3 ms·

If I were anthropic I’d force that too. They offer the harness and if they control the entire pipeline then they can optimize the entire experience. It doesn’t

If I were anthropic I’d force that too. They offer the harness and if they control the entire pipeline then they can optimize the entire experience. It doesn’t have to be nefarious.

prjkt 3mo ago
It's like Microsoft banning Vim users that use Azure
- azinman2 3mo ago
  It’s really not. Vim isn’t instrumental to Azure usage.
  - pojzon 3mo ago
    CC isnt instrumental to use Anthropic LLMs. Yet here we are.
- int_19h 3mo ago
  They didn't ban people from using Claude, though. They banned them from their flat-fee subscription and required that you pay per token. It's still questionable but I don't think it's in the same ballpark as what you describe.
  - mikegioia 3mo ago
    I don't think it's in the same ballpark at all. I checked the `/usage` in my session which uses a Max x5 plan. One day I had used $400 of tokens and 20% of my Fable allocation. Anthropic is effectively giving us more tokens per $ on the monthly plans but it comes at the cost of Anthropic being the prompt-writers and managers of the agents pretty much entirely. I don't think this is a bad deal.
    - bloppe 3mo ago
      Whether or not it's a bad deal depends on what you're comparing it to. Compared to API pricing, of course a subscription through CC is a good deal. But when OAI offers their super-subsidized plan and allows you to use your own harness which is 75% more token-efficient, then the CC deal starts looking like a bad one in comparison.
bloppe 3mo ago
Sounds like they're modeling their PR on the classic Apple playbook: "choice is bad, and you should appreciate the constraints we've generously imposed"
athrowaway3z 3mo ago
This is kind of a strange comment as it implies a false dichotomy. Its not 'nefarious' in that its in their best business interests. But it'd be difficult to take anyone serious who thinks Anthropic's motivation was to improve the UX, and the other effect were by accident. At the time they specifically started blocking based on openclaw prompt text. Its a walled-garden tactic. A walled garden is nefarious to people who do not want to be inside one.
palata 3mo ago
> if they control the entire pipeline then they can optimize the entire experience So what? When you care about optimising the entire experience, you offer sane defaults. When you prevent people from changing the defaults, it's about control, not experience.
grayhatter 3mo ago
> It doesn’t have to be nefarious. The nefarious part is because it's non optional. They could give you an option and compete by being better, instead you're given the finger as the option is taken from you. Competition is hard and banning people to create more FUD serves business need better. You've obviously been gaslit so badly you're desperate to find a way to defend a shitty move and pretend it's the only way to increase usability. But you don't have to deny really! You're allowed to admit control is easier for a company than competition, and that they didn't have to, but did because it increases their control of the ecosystem. If you want to defend someone, good? But at least save it for someone who actually deserves it. They don't; and you insult you and your readers intelligence by trying.
miroljub 3mo ago
> if they control the entire pipeline then they can optimize the entire experience The only issue is that Anthropic optimizes the entire experience for their bottom line. User experience and price only suffer becaue of that.

If I were anthropic I’d force that too. They offer the harness and if they control the entire pipeline then they can optimize the entire experience. It doesn’t have to be nefarious.

prjkt 3mo ago

It's like Microsoft banning Vim users that use Azure

azinman2 3mo ago
It’s really not. Vim isn’t instrumental to Azure usage.
- pojzon 3mo ago
  CC isnt instrumental to use Anthropic LLMs. Yet here we are.
int_19h 3mo ago
They didn't ban people from using Claude, though. They banned them from their flat-fee subscription and required that you pay per token. It's still questionable but I don't think it's in the same ballpark as what you describe.
- mikegioia 3mo ago
  I don't think it's in the same ballpark at all. I checked the `/usage` in my session which uses a Max x5 plan. One day I had used $400 of tokens and 20% of my Fable allocation. Anthropic is effectively giving us more tokens per $ on the monthly plans but it comes at the cost of Anthropic being the prompt-writers and managers of the agents pretty much entirely. I don't think this is a bad deal.
  - bloppe 3mo ago
    Whether or not it's a bad deal depends on what you're comparing it to. Compared to API pricing, of course a subscription through CC is a good deal. But when OAI offers their super-subsidized plan and allows you to use your own harness which is 75% more token-efficient, then the CC deal starts looking like a bad one in comparison.

bloppe 3mo ago

Sounds like they're modeling their PR on the classic Apple playbook: "choice is bad, and you should appreciate the constraints we've generously imposed"

athrowaway3z 3mo ago

This is kind of a strange comment as it implies a false dichotomy. Its not 'nefarious' in that its in their best business interests. But it'd be difficult to take anyone serious who thinks Anthropic's motivation was to improve the UX, and the other effect were by accident. At the time they specifically started blocking based on openclaw prompt text. Its a walled-garden tactic. A walled garden is nefarious to people who do not want to be inside one.

palata 3mo ago

> if they control the entire pipeline then they can optimize the entire experience So what? When you care about optimising the entire experience, you offer sane defaults. When you prevent people from changing the defaults, it's about control, not experience.

grayhatter 3mo ago

> It doesn’t have to be nefarious. The nefarious part is because it's non optional. They could give you an option and compete by being better, instead you're given the finger as the option is taken from you. Competition is hard and banning people to create more FUD serves business need better. You've obviously been gaslit so badly you're desperate to find a way to defend a shitty move and pretend it's the only way to increase usability. But you don't have to deny really! You're allowed to admit control is easier for a company than competition, and that they didn't have to, but did because it increases their control of the ecosystem. If you want to defend someone, good? But at least save it for someone who actually deserves it. They don't; and you insult you and your readers intelligence by trying.

miroljub 3mo ago

> if they control the entire pipeline then they can optimize the entire experience The only issue is that Anthropic optimizes the entire experience for their bottom line. User experience and price only suffer becaue of that.