Is this a symptom of the same phenomenon behind the deluge of disposable JavaScript frameworks of just ten years ago? Is it peer pressure, fear of missing out? At its root, I suspect so; of course I would imagine it's rare for the C-suite to have ever mandated the usage of a specific language or framework, and LLMs represent an unprecedented lever of power to have an even bigger shot at first mover's advantage, from a business perspective. (Yes, I am aware of how "good enough" local models have become for many.)

I don't really have anything useful nor actionable to say here regarding this dialling back of capability to deal with capacity issues. Are there any indications of shops or individual contributors with contingency plans on the table for dialling back LLM usage in kind to mitigate these unknowns? I know the calculus is such that potential (and frequently realised) gains heavily outweigh the risks of going all in, but, in the grander scheme of time and circumstance, long term commitments are starting to be more apparently risky. I am purposefully trying to avoid "begging the question" here; if instead of LLMs, this were some other tool or service, reactions to these events would have been far more pragmatic, with less of a reticence to invest time on in-house solutions when dealing with flaky vendors.

0 as of this writing, it's noticeable. Lots of "should I continue?" And "you should run this command if you want to see that information." Roadblocks that I hadn't seen in a year+

[1] https://status.claude.com/

It’s great to buy dollars for a penny, but the guy selling em is going to want to charge a dollar eventually…

https://status.claude.com/

1. Me not wanting that for context management reasons

2. It burning tokens on an expensive model.

Literally a conversation that I just had:

* ME: "Have sonnet background agent do X"

* Opus: "Agent failed, I'll do it myself"

* Me: "No, have a background agent do it"

* Opus: Proceeds to do it in the foreground

* Flips keyboard

This has completely broken my workflows. I'm stuck waiting for Opus to monitor a basic task and destroy my context.

At my workplace we have been sticking with older versions, and now stick to the stable release channel.

There was constant drama with CC. Degradation, low reliability, harness conspiring against you, and etc – these things are not new. Its burgeoning popularity has only made it worse. Anthropic is always doing something to shoot themselves in the foot.

The harness does cool things, don't get me wrong. But it comes with a ton of papercuts that don't belong in a professional product.

Free and local.

Unless they meant "all code that needs to be written has already been written" so their mission is to prevent any new code from being written via a kind of a bait and switch?

I think Anthropics model has conflict of interest. They seem to have nerfed the models so that it takes more iterations to get the result (and spend more money) than it used to where e.g. Opus would get something right first time.

I’ve been toying around at home with it and I’ve been fine with its output mostly (in a Java project ofc), but I’ve run into a few consistent problems

- The thing always trips up validating its work. It consistently tries to use powershell in a WSL environment I don’t have it installed in. It also seems to struggle with relative/absolute paths when running commands.

- Pricing makes no sense to me, but Jetbrains offering seems to have its own layer of abstraction in “credits” that just seem so opaque.

Then again, I mostly use this stuff for implementing tedious utilities/features. I’m not doing entity agent written and still do a lot of hand tweaks to code, because it’s still faster to just do it myself sometimes. Mostly all from all from the IDE still.

Not worth the money now, will be canceling unless fixed soon.

Maybe you should consider....local models instead?

I doubt even the core engineers know how to begin debugging that spaghetti code.