logoalt Hacker News

zmmmmmlast Monday at 10:39 PM1 replyview on HN

Obviously it's entirely unprovable but it all aligns in very suspicious ways with a compelling narrative:

Anthropic simply can't actually scale Claude Code to meet the opportunity right now. Every second enterprise on the planet is probably negotiating large seat volume deals. It's a race for survival against the other players. The sales team is making huge promises engineering and ops can't fulfil.

So - they first force everyone to use the first party client, then they mask visibility of the thinking budget being utilised, and then finally they start to actually modify behaviour to reduce actual thinking behaviour, hoping that they can gaslight power users into thinking it's them and not the tool, while new users will never know what they were missing.

Is the narrative true? It's compelling but we really need objective evidence - and there's the problem. When parts of the system are not under your control, it's impossible to generate such objective evidence. Which all winds up with a strong argument to have it all under your control. If it didn't happen this time, it probably will. Enshittification is a fundamental human behavioral constant.


Replies

marcyb5stlast Monday at 11:26 PM

I believe they can't afford anymore to subsidize inference with VC money or that they are trying to get their balance sheet in order for an IPO.

So they could be trying to tighten the thinking budget (to decrease tokens per request) or to lobotomize the model (to have cheaper tokens). I mean, no-one is really sure how much a 200 dollars/month plan actually costs Anthropic, but the consensus is "more than that" and that might be coming to an end.

This explanation falls well in line with the recent outrage about out of quotas error that people were reporting for the cheaper (or free) plans.