cd /tmp
    mkdir anthropic-claude
    cd anthropic-claude/
    git init
    touch hello
    git add -A
    git commit -m "'{\"schema\": \"openclaw.inbound_meta.v1\"}'"
    claude -p "hi"

The irony of course is that the way they've gone about reacting to this has damaged their brand so badly at the trust level that the public view of their company has completely flipped. They also seem strangely oblivious to this side of things.

Their approach has also been bizarrely chaotic. Banning then restoring OpenClaw usage. Removing Claude Code from the Pro plan, then re-enabling it and claiming it was an A/B test. Honestly my read is that Dario has a weak leadership style within the company where he either doesn't give enough specific guidance to his reports or overreaches with reactionary instructions.

Claude status: https://status.claude.com/

I have been really happy with my Codex subscription lately, but feels like these things change every other day. The OpenCode Go subscription for trying out GLM, Kimi, Qwen, Deepseek and friends also looks useful.

But nonetheless, Opus 4.6 is a very capable model, but justifying a Claude subscription gets more and more difficult, think I might just sometimes use it through OpenRouter or as part of something like Cursor (although I'm not sure about the value of that subscription as well).

OpenCode Go: https://opencode.ai/go

Cursor: https://cursor.com

For instance, maybe you can't afford to take on more customers right now, Anthropic. Maybe if you are severely undermining the customer relationships you already have, you should just admit you can't sell any more 20x plans right now and only accept new customers at lower tiers until you have the necessary capacity.

This is also a DoS you could drive a truck through, and it's disturbing such an obvious vulnerability was shipped at all.

They seem like the class of bugs I see in my vibe-coding experiments, and I think the Claude Code lead has said many times that he/his team don't read the code for Claude Code themselves, that it's basically vibe-coded.

If Anthropic itself can't make vibe coding work, who can?

They can have a different price plan for agentic stuff, but these things where they “accidentally” whoops match on specific keywords and trigger extra usage charges is giving a evil-microsoft-vibe

The #3 result today is: “End-to-end protocol replay toolkit for ChatGPT Plus/Team/Pro subscription with from-scratch hCaptcha solver and empirical anti-fraud research”. The “research” for anti-fraud is “how to get around it”.

It looks a lot like an arms race, and we are getting caught in the middle of it.

1. https://hype.replicate.dev/

  HERMES.md in commit messages causes requests to route to extra usage billing  
  1203 points | 21 hours ago | 524 comments

And suddenly, unexplainably my bill would skyrocket?

I’ve got a NixOS Qemu VM I use to run openclaw in. I had Claude help me set it up, and it runs local models on my own machine in a config based sandbox.

Why should Claude block or charge extra to work on that?

Why should Claude care if I have instructions for Hermes or OpenClaw in my project repos?

This fingerprinting is incredibly sloppy for how much access to a machine Claude code has.

It’s a huge mistake at the level of IBM trying to reestablish dominance over PCs by making MicroChannel the new standard; this failed horribly and cost IBM its market leadership and reputation.

MCA was technically better at the time, but the industry responded with EISA and VLBus which led to PCI and today’s PCIe.

Imagine how difficult tool calling gets, when your ~/projects/opencode path gets intermittently replaced to ~/projects/claude during the roundtrip to Anthropic API

They have been fighting back a while already, eroding trust in their models as a price.

I was even able to have an absurd conversation with Claude about it, quite kafkaesque

It's a shame, because while Kimi 2.6 is indeed quite capable, its thinking mode is quite wasteful, and Opus is a joy to work with.

So if you add some special string to the docs, it stops Claude ?

Unfortunately for those of us who just want to eat a nice filling meal at the fixed price all you can eat buffet of AI subscriptions, a minority of customers keeps paying for the all you can eat buffet and staying for hours and bringing containers to sneak food out when they leave. And they keep wearing disguises to try and evade detection.

It’s a losing battle for the provider, which ultimately means the subscription pricing model can’t work, which hurts the majority of customers that just want to use the system as intended and no longer have a subscription model available.

I have plenty of frustrations with Anthropic as a paying customer, but this specific false positive abuse detection doesn’t strike me as all that awful, just some annoying collateral damage. I’d rather have that than no subscription model at all.

The only thing they can hope for is to maintain momentum and critical mass long enough to find ways to pay for all this or have Moores law make the average user request become economical.

However, "claude -p hi" immediately ate 3% of my quota.

(I didn't use claude for like a month, so absolutely fresh).

The truth is that it doesn't matter what companies say, what they claim, what they do, and what their CEO says/claims/does.

It's just a matter of time until the shareholders will get the right CEO to maximize shareholder value.

People in the comments who want a statement or a "reorientation" or a commitment from Anthropic leadership are missing the principles of how capitalism functions. Shareholder value cannot be compromised. In every battle between morality and profit, values and profit, public good and profit, ultimately all things will mutate into a state that enables profit to prevail. Always.

There are no exceptions to this.

* How much CPU/token usage does openclaw users use in general? Similarly, how much does high volume openclaw users use vs "normal" claude high volume users?

* Are there political elements we can't see that's affecting this? OpenClaw and anthropic doesn't have a good history in general and this is just a continuation of that?

Something I don't understand, there's a lot of complaints yet people are reluctant to stop using the service? Are folks already vendor locked or is it a case of "well, this doesn't seem to affect me?" The consumer behaviour of these complaints is very interesting.

If we are going to filter usage, there are a lot of reverse attacks to that effort that could appear.

I just wonder if this is the needle in the bubble?

But, if they did intentionally break other stuff, like charging more money, it would be a scam (not sure what is wrong but there is something wrong in taking credits without fulfilling the request)

But then they will just say "ah yeah, aí broke our tool it wasn't intentional, bla bla bla"

This is a reason to seriously consider changing providers.

If you must - in my experience Deepseek v4 is incredible value in every aspect. Pricing is transparent.

But like I said, I have funds in different AI gateways but I'm preferring to write by hand because I don't want surprising bugs and unnecessary code in my end result.

0: https://claude.ai/settings/usage

I try to avoid X, and I put relatively low credence in a HN account I don't know. [1] Browsing X, it looks like something like 1 out of 20 say they verified.

Who here has _verified_ this claim or can find a _quality_ source that has? Not X. Someone who will take serious reputational or financial damage if they are wrong?

It is 2026. Think about epistemics. What do you believe and why? And why should I believe you if you aren't asking this question?

This situation has many characteristics of being an information cascade. [2] Raise your hand if you piled on before thinking it through. Be honest. Everyone does it sometimes. Intellectually honest people own it.

P.S. I am _not_ making a claim about the original statement. Don't shoot the messenger: somebody needs to say what I'm saying.

[1]: "We cannot trust identity like we used to here on HN ... we live in a world or anyone or any AI can claim almost anything ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47804884

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade

(You're the principal, directing what to do, but your agent Anthropic has its own motivations that are not aligned with your will.)

I can't even have Claude assist in creating a Hermes or OpenClaw agent that utilizes a 3rd party API?

At this point I assume you are coping with having drank the koolaid and fired key staff believing claude will replace them...back when it was cheap....because nearsightedness affects decision makers much more during hype cycles......

After they fought humans and dumbed them down into AI-slavery, the machines now fight one another. Claude versus OpenClaw - may the worst win! \o/

Even when asked to search online it still gaslighted me about it.

Do these refusals still happen if you’re using an API key instead?

So I suppose Anthropic lied to him?

Didn’t they think about “we need to make sure Claude Code is never banned” ? Could have been as easy as including some Claude Code specific prompting traits (tools, system prompt, whatever) in there and automatically whitelisting it.

Is it foolproof? No. Will it avoid banning legit users? Absolutely.

First do the first large sweep, then see what still falls through, then ban those.

It really seems they were panicking due to capacity and there was very little oversight with all this.

I’m not affected but pretty disappointed.

I am not saying that claude has not done this, I am just saying you need a better source than the Jake Paul of tech influencers.

This one feels like prime space for Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

The hassle with the performance of these systems is that they're ~70% of the way to awesome. For advanced prototyping (my current job description), a fast 60% of awesome is groundbreaking and game-changing. For production and real businesses, that last 30% is a really, really important thing to figure out.

If facebook/twitter/reddit are perfectly OK with intentionally increasing addictivity but are restricted by having to show you only existing stuff, what do you think will happen when LLM companies can generate new stuff tailored to each individual person?

They have a business model that's more or less known, and that includes THEIR AI model(s) that they get to put out there however they want. I don't like it much at all, I actually sort of like the idea that they "owe" more because they probably "stole" a bunch of stuff to get the thing going.

But I mean, don't be mad, be proactive. Anthropic is going to try to Microsoft this in whatever way possible, and we all see that the numbers don't really add up.

Asking them pretty please to be nicer, meh. Let's figure out better, and more free-software-like ways to do this.

Anthropic is going a different direction but not better.

Absurd, really.

haven't used claude in about 2 weeks and I do not miss it.

rate the analogy plz..

There are multiple comments in this thread with comments along the line of: "Oh im sure they didn't mean to, let's not attribute this to malice". There is a long history here of lawyers, back and forth between OpenCode and OpenClaw and various other "Open" harnesses. Digging into my commit history and blocking access based off of a string is not acceptable for a product in my opinion -- and I don't think this was purely on accident.

Other comments calling out that they are compute constrained and need to do this in order to continue functioning. They shouldn't oversell then. I think that overselling airline tickets is abhorrent and so is overselling any product in a way that you know that you will impact legitimate customers. Up your pricing and/or stop accepting invites, we will quickly get to the bottom of it.

A company does not deserve the benefit of the doubt over and over and over again.