Baking deeper analytics into CC would be helpful... similar to ccusage perhaps: https://github.com/ryoppippi/ccusage
Also, why is there no SLA?
It's too easy for companies to fail to provide their service as long as they never promise to provide their service.
I don't even know what this means. You can't make anyone work for free, nor dictate the terms of what kind of work someone will do without their consent. I assume you are not pro-slavery.
The service at mcdonald's is providing food for money.
When their ice cream machine is broken, they fail to provide part of their service.
I'm not saying anything about "making" them do anything. I'm just calling out their failure and saying it's a bad thing.
If the government did something, we could think of it as similar to passing inspection.
The other way to look at things is that the market isn't varied and competitive enough to punish the companies that fail this way.
They don't have to "owe me" anything for me to desire a different balance. My desire is fine.
Users on $200 plan complaining, already at max level of subscription, I don't think a $200 subscription should make you feel like you are getting unfair advantage. Like restricting claude -p to API ... after I paid so much? Moderate use should not do that. I am not running it batch mode on a million inputs.
Anthropic has many customers despite the fact that they have occasional problems. They’re not suing Anthropic because Anthropic isn’t promising in its agreement something they can’t deliver.
I think you’re reading into the agreement something that isn’t there, and that’s the cause of your confusion.
Does it exist?
Just because people pay for things doesn't mean they know or understand what they are paying for. Nor is there the legal precedence to actually understand where the rub lies or how that impacts business.
I believe, respectfully, that’s precisely what is happening in this thread because you keep complaining about the absence of an SLA that was never in the agreement, as though it is—or is supposed to be—there, and therefore the existence of some “rights” that would flow from that.
My clients demand one, so there is one.
So that means we just eject any critical thinking when it comes to companies, especially where they is no liability or obligation for them (Boris or Anthropic) to be honest.
Other than 'trust'.
Maybe just maybe they didn’t put him here, rather he just a normal guy who reads HN, who is passionate about his role, and is here on his own time.
If zero data-retention was non-negotiable for the customer, it's totally possible that the negotiations ended there.
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish or unearth beyond what's already been said, which certainly suffices for me.
https://aws.amazon.com/legal/service-level-agreements/
https://trailhead.salesforce.com/content/learn/modules/slack...
https://support.atlassian.com/subscriptions-and-billing/docs...
Before you casually accuse someone of not knowing what they’re talking about, first make sure you’re on firm ground yourself.
Like how was your experience negotiating your SLA with Anthropic? What ballpark are you paying for the SLA with Anthropic that you have in place? How many 9s does your Anthropic SLA cover? Obviously you haven’t posted a half dozen times in this thread about how Anthropic by nature of existing offers SLAs without any knowledge of that, so some simple stuff about your SLA with Anthropic would be helpful.
As I said: "I’m sure they’d love to hear from you, and they could probably deliver one to you for the right price. But it will be a high price."
Maybe it is just common for enterprise SaaS businesses to offer SLAs without having a page about it though. Something like that could possibly be unjustifiably burdensome as well because it’s not like they could just type “make a page about how we offer SLAs” and have it magically appear
I mean obviously they have to offer them, because they exist, as otherwise you’d have to believe something crazy like “they don’t currently offer them” for reasons “that they haven’t disclosed”
It goes to the extent of the company itself! Very few businesses publicize that they’re for sale or put their company’s purchase price on their website. But acquisitions happen all the time.
Anyway, I don’t appreciate your sarcasm coupled with what seems to be willful ignorance about how the world works, so I won’t be participating in this discussion with you anymore.
Like if I wanted to convince people that In’N’Out has a secret menu (they do) I wouldn’t start by saying “They have the ingredients to make onion rings, therefore they sell onion rings” (they do not). They offer burgers with lettuce instead of a bun (“protein style”) though. That’s a fact that you can verify by going there or calling them and asking about it. I didn’t rely on my assumptions based on other fast food restaurants, I relied on my knowledge of the topic!
Edit: It seems like bad faith to admit that you’re using “probably” interchangeably with “I don’t know” and then editing in “for a billion dollars” several posts into a conversation.
I guess enjoy posting about entirely unrelated conversations in other threads though. (otterley’s post about my having previously had a short amicable exchange with dang in a different thread was deleted, but I’ll leave this part up. I think digging through people’s post histories to find unrelated grievances is icky, for lack of a better word, and wildly unhelpful for any type of discussion)
Even with the “for a billion dollars” addition, admitting “I don’t know” and “probably” are interchangeable doesn’t really change anything from a logical standpoint. Nobody argued against you not knowing, so I don’t understand the purpose of the repetition.
That hasn’t been established. There’s no evidence that they went to Anthropic and tried to negotiate one.
> that Anthropic offers SLAs
I didn’t. I said “they probably will for the right price.” There are two modifiers in that statement. And the price is unspecified. Their first offer could be a billion dollars. Too expensive? Negotiate down.
> If you wanted to convince everybody about a vast universe of secret business and your expertise in it...
> Like if I wanted to convince people that In’N’Out has a secret menu...
You are discussing business. He is understanding you to be attempting to "mog" him, because he cannot adopt a perspective wherein the conversation represents anything other than a vacuous social challenge or "brodown."
In short, you're wasting your time.
I looked up “mogging” and I’d think “my assumptions about stuff are valid because I’m a lawyer and don’t know what you do” would count more as mogging than “that doesn’t quite sound right, this is a conversation about something specific and not your general cleverness” but I’ve got a Benny Hill archive to get through
:( you are right. This isn’t the first time I’ve lost an argument because hours into a discussion somebody introduced “what if a billion dollars” or “magic amulet” or “ブルマの母” etc
The only reason I mentioned being an attorney was because someone in the thread above accused me of not understanding SLAs. I don't ordinarily bring it up unless we're talking about law or contracts and I feel the need to defend myself or correct misunderstandings. I don't try to use it to browbeat anyone into submission, although I do believe that respect for others' lived experiences and education is relatively uncommon here on HN.
I also don't care for my words to be misconstrued to mean something I didn't say. I rarely speak in absolutes because I've learned over time that there are very few absolutes in the world. Thus, I include qualifying language in nearly everything I write. So when someone accuses me of making claims of certainty that I didn't make, I can get pretty defensive about that.
Disappointing me shouldn't make much nevermind to you; you don't know me from Adam. But think of the people in your life who care for you and vice versa, or of the kind of folks you would like to be there. Wouldn't you rather behave so they may regard you in the way I just described?
It's hard to acknowledge a situation like this one, especially in its moment, especially when you're young. Being able to do hard things, well and gracefully, is another skill we do very well to cultivate. You were putting in some good practice, and the other gentleman (esq.) has offered some good advice in consequence.
In short, up to now you were doing a pretty solid job of ameliorating your embarrassment by recovering your mistake - a little awkward, sure, but that improves rapidly with practice. It'd be a shame to ruin all that here at the very last moment, don't you think?
(0) This phrase seems to have been made to mean something new of late, which doesn't actually make a lick of sense. I use it in its original or "RAND Corporation" meaning, describing a readiness always to retain the initiative in a conflict by threatening to escalate its severity, a tactic which relies for its chance of success on the opponent being unwilling or unable to match it through further escalation. In that sense the foreign policy of North Korea in the early 21st century is a good example of how a successful strategy may be built around escalation dominance as a core tactic.
(1) Ever shit yourself in public, right there in front of God and everybody? I did that once, about ten years ago - there was a time in this town before the health code had teeth, when eating at the wrong place or on the wrong day could just about put your life in your hands. Let me tell you, after that day - complete with an hour cleaning yourself up with paper towels and tap water in a sandwich shop's toilet, followed by the train ride home - discovering you have inadvertently said something a little dumb on the Internet falls naturally into something much more like the perspective it is due.
> Ever shit yourself in public, right there in front of God and everybody? I did that once, about ten years ago
No but
> an hour cleaning yourself up
Do you have a blog? I would read a long form version of this story
This is a strange website even among websites. At different times here I have been accused, quite in earnest, of being a paid influence agent of FSB and MSS - that is, of the Russian and Chinese foreign intelligence services, respectively. That was a pair of positively comedic conversations! I've been told that I'm insane, that I'm evil, that I'm a criminal for working, that I'm a criminal for talking critically about my work, that I don't deserve a livelihood, that I shouldn't talk about my childhood abuse, and oh, good grief, I'm sure I'm forgetting far more than I am likely to recall before coffee.
In spite of all that, and often enough in spite of itself, I have found my time here more or less worth the effort. Among other things, it has been a splendid arena for the bareknuckle practice of that ancient and worthy science called rhetoric. But, contra Mr. Gackle, who I think suffers the verderer's easy failure to notice the borders of his forest shrinking over years, this place really isn't what it was thirteen years ago, or even five. (No blame; it's an accurate reflection of the industry. And feel free to review my comment history, of course. I think it is a reasonably good illustration of what it looks like when someone spends ten years 'learning in public,' and - even though I say so myself - there are lots of good parts.)
I do not at present have a blog. My previous one [1] is now of beloved memory, but do feel free to check out what was there. Where I stood to take that cover photo, it was even more beautiful than my camera made it look. In that place now stands a self-storage unit, full of garbage some American consumer pays to store who does not want it yet is afraid to dispose of it. So it goes. Maybe in fifty years we'll make tires there again.
As to whether I will have a blog, I'm sort of in two minds at the moment about Internet publishing - which is a hell of a thing for someone to have to say who built his first website, and took his first paycheck for that work, in 1995.
Frankly, I'm no longer sure I see the point, or at least not as a primary medium. That isn't primarily a statement about AI, either. It's just...well, it's kind of hollow, isn't it? Messages in bottles, constructs of light and shadow, ships failing even to pass in the night. Nothing human, nothing even evidence that humans were here, because what is here? Where is there a here to be?
I'm not talking about AI, but I am talking about why AI is so much more fluent here than humans, I think. John Perry Barlow was an idiot and a madman, a liar and a mountebank: there is no place here. Nothing but words, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.' That soliloquy is the obituary of a cowardly man for his own soul. To quote it here, in this no-place where nothing is ever more real than a word, feels condign.
I'm happier writing in my diary, which as of last night is 3150 pages long. (It takes up a shelf!) I'm happier taking snapshots with a shitty Samsung phone camera whose only destination is on paper: I literally print them at 4x6 on an Epson Ecotank and put them in cheap little plastic albums, just the same as you would get from your local one-hour photo in 1993. I'm happier making things, I find, than frowning at flickering lights and fantasizing.
I would much rather spend a day every month making paper booklet newsletters on my guillotine cutter and saddle stapler, and send them around in physical correspondence, than spend one more mortal hour fucking around with CSS in order to make something that doesn't even properly exist, you know? Or not more than a thought unrecorded.
Oh sure, I'll put shit on the Internet eventually, maybe. But it's not going to live and die there, you know?
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230326154310/https://aaron-m.c...
https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/api-an...
Thank you Boris.
Have you been asleep for a decade?
The way your tone and complaints come across reminds me of this. As a paying customer ($5k spend per month in my corporate job), I’d rather anthropic keep doing what they’re doing — innovating and shipping useful stuff at blinding speed — and not index on your feedback. I think the tradeoffs they would cost far outweigh the consequences.
When you say “the community”, what exactly are you referring to?
https://amphetamem.es/meme/?id=the-simpsons_04_12_89×ta...
They don't use Claude Code, they get accused that they don't even trust it themselves.
They use Claude Code, they get accused the code is shit because it's slop.
I think dogfooding is known to be a legitimate approach here.
Sure they can. The solution is pretty simple and in your own post. Choose either:
* Make the product good to the point code is no longer slop and shit.
* Stop hyping the quality when it isn’t there.
* Do a hybrid approach. Use their own product but actually have competent humans in the loop to make the code good.
This is not hard. Be honest and humble and that criticism goes away. It’s no one’s fault but Anthropic’s that they hype up their product to more than it can do and use it carelessly to build itself. It’s not a no-win scenario if you’re the one causing your own obviously avoidable problems.
Many of the metrics they use are obviously actively user hostile.
The most obvious example is Google creating multiple steps for Login where you have to enter your password after you put in your user.
I wonder what metric lead to that decision or was it a political decision to make it seem like their "old" software has some new feature.
One is my person "gmail.com" account, and the other two go through enteprise identity providers related to my employment and their G-Suite licenses. So after I put in one of these three email addresses, I get prompted for the appropriate next step. Only one of them involves giving a password to a Google server. The other two are redirects to completely separate login systems operated by my employer.
Maybe a better approach is put in your login have it automatically detect if it requires an identity provider. Gray out the password to signal to the user password is not necessary and automatically redirect.
Less clicking, don't break flow and think of a smoother solution.
Jeff Bezos famously said that if the anecdotes are contradicting the metrics, then the metrics are measuring the wrong things. I suggest you take the anecdotes here seriously and figure out where/why the metrics are wrong.