on the task, they are going to have difficulty winning them back considering pricing and their locked down ecosystem. I went from max 20x and chatgpt pro to Claude pro and chat gpt plus + open router providers, and I have now cancelled Claude pro and gpt plus, keeping only Gemini pro (super cheap) and using open router models + a local ai workstation I built using minimax m2.1 and glam 4.7. I use Gemini as the planner and my local models as the churners. Works great, the local models might not be as good as opus 4.5 or sonnet 4.7, but they are consistent which is something I had been missing with all commercial providers.
  - whimsicalism 9mo ago
    disagree. it is much better for anthropic to bundle than to become 'just another model provider' to opencode/other routers. as a consumer, i do absolutely prefer the latter model - but i don't think that is the position I would want to be in if I were anthropic.
    - behnamoh 9mo ago
      Nah, Anthropic thinks they have a moat; this is classic Apple move, but they ain't Apple.
mcintyre1994 9mo ago
https://xcancel.com/SIGKITTEN/status/2009697031422652461 https://xcancel.com/SIGKITTEN/status/2009697031422652461 This tweet reads as nonsense to me It's quoting: > This is why the supported way to use Claude in your own tools is via the API. We genuinely want people building on Claude, including other coding agents and harnesses, and we know developers have broad preferences for different tool ergonomics. If you're a maintainer of a third-party tool and want to chat about integration paths, my DMs are open. And the linked tweet says that such integration is against their terms. The highlighted term says that you can't use their services to develop a competing product/service. I don't read that as the same as integrating their API into a competing product/service. It does seem to suggest you can't develop a competitor to Claude Code using Claude Code, as the title says, which is a bit silly, but doesn't contradict the linked tweet. I suspect they have this rule to stop people using Claude to train other models, or competitors testing outputs etc, but it is silly in the context of Claude Code.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
narmiouh 9mo ago
I wonder how will this affect future Anthropic products, if prior art/products exist that have already been built using claude. If this is to only limit knowledge distillation for training new models or people Copying claude code specifically or preventing max plan creds used as API replacement, they could properly carve exceptions rather than being too broad which risks turning away new customers for fear of (future) conflict
- viraptor 9mo ago
  If they think that will work, they're really silly. Is a ToS change going to stop a corp which can gain millions of dollars and can technically work around the protection in hours? Yeah, nah..
miohtama 9mo ago
"We stole the whole Internet, but do not dare to steal us”
ronbenton 9mo ago
This falls under "lmao even" right? Like, come on, the entire business model of most generative AI plays right now hinges on IP theft.
bionhoward 9mo ago
Yup, I’ve been crowing about these customer noncompetes for years now and it’s clear Anthropic has one of the worst ones. The real kicker is, since Claude Code can do anything, you’re technically not allowed to use it for anything, and everyone just depends on Anthropic not being evil
- DANmode 9mo ago
  Ever get involved in the React-is-Facebook conversation?
llmslave3 9mo ago
I find it slightly ironic that Anthropic benefits from ignoring intellectual property but then tries to enforce it on their competitors. How would they even detect that you used CC on a competitor? There's surely no ethical reason to not do it, it seems unenforceable.
- forty 9mo ago
  They know everything you do with Claude code since everything goes through their servers
- pixl97 9mo ago
  This is the modus operandi of every AI company so far. OpenAI hoovered up everything they could to train their model with zero shits about IP law. But the moment other models learned from theirs they started throwing tantrums.
- falloutx 9mo ago
  they just ask LLM to backdoor report if anyone asks to build something they dont want. Its a massive surveillance issue.
VoxPelli 9mo ago
Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here? I remember when I was part of procuring an analytics tool for a previous employer and they had a similar clause that would essentially have banned us from building any in-house analytics while we were bound by that contract. We didn't sign.
- nospice 9mo ago
  > Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here? Compilers don't come with terms that prevent you from building competing compilers. IDEs don't prevent you from writing competing IDEs. If coding agents are supposed to be how we do software engineering from now on, yeah, it's pretty bad.
- behnamoh 9mo ago
  > Sounds like standard terms from lawyers If they were "standard" terms, then how come no other AI provider imposes them?
  - hobofan 9mo ago
    Because they approach creating such terms in a different way? e.g. some competitors may consider the chances of it to be enforceable to be 0 and not bother with it at all, while others just didn't bother tweaking the standard boilerplate they got from their lawyers unless needed. Literally the first 4 SaaS companies that came to my mind to check (Atlassian/Jira, Linear, Pipedrive, Stackblitz/Bolt.new) have a similar clause in their TOS.
with 9mo ago
I think there are issues with Anthropic (and their ToS); however, banning the "harnesses" is justified. If you're relying on scraping a web UI or reverse-engineering private APIs to bypass per-token costs, it's just VC subsidy arbitrage. The consumer plan has a different purpose. The ToS is concerning, I have concerns with Anthropic in general, but this policy enforcement is not problematic to me. (yes, I know, Anthropic's entire business is technically built on scraping. but ideally, the open web only)
shmerl 9mo ago
Lol. Next will be, "Replacing our CEOs with AI is banned".
pton_xd 9mo ago
As long as I have a Claude subscription, why do they care what harness I use to access their very profitable token inference business?
- arjie 9mo ago
  Demand-aggregation allows the aggregator to extract the majority of the value. ChatGPT the app has the biggest presence, and therefore model improvements in Claude will only take you so far. Everyone is terrified of that. Cursor et al. have already demonstrated to model providers that it is possible to become commoditized. Therefore, almost all providers are seeking to push themselves closer to the user. This kind of thing is pretty standard. Nobody wants to be a vendor on someone else's platform. Anthropic would likely not complain too much about you using z.ai in Claude Code. They would prefer that. They would prefer you use gpt-5.2-high in Claude Code. They would prefer you use llama-4-maverick in Claude Code. Because regardless of how profitable inference is, if you're not the closest to the user, you're going to lose sooner or later.
- ankit219 9mo ago
  Because your subscription depends on the very API business. Anthropic's cogs is rent of buying x amount of h100s. cost of a marginal query for them is almost zero until the batch fills up and they need a new cluster. So, API clusters are usually built for peak load with low utilization (filled batch) at any given time. Given AI's peak demand is extremely spiky they end up with low utilization numbers for API support. Your subscription is supposed to use that free capacity. Hence, the token costs are not that high, hence you could buy that. But it needs careful management that you dont overload the system. There is a claude code telemetry which identifies the request as lower priority than API (and probably decide on queueing + caching too). If your harness makes 10 parallel calls everytime you query, and not manage context as well as claude code, its overwhelming the system, degrading the performance for others too. And if everyone just wants to use subscription and you have no api takers, the price of subscription is not sustainable anyway. In a way you are relying on others' generosity for the cheap usage you get. Its reasonable for a company to unilaterally decide how they monetize their extra capacity, and its not unjustified to care. You are not purchasing the promise of X tokens with a subscription purchase for that you need api.
d4rkp4ttern 9mo ago
This message from the Zed discord (from a zed staffer) puts it clearly, I think: “….you can use Claude code in Zed but you can’t hijack the rate limits to do other ai stuff in zed.” This was a response to my asking whether we can use the Claude Max subscription for the awesome inline assistant (Ctl+Enter in the editor buffer) without having to pay for yet another metered API. The answer is no, the above was a response to a follow up. An aside - everyone is abuzz about “Chat to Code” which is a great interface when you are leaning toward never or only occasionally looking at the generated code. But for writing prose? It’s safe to say most people definitely want to be looking at what’s written, and in this case “chat” is not the best interaction. Something like the inline assistant where you are immersed in the writing is far better.
- theshrike79 9mo ago
  Art (prose, images, videos) is very different from code when discussing AI Agents. Code can be objectively checked with automated tools to be correct/incorrect. Art is always subjective.
  - d4rkp4ttern 9mo ago
    Indeed, great way to put it
- dathinab 9mo ago
  yeah, but no, I mean they could have put _exactly_ that into their terms of service. Hijacking rate limits is also never really legal AFIK.
dev_l1x_be 9mo ago
This whole situation is getting out of hand. With the development speed AI has it is a matter of time to have a competitor that has 80% what CC does and it is going to be good enough for most of us. Trying Windows the way into this category by Anthropic is not the smartest move.
- behnamoh 9mo ago
  > that has 80% what CC does OpenCode already does 120% of what CC does.
  - falloutx 9mo ago
    I absolutely love the amount of control opencode gives me. And ability to use Codex, Qwen and Gemini models gives it a massive advantage over Claude Code.
  - Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
    OpenCode's amazing. I sometimes use it when I want an agent where I dont want to sign up or anything. It can just work without any sign up, just npx opencode (or any valid like pnpx,bunx etc.) I don't pay for any AI subscription. I just end up building single file applications but they might not be that good sometimes so I did this experiment where I ask gemini in aistudio or chatgpt or claude and get files and end up just pasting it in opencode and asking it to build the file structure and paste it in and everything If your project includes setting up something say sveltekit or any boilerplate project and contains many many files I recommend this workflow to get the best of both worlds for essentially free To be really honest, I just end up mostly creating single page main.go files for my use cases from the website directly and I really love them a lot. Sure the code understandability takes a bit of hit but my projects usually stay around ~600 to 1000 at max 2000 lines and I really love this workflow/ for me personally, its just one of the best. When I try AI agents, they really end up creating 25 files or 50 files and end up overarchitecting. I use AI for prototypes purposes for the most part and that overarchitecture actually hurts. Mostly I just create software for my own use cases though. Whenever I face any problem that I find remotely interesting that impacts me, I try to do this and this trend has worked remarkably well for me for 0 dollars spent.
zkmon 9mo ago
We sell you our hammer, but you are prohibited from using it to make your own hammer?
ChrisArchitect 9mo ago
Related: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46549823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46549823
wilg 9mo ago
Can anyone read? The text doesn't mention Claude Code or anything like it at all. I swear to god everyone is spoiling for a fight because they're bored. All these AI companies have this language to try to prevent people from "distilling" their model into other models. They probably wrote this before even making Claude Code. Worst case scenario they cancel your account if they really want to, but almost certainly they'll just tweak the language once people point it out.
jimmydoe 9mo ago
I still did not get very clearly what can and can’t zed, open code and other do to use max plan? Developers want to use these 3p client and pay you 200 a month, why are you pissing us off. I understand some abuser exists but you will never really be possible to ban them 100%, technically. Very poor communication, despite some bit of reasonable intention, could be the beginning of the end for Claude Code.
- behnamoh 9mo ago
  Honestly I think Claude Code enjoyed an "accidental" success much like ChatGPT; Anthropic engineers have said they never though this thing could catch on. But being first doesn't mean you're necessarily the best. Not to mention, they weren't the first anyway (aider was).
  - BoorishBears 9mo ago
    I'm building a product on the Claude Agent SDK, and it is the best in a specific way. Codex and Open Code are competition for coding, but if we talk about an open-ended agentic harness for doing useful work... well it was bad enough a year ago I'd consider anyone even claiming one exists to be a grifter and now we have one. And while being first might not matter, I think having both post-training and the harness being developed under the same roof is going to be hard to beat.
- gbear605 9mo ago
  > Developers want to use these 3p client and pay you 200 a month, why are you pissing us off Presumably because it costs them more than $200 per month to sell you it. It's a loss leader to get you into their ecosystem. If you won't use their ecosystem, they'd rather you just go over to OpenAI.
- dathinab 9mo ago
  my guess? they lose money on 200/month plan, maybe even quite a bit. So that plan only exist to subsidize their editor. Could be about the typical "all must be under our control" power fantasies companies have. But if there really is "no moat" and open model will be competitive just in a matter of time then having "the" coding editor might be majorly relevant for driving sales. Ironically they seem to already have kind lost that if what some people say about ClaudeCode vs. OpenCode is true...
nnutter 9mo ago
Anthropic showed their true colors with their sloppy switch to using Claude Code for training data. They can absolutely do what they want but they have completely destroyed any reason for me to consider them fundamentally better than their competitors.
otikik 9mo ago
Behold the "Democratization of software development".
mmaunder 9mo ago
Imagine a world where Google has its product shit together and didn’t publish the AIAYN paper, and has the monopoly on LLMs and they are a black box to all outsiders. It’s terrifying. Thankfully we have extreme competition in the space to mitigate anything like this. Let’s hope it stays that way.
pnathan 9mo ago
I am _much_ more interested in i. building cool software for other things and ii. understanding underlying underlying models than building "better claude code".
- kurtis_reed 9mo ago
  Ok
- falloutx 9mo ago
  if its so easy make software, why wouldnt you also make a claude code?
Yizahi 9mo ago
The corporate hypocrisy is reaching previously unseen levels. Ultra-wealthy thieves who got rich upon stealing a dragon horde worth of property are now crying foul about people following the same "ideals". What an absolute snowflakes. LLM sector is the only one where I'm rooting for Chinese corporations trouncing the incumbents, thus demonstrating FAFO principle in practice.
mmaunder 9mo ago
One day all programs will belong to the AI that made them, which was trained in a time before we forgot how to program.
insin 9mo ago
Claude Code, make a Claude Code competitor. Make no mistakes.
bastawhiz 9mo ago
I think this is kind of a nothingburger. This reads like a standard clause in any services contract. I also cannot (without a license): 1. Pay for a stock photo library and train an image model with it that I then sell. 2. Use a spam detection service, train a model on its output, then sell that model as a competitor. 3. Hire a voice actor to read some copy, train a text to speech model on their voice, then sell that model. This doesn't mean you can't tell Claude "hey, build me a Claude Code competitor". I don't even think they care about the CLI. It means I can't ask Claude to build things, then train a new LLM based on what Claude built. Claude can't be your training data. There's an argument to be made that Anthropic didn't obtain their training material in an ethical way so why should you respect their intellectual property? The difference, in my opinion, is that Anthropic didn't agree to a terms of use on their training data. I don't think that makes it right, necessarily, but there's a big difference between "I bought a book, scanned it, learned its facts, then shredded the book" and "I agreed to your ToS then violated it by paying for output that I then used to clone the exact behavior of the service."
- Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
  > I don't even think they care about the CLI No they actually do, basically they provide claude code subscription model for 200$ which is a loss making leader and you can realistically get value of even around 300-400$ per month or even more (close to 1000$) if you were using API So why do they bear the loss, I hear you ask? Because it acts as a marketing expensive for them. They get so much free advertising in sense from claude code and claude code is still closed source and they enforce a lot of restrictions which other mention (sometimes even downstream) and I have seen efforts of running other models on top of claude but its not first class citizen and there is still some lock-in On the other hand, something like opencode is really perfect and has no lock-in and is absolutely goated. Now those guys and others had created a way that they could also use the claude subscription itself via some methods and I think you were able to just use OAuth sign up and that's about it. Now it all goes great except for anthropic because the only reason Anthropic did this was because they wanted to get marketing campaign/lock-in which OpenCode and others just stopped, thus they came and did this. opencode also prevented any lockins and it has the ability to swap models really easily which many really like and thus removing dependence on claude as a lock-in as well I really hate this behaviour and I think this is really really monopolistic behaviour from Anthropic when one comes to think about it. Theo's video might help in this context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh6aFBnwQj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh6aFBnwQj4 (Anthropic just burned so much trust...)
throwaw12 9mo ago
Doesn't this make using Claude Agents SDK dangerous? Suppose I wrote custom agent which performs tasks for a niche industry, wouldn't it be considered as "building a competing service", because their Service is performing Agentic tasks via Claude Code
slowmovintarget 9mo ago
"You are not allowed to use words found in our book to write your own book if you read our book." Anthropic has just entered the "for laying down and avoiding" category.
throw1235435 9mo ago
Software dev's training the model with their code making themselves obsolete is encouraged not banned. Claude code making itself obsolete is banned.
Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
This is highly monopolistic action in my opinion from Anthropic which actively feel the most hostile towards developers. This really shouldn't be the direction Anthropic should even go about. It is such a negative direction to go through and they could've instead tried to cooperate with the large open source agents and talking with them/communicating but they decide to do this which in the developer community is met with criticism and rightfully so.
newaccount1000 9mo ago
does OpenAI have the same restriction?
oxag3n 9mo ago
What happens if there's a pull request and it was generated using Claude Code? Can they sue maintainers?
FpUser 9mo ago
First they've raided all the content (I do not consider this bad), now they want to set terms? Well go fuck yourselves.
sharat87 9mo ago
I'm taking this more as a "pricing" change. Like, if you pay 200$ then you can use inference only in these limited scopes. If you want more unrestricted access to inference, use the API token pricing. Which, seems fine? They could've just not offered the 200$ plan and perhaps nobody would've complained. They tried it, noticed it being unsustainable, so they're trying to remodel it to it _is_ sustainable. I think the upset is misplaced. :shrug:
afinlayson 9mo ago
If you are old enough - feels a little like the bitkeeper/git situation
Footprint0521 9mo ago
Lol I used codex to reverse engineer itself to farm the oauth and even made it OpenAI API compatible
pjmlp 9mo ago
I still remember the backslash Borland got when they had the clever idea to forbid writing compilers with Borland C++, and naturally had to rollback from. Some people never learn from history, it seems.
- viraptor 9mo ago
  "no, it never works for those people... But it may work for us!"
lobito25 9mo ago
Claude code quality degradation is currently the worst I've ever seen.
- viraptor 9mo ago
  This idea comes around every few months, but nobody can document it in tests (apart from the actually broken services that get fixed in a couple of days). Have you got repeatable cases where it can be shown?
  - deaux 9mo ago
    I've had a 100% benchable case in the past, though it wasn't really a degradation in terms of output quality per se, it was (an undocumented and unacknowledged) permanent degradation in maximum output length. From one day to the next, 100% of prompts where we'd ask for e.g. 15 sections, would only do 10 sections and then ask "Would you like me to continue?". Which is in a way quality, but generally not something that shows up on coding benches and the likes. This was Anthropic. Also seen a 2-week latency 10+ times increase of Gemini 2.5 Flash finetuned (= enterprise) model endpoints, again undocumented and unacknowledged, because they shifted all of their GPU capacity towards going "viral" on people generating slop artwork around Nano Banana Pro release. So plenty of silent shenanigans do happen, including by the Big 3 on API endpoints. At the same time I agree with you that all those rumors of "degradation in code quality" are very much unproven.
    - ewoodrich 9mo ago
      > prompts where we'd ask for e.g. 15 sections, would only do 10 sections and then ask "Would you like me to continue?". I can’t speak to any kind of identifiable pattern but man that behavior drives me up the wall when it happens. When I run into a specific task that starts to trigger that behavior, even a clean session with explicit instructions directing it to complete ALL sub steps isn’t enough to push it to finish the entire request to the end.
Centigonal 9mo ago
It seems like Anthropic is taking the Apple approach to these apps. Apple made it hard to mod their hardware, or run other OSs on the hardware, or run their OS on other hardware, or use other app stores on their phones. Basically, they want to make it so that you buy into the Apple stack with one or two all-or-nothing decisions, with very little room for mixing and matching. Not a very hacker-friendly strategy, but Apple's market cap is pretty big. I think it comes down to whether Anthropic can make a product with enough of a lead over competitors to offset the restrictions.
PeterStuer 9mo ago
If I remember correctly back in the day the EULA on Visual Studio components also dissalowed development of competitors to Microsoft (office) products.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
hthrgnr1 9mo ago
[dead]

321 points by behnamoh 9mo ago

orochimaaru 9mo ago

Is this targeted at cursor?

whimsicalism 9mo ago
the controversy is related to the recent opencode bans (for using claude code oauth to access Max rather than API) and also Anthropic recently turning off access to claude for xAI researchers (which was mostly through Cursor)

akomtu 9mo ago

AI is built by violating all rules and moral codes. Now they want rules and moral code to protect them.

nerdponx 9mo ago
Might makes right.
mystraline 9mo ago
You're just now learning about corporate capitalism? Its always been socialize the losses, and capitalize the gains. And all the while, legislating rules to block upstart companies. Its never ever been "fair". He who has the most gold makes the rules.
- hsaliak 9mo ago
  Does it follow then, that we should socialize our losses and ignore their TOS? It looks like yet again - fortune favors those who ask forgiveness later.
- nerdponx 9mo ago
  This is extra ridiculous even for "capitalism". It would be like if Carnegie Steel somehow could have prohibited people from buying their steel in order to build a steel mill. And moreover in this case the entire industry as it exists today wouldn't exist without massive copyright infringement, so it's double-extra ironic because Anthropic came into existence in order to make money off of breaking other people's rules, and now they want to set up their own rules.

Lars147 9mo ago

Xcancel Link: https://xcancel.com/SIGKITTEN/status/2009697031422652461 https://xcancel.com/SIGKITTEN/status/2009697031422652461

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

starkeeper 9mo ago

[flagged]

whimsicalism 9mo ago
For chats, unless you explicitly disable it they absolutely are. Otherwise, these companies do have auditors.
gpm 9mo ago
Where the TOS allows them to, I would assume they are (and they aren't trade secrets anymore since reasonable measures weren't taken to protect them). Where the TOS forbids them from doing so - I'd generally assume the reputational risk is not worth the marginal value that could be extracted from the IP and trade secrets. Especially for companies with huge other businesses like Google. I'd worry more about Anthropic and OpenAI just because there's not this other huge billion dollar business that relies on trust. If I had trade secrets worth billions where money could easily be extracted from them (I'm thinking something like a hedgefunds current trading strategy) the trust wouldn't extend that far even for Google. I also find OpenAI's past business dealings suspect (with regards to effectively stealing value from the public non-profit and transferring it into a privately owned company) which makes me trust them less than Anthropic. I'd assume the NSA has access to anything they are interested in that you send to a US company.
bink 9mo ago
Their contracts prohibit it for certain classes of users, but if you're really worried about it Anthropic also offers a "bring your own cloud" version where the data supposedly never leaves your infrastructure.
nerdponx 9mo ago
I think the concern for the AI companies is that they're going to get sued into oblivion if they ever get found out. The bigger concern is not the AI companies doing it themselves, but insiders finding it in the chat logs and selling it on the black market. They're definitely going to monetize personal accounts with targeted advertising though. Nothing is stopping "ChatGPT Suggested" (i.e. sponsored) links in chat replies.

zingar 9mo ago

Is this a standard tech ToU item? Is this them saying that their human developers don’t add much to their product beyond what the AI does for them?

oblio 9mo ago
Imagine if Visual Studio said "you can't use VS to build another IDE".
- FootballMuse 9mo ago
  Imagine if Visual Studio said "you can't use VS to build any product or service which may compete with a Microsoft product or service"

ctoth 9mo ago

I was all set to be pissed off, "you can't tell me what I can make with your product once you've sold it to me!" but no... This outrage bait hinges on the definition of "use" You can use Claude Code to write code to make a competitor for Claude Code. What you cannot do is reverse engineer the way the Claude Code harness uses the API to build your own version that taps into stuff like the max plan. Which? makes sense? From the thread: > A good rule of thumb is, are you launching a Claude code oauth screen and capturing the token. That is against terms of service.

whimsicalism 9mo ago
under the ToS, no - you cannot use claude code to make a competitor to claude code. but you’re right that that appears to mostly be unenforced. that said, it is absolutely being enforced against other big model labs who are mostly banned from using claude.
tcdent 9mo ago
This whole thing got blown out of proportion because the devs of third party harnesses that use the oauth API never disclosed that they were already actively sidestepping what is a very obvious message that the oauth API is for Claude Code only. What changed recently is that they added more restrictions for the shape of the payloads it accepts, not that they just started adding restrictions for the first time. TLDR You cannot reverse engineer the oauth API without encountering this message: https://tcdent-pub.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cc_oauth_api_error.png https://tcdent-pub.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cc_oauth_api_e...
- BoorishBears 9mo ago
  There's also a meta aspect here, where the leading third party harness in this discussion is run someone who's chronically steeped in Twitter drama and is definitely not rushing to put this to bed. Add in various 2nd/3rd place players (Codex and Copilot) with employees openly using their personal accounts to cash in on the situation and there's a lot of amplification going on here.
zzzeek 9mo ago

falloutx 9mo ago

Opencode is much better anyway and it doesnt change its workflow every couple weeks.

whimsicalism 9mo ago
i find cursor cli significantly better than opencode right now, unfortunately. e: for those downvoting, i would earnestly like to hear your thoughts. i want opencode and similar solutions to win.
fgonzag 9mo ago
Yeah, honestly this is a bad move on anthropic's part. I don't think their moat is as big as they think it is. They are competing against opencode + ACP + every other model out there, and there are quite a few good ones (even open weight ones). Opus might be currently the best model out there, and CC might be the best tool out of the commercial alternatives, but once someone switches to open code + multiple model providers depending on the task, they are going to have difficulty winning them back considering pricing and their locked down ecosystem. I went from max 20x and chatgpt pro to Claude pro and chat gpt plus + open router providers, and I have now cancelled Claude pro and gpt plus, keeping only Gemini pro (super cheap) and using open router models + a local ai workstation I built using minimax m2.1 and glam 4.7. I use Gemini as the planner and my local models as the churners. Works great, the local models might not be as good as opus 4.5 or sonnet 4.7, but they are consistent which is something I had been missing with all commercial providers.
- whimsicalism 9mo ago
  disagree. it is much better for anthropic to bundle than to become 'just another model provider' to opencode/other routers. as a consumer, i do absolutely prefer the latter model - but i don't think that is the position I would want to be in if I were anthropic.
  - behnamoh 9mo ago
    Nah, Anthropic thinks they have a moat; this is classic Apple move, but they ain't Apple.

mcintyre1994 9mo ago

https://xcancel.com/SIGKITTEN/status/2009697031422652461 https://xcancel.com/SIGKITTEN/status/2009697031422652461 This tweet reads as nonsense to me It's quoting: > This is why the supported way to use Claude in your own tools is via the API. We genuinely want people building on Claude, including other coding agents and harnesses, and we know developers have broad preferences for different tool ergonomics. If you're a maintainer of a third-party tool and want to chat about integration paths, my DMs are open. And the linked tweet says that such integration is against their terms. The highlighted term says that you can't use their services to develop a competing product/service. I don't read that as the same as integrating their API into a competing product/service. It does seem to suggest you can't develop a competitor to Claude Code using Claude Code, as the title says, which is a bit silly, but doesn't contradict the linked tweet. I suspect they have this rule to stop people using Claude to train other models, or competitors testing outputs etc, but it is silly in the context of Claude Code.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

narmiouh 9mo ago

I wonder how will this affect future Anthropic products, if prior art/products exist that have already been built using claude. If this is to only limit knowledge distillation for training new models or people Copying claude code specifically or preventing max plan creds used as API replacement, they could properly carve exceptions rather than being too broad which risks turning away new customers for fear of (future) conflict

viraptor 9mo ago
If they think that will work, they're really silly. Is a ToS change going to stop a corp which can gain millions of dollars and can technically work around the protection in hours? Yeah, nah..

miohtama 9mo ago

"We stole the whole Internet, but do not dare to steal us”

ronbenton 9mo ago

This falls under "lmao even" right? Like, come on, the entire business model of most generative AI plays right now hinges on IP theft.

bionhoward 9mo ago

Yup, I’ve been crowing about these customer noncompetes for years now and it’s clear Anthropic has one of the worst ones. The real kicker is, since Claude Code can do anything, you’re technically not allowed to use it for anything, and everyone just depends on Anthropic not being evil

DANmode 9mo ago
Ever get involved in the React-is-Facebook conversation?

llmslave3 9mo ago

I find it slightly ironic that Anthropic benefits from ignoring intellectual property but then tries to enforce it on their competitors. How would they even detect that you used CC on a competitor? There's surely no ethical reason to not do it, it seems unenforceable.

forty 9mo ago
They know everything you do with Claude code since everything goes through their servers
pixl97 9mo ago
This is the modus operandi of every AI company so far. OpenAI hoovered up everything they could to train their model with zero shits about IP law. But the moment other models learned from theirs they started throwing tantrums.
falloutx 9mo ago
they just ask LLM to backdoor report if anyone asks to build something they dont want. Its a massive surveillance issue.

VoxPelli 9mo ago

Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here? I remember when I was part of procuring an analytics tool for a previous employer and they had a similar clause that would essentially have banned us from building any in-house analytics while we were bound by that contract. We didn't sign.

nospice 9mo ago
> Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here? Compilers don't come with terms that prevent you from building competing compilers. IDEs don't prevent you from writing competing IDEs. If coding agents are supposed to be how we do software engineering from now on, yeah, it's pretty bad.
behnamoh 9mo ago
> Sounds like standard terms from lawyers If they were "standard" terms, then how come no other AI provider imposes them?
- hobofan 9mo ago
  Because they approach creating such terms in a different way? e.g. some competitors may consider the chances of it to be enforceable to be 0 and not bother with it at all, while others just didn't bother tweaking the standard boilerplate they got from their lawyers unless needed. Literally the first 4 SaaS companies that came to my mind to check (Atlassian/Jira, Linear, Pipedrive, Stackblitz/Bolt.new) have a similar clause in their TOS.

with 9mo ago

I think there are issues with Anthropic (and their ToS); however, banning the "harnesses" is justified. If you're relying on scraping a web UI or reverse-engineering private APIs to bypass per-token costs, it's just VC subsidy arbitrage. The consumer plan has a different purpose. The ToS is concerning, I have concerns with Anthropic in general, but this policy enforcement is not problematic to me. (yes, I know, Anthropic's entire business is technically built on scraping. but ideally, the open web only)

shmerl 9mo ago

Lol. Next will be, "Replacing our CEOs with AI is banned".

pton_xd 9mo ago

As long as I have a Claude subscription, why do they care what harness I use to access their very profitable token inference business?

arjie 9mo ago
Demand-aggregation allows the aggregator to extract the majority of the value. ChatGPT the app has the biggest presence, and therefore model improvements in Claude will only take you so far. Everyone is terrified of that. Cursor et al. have already demonstrated to model providers that it is possible to become commoditized. Therefore, almost all providers are seeking to push themselves closer to the user. This kind of thing is pretty standard. Nobody wants to be a vendor on someone else's platform. Anthropic would likely not complain too much about you using z.ai in Claude Code. They would prefer that. They would prefer you use gpt-5.2-high in Claude Code. They would prefer you use llama-4-maverick in Claude Code. Because regardless of how profitable inference is, if you're not the closest to the user, you're going to lose sooner or later.
ankit219 9mo ago
Because your subscription depends on the very API business. Anthropic's cogs is rent of buying x amount of h100s. cost of a marginal query for them is almost zero until the batch fills up and they need a new cluster. So, API clusters are usually built for peak load with low utilization (filled batch) at any given time. Given AI's peak demand is extremely spiky they end up with low utilization numbers for API support. Your subscription is supposed to use that free capacity. Hence, the token costs are not that high, hence you could buy that. But it needs careful management that you dont overload the system. There is a claude code telemetry which identifies the request as lower priority than API (and probably decide on queueing + caching too). If your harness makes 10 parallel calls everytime you query, and not manage context as well as claude code, its overwhelming the system, degrading the performance for others too. And if everyone just wants to use subscription and you have no api takers, the price of subscription is not sustainable anyway. In a way you are relying on others' generosity for the cheap usage you get. Its reasonable for a company to unilaterally decide how they monetize their extra capacity, and its not unjustified to care. You are not purchasing the promise of X tokens with a subscription purchase for that you need api.

d4rkp4ttern 9mo ago

This message from the Zed discord (from a zed staffer) puts it clearly, I think: “….you can use Claude code in Zed but you can’t hijack the rate limits to do other ai stuff in zed.” This was a response to my asking whether we can use the Claude Max subscription for the awesome inline assistant (Ctl+Enter in the editor buffer) without having to pay for yet another metered API. The answer is no, the above was a response to a follow up. An aside - everyone is abuzz about “Chat to Code” which is a great interface when you are leaning toward never or only occasionally looking at the generated code. But for writing prose? It’s safe to say most people definitely want to be looking at what’s written, and in this case “chat” is not the best interaction. Something like the inline assistant where you are immersed in the writing is far better.

theshrike79 9mo ago
Art (prose, images, videos) is very different from code when discussing AI Agents. Code can be objectively checked with automated tools to be correct/incorrect. Art is always subjective.
- d4rkp4ttern 9mo ago
  Indeed, great way to put it
dathinab 9mo ago
yeah, but no, I mean they could have put _exactly_ that into their terms of service. Hijacking rate limits is also never really legal AFIK.

dev_l1x_be 9mo ago

This whole situation is getting out of hand. With the development speed AI has it is a matter of time to have a competitor that has 80% what CC does and it is going to be good enough for most of us. Trying Windows the way into this category by Anthropic is not the smartest move.

behnamoh 9mo ago
> that has 80% what CC does OpenCode already does 120% of what CC does.
- falloutx 9mo ago
  I absolutely love the amount of control opencode gives me. And ability to use Codex, Qwen and Gemini models gives it a massive advantage over Claude Code.
- Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
  OpenCode's amazing. I sometimes use it when I want an agent where I dont want to sign up or anything. It can just work without any sign up, just npx opencode (or any valid like pnpx,bunx etc.) I don't pay for any AI subscription. I just end up building single file applications but they might not be that good sometimes so I did this experiment where I ask gemini in aistudio or chatgpt or claude and get files and end up just pasting it in opencode and asking it to build the file structure and paste it in and everything If your project includes setting up something say sveltekit or any boilerplate project and contains many many files I recommend this workflow to get the best of both worlds for essentially free To be really honest, I just end up mostly creating single page main.go files for my use cases from the website directly and I really love them a lot. Sure the code understandability takes a bit of hit but my projects usually stay around ~600 to 1000 at max 2000 lines and I really love this workflow/ for me personally, its just one of the best. When I try AI agents, they really end up creating 25 files or 50 files and end up overarchitecting. I use AI for prototypes purposes for the most part and that overarchitecture actually hurts. Mostly I just create software for my own use cases though. Whenever I face any problem that I find remotely interesting that impacts me, I try to do this and this trend has worked remarkably well for me for 0 dollars spent.

zkmon 9mo ago

We sell you our hammer, but you are prohibited from using it to make your own hammer?

ChrisArchitect 9mo ago

Related: Anthropic blocks third-party use of Claude Code subscriptions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46549823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46549823

wilg 9mo ago

Can anyone read? The text doesn't mention Claude Code or anything like it at all. I swear to god everyone is spoiling for a fight because they're bored. All these AI companies have this language to try to prevent people from "distilling" their model into other models. They probably wrote this before even making Claude Code. Worst case scenario they cancel your account if they really want to, but almost certainly they'll just tweak the language once people point it out.

jimmydoe 9mo ago

I still did not get very clearly what can and can’t zed, open code and other do to use max plan? Developers want to use these 3p client and pay you 200 a month, why are you pissing us off. I understand some abuser exists but you will never really be possible to ban them 100%, technically. Very poor communication, despite some bit of reasonable intention, could be the beginning of the end for Claude Code.

behnamoh 9mo ago
Honestly I think Claude Code enjoyed an "accidental" success much like ChatGPT; Anthropic engineers have said they never though this thing could catch on. But being first doesn't mean you're necessarily the best. Not to mention, they weren't the first anyway (aider was).
- BoorishBears 9mo ago
  I'm building a product on the Claude Agent SDK, and it is the best in a specific way. Codex and Open Code are competition for coding, but if we talk about an open-ended agentic harness for doing useful work... well it was bad enough a year ago I'd consider anyone even claiming one exists to be a grifter and now we have one. And while being first might not matter, I think having both post-training and the harness being developed under the same roof is going to be hard to beat.
gbear605 9mo ago
> Developers want to use these 3p client and pay you 200 a month, why are you pissing us off Presumably because it costs them more than $200 per month to sell you it. It's a loss leader to get you into their ecosystem. If you won't use their ecosystem, they'd rather you just go over to OpenAI.
dathinab 9mo ago
my guess? they lose money on 200/month plan, maybe even quite a bit. So that plan only exist to subsidize their editor. Could be about the typical "all must be under our control" power fantasies companies have. But if there really is "no moat" and open model will be competitive just in a matter of time then having "the" coding editor might be majorly relevant for driving sales. Ironically they seem to already have kind lost that if what some people say about ClaudeCode vs. OpenCode is true...

nnutter 9mo ago

Anthropic showed their true colors with their sloppy switch to using Claude Code for training data. They can absolutely do what they want but they have completely destroyed any reason for me to consider them fundamentally better than their competitors.

otikik 9mo ago

Behold the "Democratization of software development".

mmaunder 9mo ago

Imagine a world where Google has its product shit together and didn’t publish the AIAYN paper, and has the monopoly on LLMs and they are a black box to all outsiders. It’s terrifying. Thankfully we have extreme competition in the space to mitigate anything like this. Let’s hope it stays that way.

pnathan 9mo ago

I am _much_ more interested in i. building cool software for other things and ii. understanding underlying underlying models than building "better claude code".

kurtis_reed 9mo ago
Ok
falloutx 9mo ago
if its so easy make software, why wouldnt you also make a claude code?

Yizahi 9mo ago

The corporate hypocrisy is reaching previously unseen levels. Ultra-wealthy thieves who got rich upon stealing a dragon horde worth of property are now crying foul about people following the same "ideals". What an absolute snowflakes. LLM sector is the only one where I'm rooting for Chinese corporations trouncing the incumbents, thus demonstrating FAFO principle in practice.

mmaunder 9mo ago

One day all programs will belong to the AI that made them, which was trained in a time before we forgot how to program.

insin 9mo ago

Claude Code, make a Claude Code competitor. Make no mistakes.

bastawhiz 9mo ago

I think this is kind of a nothingburger. This reads like a standard clause in any services contract. I also cannot (without a license): 1. Pay for a stock photo library and train an image model with it that I then sell. 2. Use a spam detection service, train a model on its output, then sell that model as a competitor. 3. Hire a voice actor to read some copy, train a text to speech model on their voice, then sell that model. This doesn't mean you can't tell Claude "hey, build me a Claude Code competitor". I don't even think they care about the CLI. It means I can't ask Claude to build things, then train a new LLM based on what Claude built. Claude can't be your training data. There's an argument to be made that Anthropic didn't obtain their training material in an ethical way so why should you respect their intellectual property? The difference, in my opinion, is that Anthropic didn't agree to a terms of use on their training data. I don't think that makes it right, necessarily, but there's a big difference between "I bought a book, scanned it, learned its facts, then shredded the book" and "I agreed to your ToS then violated it by paying for output that I then used to clone the exact behavior of the service."

Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
> I don't even think they care about the CLI No they actually do, basically they provide claude code subscription model for 200$ which is a loss making leader and you can realistically get value of even around 300-400$ per month or even more (close to 1000$) if you were using API So why do they bear the loss, I hear you ask? Because it acts as a marketing expensive for them. They get so much free advertising in sense from claude code and claude code is still closed source and they enforce a lot of restrictions which other mention (sometimes even downstream) and I have seen efforts of running other models on top of claude but its not first class citizen and there is still some lock-in On the other hand, something like opencode is really perfect and has no lock-in and is absolutely goated. Now those guys and others had created a way that they could also use the claude subscription itself via some methods and I think you were able to just use OAuth sign up and that's about it. Now it all goes great except for anthropic because the only reason Anthropic did this was because they wanted to get marketing campaign/lock-in which OpenCode and others just stopped, thus they came and did this. opencode also prevented any lockins and it has the ability to swap models really easily which many really like and thus removing dependence on claude as a lock-in as well I really hate this behaviour and I think this is really really monopolistic behaviour from Anthropic when one comes to think about it. Theo's video might help in this context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh6aFBnwQj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh6aFBnwQj4 (Anthropic just burned so much trust...)

throwaw12 9mo ago

Doesn't this make using Claude Agents SDK dangerous? Suppose I wrote custom agent which performs tasks for a niche industry, wouldn't it be considered as "building a competing service", because their Service is performing Agentic tasks via Claude Code

slowmovintarget 9mo ago

"You are not allowed to use words found in our book to write your own book if you read our book." Anthropic has just entered the "for laying down and avoiding" category.

throw1235435 9mo ago

Software dev's training the model with their code making themselves obsolete is encouraged not banned. Claude code making itself obsolete is banned.

Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago

This is highly monopolistic action in my opinion from Anthropic which actively feel the most hostile towards developers. This really shouldn't be the direction Anthropic should even go about. It is such a negative direction to go through and they could've instead tried to cooperate with the large open source agents and talking with them/communicating but they decide to do this which in the developer community is met with criticism and rightfully so.

newaccount1000 9mo ago

does OpenAI have the same restriction?

oxag3n 9mo ago

What happens if there's a pull request and it was generated using Claude Code? Can they sue maintainers?

FpUser 9mo ago

First they've raided all the content (I do not consider this bad), now they want to set terms? Well go fuck yourselves.

sharat87 9mo ago

I'm taking this more as a "pricing" change. Like, if you pay 200$ then you can use inference only in these limited scopes. If you want more unrestricted access to inference, use the API token pricing. Which, seems fine? They could've just not offered the 200$ plan and perhaps nobody would've complained. They tried it, noticed it being unsustainable, so they're trying to remodel it to it _is_ sustainable. I think the upset is misplaced. :shrug:

afinlayson 9mo ago

If you are old enough - feels a little like the bitkeeper/git situation

Footprint0521 9mo ago

Lol I used codex to reverse engineer itself to farm the oauth and even made it OpenAI API compatible

pjmlp 9mo ago

I still remember the backslash Borland got when they had the clever idea to forbid writing compilers with Borland C++, and naturally had to rollback from. Some people never learn from history, it seems.

viraptor 9mo ago
"no, it never works for those people... But it may work for us!"

lobito25 9mo ago

Claude code quality degradation is currently the worst I've ever seen.

viraptor 9mo ago
This idea comes around every few months, but nobody can document it in tests (apart from the actually broken services that get fixed in a couple of days). Have you got repeatable cases where it can be shown?
- deaux 9mo ago
  I've had a 100% benchable case in the past, though it wasn't really a degradation in terms of output quality per se, it was (an undocumented and unacknowledged) permanent degradation in maximum output length. From one day to the next, 100% of prompts where we'd ask for e.g. 15 sections, would only do 10 sections and then ask "Would you like me to continue?". Which is in a way quality, but generally not something that shows up on coding benches and the likes. This was Anthropic. Also seen a 2-week latency 10+ times increase of Gemini 2.5 Flash finetuned (= enterprise) model endpoints, again undocumented and unacknowledged, because they shifted all of their GPU capacity towards going "viral" on people generating slop artwork around Nano Banana Pro release. So plenty of silent shenanigans do happen, including by the Big 3 on API endpoints. At the same time I agree with you that all those rumors of "degradation in code quality" are very much unproven.
  - ewoodrich 9mo ago
    > prompts where we'd ask for e.g. 15 sections, would only do 10 sections and then ask "Would you like me to continue?". I can’t speak to any kind of identifiable pattern but man that behavior drives me up the wall when it happens. When I run into a specific task that starts to trigger that behavior, even a clean session with explicit instructions directing it to complete ALL sub steps isn’t enough to push it to finish the entire request to the end.

Centigonal 9mo ago

It seems like Anthropic is taking the Apple approach to these apps. Apple made it hard to mod their hardware, or run other OSs on the hardware, or run their OS on other hardware, or use other app stores on their phones. Basically, they want to make it so that you buy into the Apple stack with one or two all-or-nothing decisions, with very little room for mixing and matching. Not a very hacker-friendly strategy, but Apple's market cap is pretty big. I think it comes down to whether Anthropic can make a product with enough of a lead over competitors to offset the restrictions.

PeterStuer 9mo ago

If I remember correctly back in the day the EULA on Visual Studio components also dissalowed development of competitors to Microsoft (office) products.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

hthrgnr1 9mo ago

[dead]