4 ms·

Is there compensation for the tokens because Claude wasted all of them?

by samlinnfer 8mo ago

jonplackett 8mo ago
So quiet…
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
TZubiri 8mo ago
It is possible that degradation is an unconscious emergent phenomenon that arises from financial incentives, rather than a purposeful degradation to reduce costs.
gizmodo59 8mo ago
Codex seems to give compensation tokens whenever this happens! Hope Claude gives too.
mathrawka 8mo ago
You are funny. Anthropic refuses to issue refunds, even when they break things. I had an API token set via an env var on my shell, and claude code changed to read that env var. I had a $10 limit set on it, so found out it was using the API, instead of my subscription, when it stopped working. I filed a ticket and they refused to refund me, even though it was a breaking change with claude code.
- TOMDM 8mo ago
  Anthropic just reduced the price of the team plan and refunded us on the prior invoice. YMMV
  - MichaelZuo 8mo ago
    So they have no durable principles for deciding who or what to refund… doesnt that make them look even worse…?
    - necovek 8mo ago
      Or they do, and two sentences from two different experiences don't tell a full story?
      - MichaelZuo 8mo ago
        Okay “they do” based on what more compelling evidence? Its not like the credibility of the two prior HN users are literally zero…
        necovek 8mo ago
        I am saying there is no evidence either way: they had contrasting experiences and one GP established this means that company has no standardized policies. Maybe they do, maybe they don't — I don't think we can definitively conclude anything.
        MichaelZuo 8mo ago
        So if you acknowledge the prior claims have more than literally zero credibility… then what’s the issue? That I dont equally weigh them with all possible yet-to-be claimed things?
        necovek 8mo ago
        I object to your conclusion that "they have no durable principles": not sure how do you get to that from two different experiences documented with a single paragraph.
        MichaelZuo 8mo ago
        Because I can assess things via probability… without needing 100% certain proof either way?
        necovek 8mo ago
mvandermeulen 8mo ago
You’re lucky they have even admitted a problem instead of remaining silent and quietly fixing it. Do not expect ethical behaviour from this company.
- port11 8mo ago
  Why not, can you expand? Asking because I’m considering Claude due to the sandbox feature.
  - caspar 8mo ago
    FYI the sandbox feature is not fully baked and does not seem to be high priority. For example, for the last 3 weeks using the sandbox on Linux will almost-always litter your repo root with a bunch of write-protected trash files[0] - there are 2 PRs open to fix it, but Anthropic employees have so far entirely ignored both the issue and the PRs. Very frustrating, since models sometimes accidentally commit those files, so you have to add a bunch of junk to your gitignore. And with claude code being closed source and distributed as a bun standalone executable it's difficult to patch the bug yourself. [0]: https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/sandbox-runtime/issues/85 https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/sandbox-runtime/is...
    - port11 8mo ago
      Hmm, very good point indeed. So far it’s behaved, but I also admit I wasn’t crazy about the outputs it gave me. We’ll see, Anthropic should probably think about their reputation if these issues are common enough.

Is there compensation for the tokens because Claude wasted all of them?

jonplackett 8mo ago

So quiet…

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

TZubiri 8mo ago

It is possible that degradation is an unconscious emergent phenomenon that arises from financial incentives, rather than a purposeful degradation to reduce costs.

gizmodo59 8mo ago

Codex seems to give compensation tokens whenever this happens! Hope Claude gives too.

mathrawka 8mo ago

You are funny. Anthropic refuses to issue refunds, even when they break things. I had an API token set via an env var on my shell, and claude code changed to read that env var. I had a $10 limit set on it, so found out it was using the API, instead of my subscription, when it stopped working. I filed a ticket and they refused to refund me, even though it was a breaking change with claude code.

TOMDM 8mo ago
Anthropic just reduced the price of the team plan and refunded us on the prior invoice. YMMV
- MichaelZuo 8mo ago
  So they have no durable principles for deciding who or what to refund… doesnt that make them look even worse…?
  - necovek 8mo ago
    Or they do, and two sentences from two different experiences don't tell a full story?
    - MichaelZuo 8mo ago
      Okay “they do” based on what more compelling evidence? Its not like the credibility of the two prior HN users are literally zero…
      - necovek 8mo ago
        I am saying there is no evidence either way: they had contrasting experiences and one GP established this means that company has no standardized policies. Maybe they do, maybe they don't — I don't think we can definitively conclude anything.
        MichaelZuo 8mo ago
        So if you acknowledge the prior claims have more than literally zero credibility… then what’s the issue? That I dont equally weigh them with all possible yet-to-be claimed things?
        necovek 8mo ago
        I object to your conclusion that "they have no durable principles": not sure how do you get to that from two different experiences documented with a single paragraph.
        MichaelZuo 8mo ago
        Because I can assess things via probability… without needing 100% certain proof either way?
        necovek 8mo ago

mvandermeulen 8mo ago

You’re lucky they have even admitted a problem instead of remaining silent and quietly fixing it. Do not expect ethical behaviour from this company.

port11 8mo ago
Why not, can you expand? Asking because I’m considering Claude due to the sandbox feature.
- caspar 8mo ago
  FYI the sandbox feature is not fully baked and does not seem to be high priority. For example, for the last 3 weeks using the sandbox on Linux will almost-always litter your repo root with a bunch of write-protected trash files[0] - there are 2 PRs open to fix it, but Anthropic employees have so far entirely ignored both the issue and the PRs. Very frustrating, since models sometimes accidentally commit those files, so you have to add a bunch of junk to your gitignore. And with claude code being closed source and distributed as a bun standalone executable it's difficult to patch the bug yourself. [0]: https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/sandbox-runtime/issues/85 https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/sandbox-runtime/is...
  - port11 8mo ago
    Hmm, very good point indeed. So far it’s behaved, but I also admit I wasn’t crazy about the outputs it gave me. We’ll see, Anthropic should probably think about their reputation if these issues are common enough.