JimmaDaRustla
Has this person ever been a design or tech-lead for a team? I'm still tired and I've moved on from that role over 5 years ago. Gathering requirements, designing a solution, implementing as tickets, handing off to developers, staying involved in the feedback loop, then reviewing the code and iterating on PRs is absolutely exhausting. The only thing greater than the naive take that HITM is tiring is the privilege to not understand how asinine it is.
I've always used high, so maybe I should be using xhigh
Ya...you may be who I'm talking about though (if you're speaking from experience). If your methodology is "I used 4.6 max, so I'm going to try 4.7 max" this is fully on you - 4.7 max is not equivalent to 4.6 max, you want 4.7 xhigh.
From their docs:
max: Max effort can deliver performance gains in some use cases, but may show diminishing returns from increased token usage. This setting can also sometimes be prone to overthinking. We recommend testing max effort for intelligence-demanding tasks.
xhigh (new): Extra high effort is the best setting for most coding and agentic use cases.
I just switched to Signal.
You're now misinterpreting my argument and misrepresenting it. I did not, in any way, suggest that Anthropic was "pulling the rug" to its users nor that they were entitled to use their tokens using the API with third parties. Full stop.
Of course, third-party API usage wasn't intended to be allowed for consuming subscription tokens. This is exactly what my analogy was structured to explain; a Disneyland season pass isn't intended to be used solely for parking. Anthropic did not intend for subscription tokens to be consumed by third-parties the same way users did not intend to abuse the subscription to derive more value than what was allotted to them. Your analogy missed that last part, which is absolutely crucial to understand.
I don't understand how you're making the exact arguments I'm making, then somehow completely misunderstanding what's being said.
It's more buying a season pass for Disneyland, then getting told you can't park for free if you're entering the park even though free parking is included with the pass. Still not unreasonable, but brings to light the intention of the tool is to force the user into an ecosystem rather.
I've theorized what a solution would look like, though it'd have a different end goal to ignore bots so true discourse could be achieved. The theorized solution would be less communal though - instead, institutions would be "vouchers" and be provided the ability to confirm individuals as a real person. This could be colleges, workplaces, unions, banks, etc. There'd be no "denouncing", only "vouching" the individual as a real person. The individual's identity would never exposed - social media platforms would use a key, such as an e-mail, to verify the individual's existence as a real person, not their identity. Platforms could identify what rules would qualify an individual's recognized "existence", such as what institutions they allow, minimum number of institutions, etc. In theory, the individual "existence" could be built before they ever register for a platform. This could go way beyond social media platforms too - some examples could be vetting job applications, accepting contributors on OSS projects.
This would create a digital fingerprint of a real individual using their unique identifiers (email, phone number, etc) which may be undesirable, but individuals would absolutely have the ability to revoke their unique identifiers from participating in the program if they desire.
And what's this about running a small business? I run one, no issues here. Couple employees, file my taxes...nothing special about running a business.