I believe fraud is a sufficient term. You claim to be selling X but you actually sold them Y. Bait and switch is a selling tactic to avoid fraud where they make you believe product is X and then when you go to buy they tell you X isnt available but they have Y. While also unethical, it is not fraud because they did tell you what it is you are buying before you buy it.

if they just straight up dont sell you something you bought then its fraud.

I think there is a ripe opportunity for expanding the definition of fraud to include changing the "ingredients" of a named product on the market. It is not limited here, we see it with food, and even in the medical field

(I will die on the hill that medical fraud was committed when mRNA therapy was used as a treatment for covid and it was 'sold' to the public as a "vaccine" despite not being the same thing as any vaccine before it. The definition of vaccine was expanded to include it without sifficient public disclosure to warrant informed consent imo. This is not a statement about conspiracy or the efficacy of vaccines or a moral judgement on whether it was for the greater good or not.. it was simply an act of fraud that robbed the public of proper informed consent by making people believe it was X when it was really Y.)

So yes, I think there is a large need for the public to at the very least put a strong handle on the ability to change what a product name means. It is a trivial problem to solve considering it is only a problem due fraud or fraud adjacent activities.

heres the solution: You have your product name, and then any changes to it REQUIRE a new version name. Like how you have Coke and Diet Coke, only formalized such that Coke cannot legally replace the ingredients of regular Coke with the ingredients of Diet coke and still call it Coke. With Software they could at least use version numbers and release modifiers. most of the time its built in already, but it needs to include the full stack. if they change anything that has an interaction with the user it should change the label seen by the user for the product.

thank you for coming to my ted talk

You don't buy a hard quantity of an LLM you buy access in general.

A Opus 5.5 is not a Opus 5.5. Its Opus 5.5 of some checkpoint.

mRNA btw. was well known how it worked, it wasn't hidden and some people waited for the non mRNA version because of it. I never seen or read the argument you make and I do not get it.

A vaccine is something which protects you from an infection. What definition do you think changed in humans? That we make the protein? How is that so different from viral vector vaccines?

The consent is a certain level of trust from the society to a group of researchers limited by being humans and having to act in a certain time frame.

Nontheless, I do agree I would like to have a fingerprint and proper changelogs etc. for products I buy including digital and analog. But this has a downside as usual: The smaller you are, the more it costs you to (probably) register, maintain and change.

You know the good thing about Claude etc. right now? It doesn't matter. My invest is not 4 digits and there are that many changes, i'm quite happy to have been upgraded for 'free' from Opus 4.8 to Opus 5 (what do you call this upgrade, which was significant better?)

I've been working with Opus 5.5 every day, probably around 10h on average, and I feel confident in saying that they did not replace anything.

I'm a bit disappointed with how this nonsense is spread across HN today.

"I'm a bit disappointed with how this nonsense is spread across HN today."

Are you saying that the many, many people posting and experiencing this are wrong and you are right?

And not just in this instance, nerfing has been complained about in a cyclical fashion for many months.

But, they're all wrong?

You're so confident in your experience that you cannot think that other's experiences are also true?

I'm pretty convinced that those who have constantly been posting these complaints, probably for every single model release out there, are indeed wrong.

If you go back in time far enough, your logic can successfully be used to demonstrate the earth is flat.

"Could all these people seriously be wrong?" Yes, yes they could.

> And not just in this instance, nerfing has been complained about in a cyclical fashion for many months.

No, it gets complained about constantly even if there is no model coming out. A completely unrelated thread on Claude will feature comments like "can I just say that [model] has suddenly become useless this week?" Merely asking that question is bound to get people agreeing with you because we are evaluating all of this on vibes and placebos.

I too feel that way sometimes, I don't think it's ridiculous that Anthropic might silently downgrade you as demand warrants. But asking others if they "feel" something I feel is less than useless.