3 ms·

It released in February 2026.

by toomim 6mo ago

ACCount37 6mo ago
[flagged]
- Der_Einzige 6mo ago
  This but unironically. "I reject your reality, and substitute my own". It worked for cheeto in chief, and it worked for Elon, so why not do it in our normal daily lives?
- MattSayar 6mo ago
  I recognize the sarcasm. The data I can find says it's performing at baseline however? https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/ https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/
  - ACCount37 6mo ago
    Yeah, that's my point. Humans are not reliable LLM evaluators. "Secret model nerfs" happen in "vibes" far more often than they do in any reality.
hxugufjfjf 6mo ago
I don’t think I’ve ever seen otherwise reasonable people go completely unhinged over anything like they do with Opus
- solenoid0937 6mo ago
  I've seen a similar psychological phenomenon where people like something a lot, and then they get unreasonably angry and vocal about changes to that thing. Usage limits are necessary but I guess people expect more subsidized inference than the company can afford. So they make very angry comments online. For example, there is no evidence that 4.6 ever degraded in quality: https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code-historical-performance/ https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code-historical-perform...
  - Capricorn2481 6mo ago
    > Usage limits are necessary but I guess people expect more subsidized inference than the company can afford. So they make very angry comments online This is reductive. You're both calling people unreasonably angry but then acknowledging there's a limit in compute that is a practical reality for Anthropic. This isn't that hard. They have two choices, rate limit, or silently degrade to save compute. I have never hit a rate limit, but I have seen it get noticeably stupider. It doesn't make me angry, but comments like these are a bit annoying to read, because you are trying to make people sound delusional while, at the same time, confirming everything they're saying. I don't think they have turned a big knob that makes it stupider for everyone. I think they can see when a user is overtapping their $20 plan and silently degrade them. Because there's no alert for that. Which is why AI benchmark sites are irrelevant.
    - scrawl 6mo ago
      just my perspective: i pay $20/month and i hit usage limits regularly. have never experienced performance degradation. in fact i have been very happy with performance lately. my experience has never matched that of those saying model has been intentionally degraded. have been using claude a long time now (3 years). i do find usage limits frustrating. should prob fork out more...
- unethical_ban 6mo ago
  That's what I thought today reading the comments in the Mozilla Thunderbolt thread today. Something about Mozilla absolutely sets people off.

It released in February 2026.

by toomim 6mo ago

It released in February 2026.

ACCount37 6mo ago

[flagged]

Der_Einzige 6mo ago
This but unironically. "I reject your reality, and substitute my own". It worked for cheeto in chief, and it worked for Elon, so why not do it in our normal daily lives?
MattSayar 6mo ago
I recognize the sarcasm. The data I can find says it's performing at baseline however? https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/ https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/
- ACCount37 6mo ago
  Yeah, that's my point. Humans are not reliable LLM evaluators. "Secret model nerfs" happen in "vibes" far more often than they do in any reality.

hxugufjfjf 6mo ago

I don’t think I’ve ever seen otherwise reasonable people go completely unhinged over anything like they do with Opus

solenoid0937 6mo ago
I've seen a similar psychological phenomenon where people like something a lot, and then they get unreasonably angry and vocal about changes to that thing. Usage limits are necessary but I guess people expect more subsidized inference than the company can afford. So they make very angry comments online. For example, there is no evidence that 4.6 ever degraded in quality: https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code-historical-performance/ https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code-historical-perform...
- Capricorn2481 6mo ago
  > Usage limits are necessary but I guess people expect more subsidized inference than the company can afford. So they make very angry comments online This is reductive. You're both calling people unreasonably angry but then acknowledging there's a limit in compute that is a practical reality for Anthropic. This isn't that hard. They have two choices, rate limit, or silently degrade to save compute. I have never hit a rate limit, but I have seen it get noticeably stupider. It doesn't make me angry, but comments like these are a bit annoying to read, because you are trying to make people sound delusional while, at the same time, confirming everything they're saying. I don't think they have turned a big knob that makes it stupider for everyone. I think they can see when a user is overtapping their $20 plan and silently degrade them. Because there's no alert for that. Which is why AI benchmark sites are irrelevant.
  - scrawl 6mo ago
    just my perspective: i pay $20/month and i hit usage limits regularly. have never experienced performance degradation. in fact i have been very happy with performance lately. my experience has never matched that of those saying model has been intentionally degraded. have been using claude a long time now (3 years). i do find usage limits frustrating. should prob fork out more...
unethical_ban 6mo ago
That's what I thought today reading the comments in the Mozilla Thunderbolt thread today. Something about Mozilla absolutely sets people off.