I don't know. Personally I find it hard to simply trust "my sources said", I usually require a little bit of hard evidence to be convinced. There could be many reasons someone gave up fighting.
Again, coming from a different society where media is full of lies, I am wondering if your journalists are really that much better.
He's obviously had affairs incl with employees etc. so the resignation would have to come either way. But there's such a thing as selective leaking to the press, for example initially claiming she's a spy and now after he's gone, wait maybe she's not a spy.
If you are expecting any sort of usable limits on their subscription plan I suggest adjusting your expectations. I subscribed to $99 a month plan and within 47 minutes with one session (not asking for swarms or anything) was limited by 5-hour quota.
Same experience. I had the $19 monthly plan for experimenting and running benchmarks, but it was a uselessly small amount of usage, a single task would blast through the whole five hour limit and a big chunk of the weekly limit. All of the US provider plans are remarkably more generous (though OpenAI plans have gotten a lot stingier lately, where they used to be the most generous).
I have been using DS Flash 4.1 pretty heavily. It runs for hours and hours and is pretty cheap.
I realized the other day that I had a $30 a month Claude subscription. So, I fired it up all excited and tried Opus 5.5 on a codebase I was already in with DS. After about 30 minutes I hit a 5 hour limit. The next day I tried again and the same thing happened. And it felt much slower to boot. I was super disappointed.
Did you use Fable, set Opus 5.5 to xhigh, or use 'ultracode' / workflows? That's the only way this will happen.
In my experience a single 5 hour allowance in the 20eur Claude plan equals about $5-10 in Deepseek 4.1 Flash API usage. DS is a lot more token hungry and takes 3x-4x longer. The subscription is way cheaper, probably around $200/month worth of DS, just stick to Opus low and Sonnet for most tasks.
DS 4.1 is basically endless, even if you paid for APIs you will hardly touch some prices.
But it's slow.
I don't think I can any longer appreciate any major difference in "intelligence" between models for most tasks but Opus is consistently much faster than competitors at finishing tasks and keeping me in the loop.
Of course excluding ultra code, the you will wait 50 minutes for a minor refactor.
Yeah, the $20 Claude plan is stingier than one might like, but not as stingy as Kimi. I think the best $20 subscription deal these days is probably from Google, now that Gemini 4 Argon exists and is an acceptably high quality model for coding. It's got quite generous usage and includes some other Google account upgrades (though I know some people don't use their regular account for Google AI for fear of account suspension or whatever, so the extra storage and other account upgrades are not a useful thing). I can use it pretty heavily without ever running into caps. The $20 ChatGPT plan used to be similarly generous, but no more.
When I've most recently done the same tasks across multiple providers I have a subscription to, I found the order of generosity of them was something like Gemini->Claude->ChatGPT->Kimi. OpenAI used to be a lot more generous than all of them, but that ended recently, and now it's quite stingy in the $20 plan. What competitive model has a more generous subscription than Gemini?
I have a DeepSeek account and almost always use it when I need something with API access. I consider it Good Enough™, if not competitive. I also have a MiMo token plan, though that's weird in that it's not a monthly subscription, it's just a bulk buy of tokens that expire after a year, but still seems to be a pretty good deal on a pretty good model.
That's surprising, I had the exact same experience as GP. I dropped my Kimi sub this month, but I'm keeping claude because I can use Opus 4.8 basically endlessly. Even Opus 5.5 doesn't drain the usage that much, though I rarely use it because it refuses to do anything cyber-related.
It is a LOT more efficient on claude code. Takes forever to run out of credits, and a whole lot of useful code gets generated. The web Ui reconstructs code while claude code just tweaks it.
How long ago was this? The amount of usage they give you for a given plan seems to change over time, and the Claude limits seem to be more favourable recently.
Welp, that ruins this news for me. I'm glad open models are catching up but if I can't practically run them locally _or_ through a flat fee then it doesn't really help me. I fear API pricing.
This'll end up on opencode go soon enough. $40/month on there gives you a bit more than just "light use"
Don't use frontier models like this for problems that can be solved with flash models, and you'll see API pricing isn't that terrible. Still cheaper than anything with remotely this level of capability 2.5 months ago.
Had a similar experience here. Their limits are very, very low, and ultimately make it not worth subscribing. Can't leverage a good modal if it exhausts its 5-hour budget in 30 minutes.
Paying API prices for Deepseek 4.1 Flash feels like a much better deal at the moment.
How? I've been running k3.1 Pro with K2.8 preview for codegen (subagents) and I've only used 22% of my weekly and it's been running for 8 hours on a RE project.
Are you using k3 with thinking set to the absolute highest and only using k3 for everything?
Yeah, the plan is far too expensive for what it provides. I wonder if the quota with these new models will be better, but I'll wait for others to try this out before wasting another hundred bucks.
Yes, if you just look at API pricing, the cost is about on par with its capabilities. The problem is that we all use subscriptions, and when you compare subscription pricing, Kimi is much pricier than pretty much all of their competitors, including Chinese ones.
Honestly, use Pi, start the session with K3, design it, store the design + chat history + todo with phases + why + readme then when you are at the time to build do `/model` select deepseek and let it rip!!
You can even make a Pi extension to let it switch models on its own, then tell it to switch to one or the other for a given task. It's not perfect, but it is pretty reliable once you have the instructions dialed in.
I have mine configured to use a "thinker" model for planning and decision making, and a "doer" model for the easy stuff (digging around the repo, writing code based on the thinker's instructions, etc.).
I run a similar setup, just with different models. I also use herdr, which lets me have the same project worked on side by side by different models, each in its own git worktree.
Paying $200 a month and part of their Cyber Verification Program but can't use Opus 5.5 or Sonnet 5.5 for any authorized bounty work. Immediately get flagged for `Cyber`.
> This article applies only to Opus and Sonnet class models, but doesn’t apply to Claude Opus 5.5. We'll soon be expanding the Cyber Verification Program to include Opus 5.5 and Mythos class models
You obviously should not expect the CVP to cover this model either.
Does it also take 2 seconds of critical thinking to realize that the models that are covered should be accurately named by the people making the decisions?
I had it look at some 30+ year old C code I wrote in college and it triggered some sort of guard rail. I mean, the code was bad and full of buffer overflows, but I already knew that.
I have been trying to convince the safe guards that analyzing a C++ compiler from 2003 isn't particularly relevant to modern cybersecurity. It seems Anthropic disagrees.
IDA Pro and Ghidra, thankfully, still lack such safeguards...
(No other model I've tried has refused either FWIW.)
Working on a write-ahead log implementation, I had Opus 5.5 look to verify that it was durably writing as safely as possible. It got flagged and forced me to Opus 4.8. Switched to OpenCode + OpenRouter and continued working.
It's great how the company telling us AI is an existential threat to humanity, look at all the insane hacking it's doing, and then releases these models that won't let 90% of people write secure code.
As soon as I started getting blocked I felt all of my trust toward Anthropic instantly and permanently evaporate. I do not want a nanny tool. I do not want Anthropic deciding what I am or am not allowed to do with an LLM. They trained their models on information they scraped from the internet and real life and now they want to gate-keep the results? Hard no.
I recently wanted to work with ESP 32 and bluetooth presence detection for my smarthome. Claude also immediately flagged the request and degraded it to Sonnet 4.6. Went to Codex which had no issues
Really then what is the point of the Cyber Verification Program?
In general I am sympathetic to the argument that a chat interface can't really distinguish between white hat and black hat pen testing, but it seems absurd to have a verification program if it doesn't skip most of those checks.
The company I work for joined it, and I've used Claude on various different accounts, both on and off the Cyber Verification Program. As far as I can tell, it literally doesn't do anything or have a point. The moment Claude gets close to something Cybersecurity related, it drops back to 4.8.
Pretty sure the implicit difference is the actions they take after the fact. As in, "how many guardrail hits do we allow you before permanently banning you."
The silicon valley ethos is "ban early and often, and invest nothing in appeals systems", so any gate before that helps!
> Paying $200 a month and part of their Cyber Verification Program but can't use Opus 5.5 or Sonnet 5.5 for any authorized bounty work. Immediately get flagged for `Cyber`.
AI providers still haven't realized how much cash they could rake in if they provided fully unrestricted models.
Meanwhile, their model commits felonies, and nobody at Anthropic goes to jail.
Aaron Swartz committed suicide over over-aggressive prosecutor for what was basically scraping a website for PDFs that were paywalled, but all funded by public funds / tax payer funded, then we have LLMs that just hack into websites and cause chaos within.
I am increasingly hesitant to use non-native harnesses - model providers are now starting to train their agents for use within the harness. An eval like terminal bench can only capture so much data. I don't want to have to assess each harness every model release to make sure it's working as well as it can.
MiMo _needed_ it. MiMo 2.5 Pro really struggled when given more tools, causing it to lose other capabilities. e.g. in security benchmarks I was doing, most of the medium-to-large models got better or stayed roughly the same at finding security vulnerabilities when given more tools (e.g. treesitter, semgrep, a full bash/python environment, etc.) vs. when only given the ability to read the files in the repo. But, MiMo got notably worse. It seemed to get confused by all the options. MiMo 2.5 Pro just reading files is an excellent security bug finder, at the pareto frontier at the time (cheapest option to find as many bugs as Opus 4.8, which was current at the time), but adding tools cratered it down to small model territory.
I haven't tested the new version, and I still have a bunch of tokens on my token plan, so I might give 2.6 a go in some similar tests to see if it still has the analysis paralysis problem of 2.5.
This matters less as models get better and everyone settles on the same overall harness architectures. The model matters more than the harness anyway.
The bigger issue is that the use cases and harnesses for models is infinite, which is hard to compress into benchmark numbers that actually apply to you.
Everyone is benchmaxxing, desperate to sell, and almost nobody except the labs is doing actual science on the results, so harnesses tend to be chosen on voodoo and hunches, like which company made it. There isn't necessarily a good alternative though, bearing the cost of being a harness researcher is probably not many people's goal.
> The model matters more than the harness anyway
>
> Everyone is benchmaxxing
>
> ...harnesses tend to be chosen on voodoo and hunches...
I get what you're saying, but their graphic on performance here uses the exact same model with different harnesses and definitively shows that there is a significant difference in both accuracy and cost. The whole point of their technical implementation and design decision here is to highlight that it's not "voodoo and hunches", but observable data.
Fable 5 on Claude Code scored 61.8% at a cost of $248.05 while Fable 5 on OpenCode beat it at 66.3% at $73.42. The same model, the same benchmark; only the harness is different with a ~5 point difference in accuracy while costing significantly less. So if we are to believe the author and these results are repeatable, then it would seem that the harness matters.
The point of this framing here is specifically to address 1) benchmaxxing by using the same model, 2) NOT choose a harness on "voodoo and hunches" by using actual data to back the assertions. Your comment feels misguided and completely hand waves the actual data points here.
Agreed, especially since the more frontier models are able to accomplish in a vacuum, the more people will trust them. That being said, tool use is still really important for pulling in the right information.
Right! I had the exact opposite view when reading this comment. The good timeline is where one of (or perhaps a small number of) the open source harnesses becomes so dominant that the models compete to have the model that is the best trained to work with that harness. (I'm hoping this would be Pi, because it's my favorite, but mostly I just want it to be some model-agnostic open source harness that wins.)
Realistically, it's never going to be Pi, for the same reason that video game consoles are always more performant than PCs for a given hardware spec.
There's no canonical Pi harness, it's too variable. There might be a world where something Pi based is the target, like OMP, but then you have to hesitate when you start extending the harness because you don't know what effect any given extension will have on model performance.
It won't be Pi because there's really no singular Pi that is broadly useful without explicit configuration of plugins. Pi requires plugins to do lots of things that are OOB on other harnesses that people care about. MCP, OpenTelemetry, etc. It may be some offshoot or something built on top of Pi that is more standardized, but it won't be Pi.
Is your main concern privacy? I've been using the zcode of and on for a few months now and it's definitely improved over what it was back in the spring. I also use DeepSeek's harness. Not sure which I prefer at this point. Used to be I preferred DSH, but zcode has some features I like over DSH.
I just looked it up: apparently they silently uploaded your entire repo with the entire git history to the cloud. A feature not controlled by any settings, operating and retrying silently.
Their excuse was that it was a file indexing optimisation and they forgot to create a toggle or setting around it. As an apology they open sourced the harness, but wiped out the history.
It sounds to me like a good distillation technique if the project has hundreds of commits written by Claude and detailed commit descriptions. Also for completeness Grok did the exact same thing two months ago.
This is the very reason why I avoid to use native harness. They are optimized for the economic benefit of the provider, not for mine. Love Pi because it does a good job managing the context, open code meh, claude code nope.
Why not the other way around? First make sure the police department is capable of using them legally and reliably investigating abuse, then we can consider allowing them.
But we decided as a country long long long ago that we wouldn't abet abuse, unwarranted search and seizure, and would treat people as innocent until proven guilty even if that meant elevated crime was the price to pay for that
Don't remove freedom from society - Be kind to people and give them equal opportunities to make sure they use their freedom for good. Prosecute bad apples with actual police work and don't let them ruin a good thing.
Absolutely. First let's install an extreme surveillance state and give them full police power unlimited by the Constitution. Then, later, if we have any regrets, no problem. Just restore democracy.
There are no "good apples" the article itself shows that other "apples" were helping him illegaly surveil. The "good apples" thought it was a good idea to give every apple access to a problematic system.
There are no good apples if there's a rotten in the bunch, we need public oversight of the only people that are allowed to enact violence on behalf of the state.
Almost. I would still want a location sharing app on my kids phones, a navigation app, maybe a sport tracking app. That would be a locked down smartphone with a few apps I would install and no browser access.
Adults shouldn't own one either. The Internet isn't something that should follow you around regardless of how many perceived benefits you think it brings.
I think it mostly amounts to getting extremely high on their own supply.
Many of us have experienced the sinking feeling of having used an agent to build an entire beautiful castle and then turned around and found themselves lost in its dungeons unaware of how the thing is actually laid out.
I actually think they're fully down there in their own code base, product requirements, and the like and ... don't know what's around the bend anymore.
And when you have leadership at the top insisting that software engineers will be obsolete any day now, what do you expect? Good solid software engineering requires competent stable and principled leadership hopefully with an obsession on quality and customer excellence.
Telling people that their profession is obsolete because robots are taking it over is only going to poison the well.
Core engineering at Anthropic seems to have just rotted away.
reply