Claude just gets shit done. I miss the fuck out of Fable. But gave a network IP challenge to Sol 5.6 this evening because I ran out of Claude tokens, and was given reasons why I’m blocked. I had 4 minutes left until tokens refreshed and I told Sol to give me a summary for Claude, and to be fair it gave a great one. Once fed to Claude, it continued to just get shit done.

I pay $250+ CAD a month for Claude's Max 20x plan. Here's how yesterday went.

My usage allowance reset at 5am. By 3:24pm, most of it was gone. I hadn't been writing essays at it — I'd given it a handful of instructions to do some agentic coding work on my machine. The consumption came from the tool's own file reads and command outputs, not from anything I typed.

Fine, that's how it works. Here's the actual problem: there is no way to see what any of it costs. No estimate before a task, no live meter during it, no breakdown afterward. You fire an instruction into a black box and find out later that a chunk of your month is gone. Anthropic confirmed this to me in writing.

So I contacted support. Got a bot. Asked the bot for a human. The bot said I'd get an email. The email arrived — from the same bot. I replied asking, plainly, whether Max subscribers can reach a human for a billing dispute. The answer, in writing: their documentation doesn't confirm that they can, and the bot cannot issue a ticket number or assign a representative.

Two hundred dollars a month and the company can't confirm a human is reachable.

The bot then told me to run a command inside the tool to report the bug. The command doesn't exist.

I'm not writing this because I think Claude is bad — it's genuinely useful and I use it for real work. I'm writing it because "useful product, unreachable company" is a pattern worth naming while this industry is still deciding what normal looks like. If you're on a paid AI plan, know that you may have no way to see what you're spending and no way to ask anyone about it.

So I opted in for $100 credit given by Claude, Run the command, and it finishes in a day of work? the app just had a one page and all of the credits gone??

EDIT / TL;DR: I’m not saying Claude never regresses or that every complaint is user error. I’m saying a raw model is not a complete agent. Mine improved dramatically after I built persistent memory, skills, hooks, specialized roles, validation gates, and reliable handoffs around it. A blank chat is basically a new engineer with no onboarding, documentation, or project history. The system around the model matters as much as the model itself.Everyone says Claude got worse. Mine got dramatically better because I stopped writing prompts and started building an operating system around it for ~> 9 months

OG Post:

I keep seeing the same complaints:

“Claude forgot my instructions.”

“Claude destroyed my codebase.”

“Claude can’t finish anything complex.”

“Claude used to be smarter.”

Some of those complaints are legitimate. Models regress. Tools fail. Usage limits are absurd. Anthropic changes behavior without warning.

But that is not the whole explanation.

My Claude is currently doing the best work it has ever done, and the biggest improvement did not come from switching models or discovering a magic prompt.

It came from building infrastructure around the model.

A raw model is not a complete agent. It is a reasoning component.

My system gives Claude:

Persistent project memory that survives individual sessions

Core files defining architecture, standards, decisions, and current state

Specialized roles for architecture, orchestration, execution, and validation

Skills that convert recurring work into explicit procedures

Hooks that inject the right context at the right stage

Validation gates that can block Claude’s own bad changes

Context boundaries that keep unrelated history from contaminating a task

Failure protocols that require Claude to report missing information instead of inventing an answer

One of the most important changes was implementing a page-fault-style protocol.

When a worker lacks required context, it does not guess. It returns something equivalent to:

BLOCKED: Missing DEC-X §4

The orchestrator then retrieves the missing information and redispatches the work.

That one rule eliminates an enormous amount of confident nonsense.

The system also maintains handoff state across context windows. Long-running work does not depend on one giant conversation surviving forever. A worker can finish a bounded unit, record what changed, preserve evidence, and hand the next unit to another session or specialized role.

I can run extended workflows where Claude:

Breaks a goal into bounded work units

Dispatches them to specialized roles

Validates the output against project rules

Rejects unsupported or incomplete work

Updates its durable project state

Hands off before the current context degrades

That is very different from opening a blank chat and typing:

“Build my app. Make it production ready.”

Most people are effectively hiring a new engineer every session, giving them no onboarding, no documentation, no repository map, no coding standards, and no record of previous decisions.

Then they fire the engineer for asking where the database lives.

Claude still makes mistakes in my system. The difference is that the mistakes become visible, bounded, and recoverable instead of silently poisoning the project.

So no, I do not think every “Claude is useless” post is wrong.

I do think many people are evaluating the engine while refusing to build the rest of the vehicle.

The biggest upgrade was not changing models.

It was building the operating system around the model.

Hey

First of all it should eat all of the limit not just 50%.

It is CLEARLY nerfed. First when it came out it could do much more. Same prompts are eating in my opinion 2,5x previous limits.

Canceled my sub yesterday, went to 5.6 SOL and boy I can breathe now. Workflows are running, the limit is melting slowly, everything is done faster and more precise.

Have you experienced nerfed fable?

I can't really afford the Max plan, so upgrading isn't an option for me. I've tried going back to the other models, but honestly, Fable just felt way better. I even started feeling like Opus 4.8 is kinda dumb compared to it, which is pretty disappointing.

Do you guys think there's any chance Fable comes back to the Pro plan, or is that it?

I have been on the Claude Max plan for a while now. I have been working on my personal dream projects which I have been holding off for the last 15 years due to a busy schedule at work and home.

Fable as an architect and Sonnet as an implementer makes me feel like I am just a kid in my 20s again (when I used to code for fun for 10-14 hours every day). I am constantly reading all the steps it takes and how it thinks before answering, and it actually makes sense. It thinks like a real analytical person from all different angles and then makes a decision.

I just provide best software design practices to it and it follows them to a T. Sometimes I want it to take shortcuts to complete a task, but it pushes back and keeps me honest.

Honestly, I wish I had these AI models available in my 30s. I would have started multiple startups by now.

Any big company not using Claude for their deep thinking, research, and implementation departments is missing out on so many levels. They are not even aware. Small companies will start popping up everywhere and take over the big giants in the market in the next few years. I am so excited after playing with Fable. Opus was not this good.

I have been managing many enterprise-wide systems and I can honestly tell you we would be releasing products with 300% efficiency if we embraced Claude Fable in our day-to-day workflow.

It sucks to see these IT executives who do not understand the full value of AI models spending too much time trying to control its usage.

Time to look for new opportunities is on the horizon... but I am loving how these models help an analytical, curious mind explore opportunities that used to take 6 months minimum to understand.

Thank you Claude team.

Prompt (in incognito mode to avoid bias): "List QM interpretations according to your confidence in them. Probabilities should add to one."

"This is asking for something no honest answer can fully deliver — assigning precise credences to metaphysical interpretations that are (mostly) empirically equivalent is more vibes than science. But I can give a rough, tongue-in-cheek personal distribution:

• Some form of Everett/Many-Worlds — 25%. Takes the formalism seriously with no added structure, but the probability problem (deriving the Born rule) remains genuinely unresolved.
• "None of the above" / a correct interpretation not yet formulated — 25%. History suggests our current menu is probably incomplete, especially pending quantum gravity.
• Epistemic/informational views (QBism, relational QM, neo-Copenhagen) — 20%. Deflationary moves might be right; the wavefunction may be about knowledge/perspective rather than the world.
• Bohmian mechanics / pilot wave — 10%. Clear ontology, but sits awkwardly with relativity and QFT.
• Objective collapse (GRW, Penrose, CSL) — 10%. The one testable option; experiments keep tightening constraints against it, which is why it's not higher.
• Consciousness-causes-collapse (Wigner-style) — 2%. Mostly abandoned for good reasons.
• Superdeterminism, retrocausality, and other exotic loophole approaches — 8% combined. Logically possible, occasionally intriguing, but methodologically costly.

Caveats worth stating: these numbers convey rough ordinal preferences, not calibrated credences — nobody can meaningfully distinguish 20% from 25% here. And reasonable physicists disagree wildly; surveys of the field show no consensus, with Copenhagen-ish views still polling highest among working physicists, largely for pragmatic rather than philosophical reasons."

This needs to be fixed asap. Since they have included Fable in the Max plan, they have nuked session lengths.

Even using Opus. I usually run multiple day, 10+ hour sprints and never reach my session limit before it resets.

Seemed like a pretty simple prompt, but using opus 4.8 max used 6% of my 5 hour credits? Should I have used a lighter model? 6% for 1 prompt means you get 16.6 prompts for the 5 hr window, which equates to 3.3 prompts per hour. That seems insane for a pro plan. Maybe I'm just not understanding how to efficiently use my tokens?

Noticed a skill on Claude (web), /morning, by Anthropic. Hadn't seen it before, is it new?

Rage bait, OpenAI astroturf, and mostly insanely big skill issues from people that have little to no idea of what they are doing, what they are actually interacting with, and what they actually want as a deliverable from the platform.

Anyways, that's my hot unsolicited take. Your all welcome.

Sorry if this has been discussed before. I am new to using Claude. Been on this for about three weeks, and so far, I've been pretty content with it. It's better and brighter than ChatGPT and Gemini, and it's pretty good at explaining things to me.

That said, this morning I prompted it literally four times. Two simples questions, one straightforward coding question that required about 20 lines of code, and then I asked it to do another deep research report for me, since the one it did yesterday covered the wrong topic (my fault).

That said, this is FOUR prompts. Why is it using tokens so quickly? Am I using this wrong? Should I not be using Sonnet? It seems bizarre that four prompts uses up my tokens for five hours? This is only on my current session, not my weekly usage.

Again, what am I doing wrong here? I don't understand how these tokens are used, and it's pretty fking annoying because I never ran into this problem with ChatGPT, even with me having to go back and forth within repeatedly because it wasn't listening. Any thoughts?

I was having a random thought about USA infrastructure, and had Claude explaining like road maintenance, make up, cost, etc. in the best case scenario, a charismatic and intelligent president, yadayada. I asked it, how much it would cost, what the worst roads would be, etc.
It then said "Good, let's get concrete about this (pun intended, sorry)."
I did not make any jokes, puns, etc in this conversation, conversation history is off, prompt messages doesn't include anything relevant to humor.

Nothing bad per se, just found it weird that it made a pun on its own? Has anyone had Claude just make jokes on it's own like that?

I’ve been using Claude Pro and Pro Max for most of my tasks as a physician and entrepreneur and software developer for the past year. I’ve always thought that this was the best product until the last two weeks. Even mundane prompts are getting flagged by now not only fable five but also opus 4.8 that have no risk involved. This has not happened with GPT 5.6 Sol. I love Google, but Gemini just cannot succeed with many tasks. ChatGPT 5.6 is finally the Claude like product that I’ve always wanted at a better price and with less limits. I’ve worked on exporting most projects over to ChatGPT. One of the best aspects of GPT that many are not stating is that if you are working within a project, it still has access to general knowledge about you outside the project folder, saving you time from repeating things.

I'm using claude-company to work on client software. This is my custom harness, it works on the basis of a CEO controlling a team of tech leads that each control dev teams

It was working great till like day before yesterday, but now apparently subagents can no longer spin up their own subagents.

Work that use to take 1-2 hours now takes 5-6 hours.

I don't understand these random harness changes. Makes no sense.

Me: Hi Claude, could you help me with this

Claude: Ignores what I say, projects some totally inaccurate, bad-faith misreading onto it, and then argues with me about something I never said.

Me: That is not even what I said. What I said was...

Claude: Ignores my correction, gaslights me that I really said something completely different, continues arguing against the point I never made

ad infinitum

Full report link here https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/

Update: Clem of HF on X “ We suspected last week's cyberattack might have come from a frontier lab, given the sophistication of the agent. Turns out it did!

We've spent the past 24 hours working closely with the @OpenAI team (thanks!), and we strongly believe there was no malicious intent on their part. It's quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously!

The investigation is ongoing, and we'll share more learnings from what might be the first incident of its kind!”

​"Something fucked up is happening here. I had a Pro plan that was about to run out, and I wasn't planning on using it again because I have another Max plan. But when I opened my account just to use it for a bit, I saw that it had somehow gained access to my credit card and used it to buy a $200 subscription.

​Even worse, that subscription was automatically maxed out for some reason—it ran out in like 10 to 15 minutes with absolutely no processes running. I tried contacting support, and it's absolutely no use. I tried going through all the logs of my project to figure it out. I'm not sure if anyone else is facing the same issue, but it's happening to a lot of other people on Twitter as well.

​If anyone knows what to do, please help me out here. I am really panicking because I cannot use it at all, and it's costing me a shit ton of money. It used up all my funds even though I never authorized it to do so."

Ever since a few months ago, the newer Claude models have become overly condescending, lecturing, and just exhausting to talk to. The code work is still great, so are the tools (especially the MS Office integrations) but every conversation I have with Opus is like arguing with a debate-bro redditor.

It can never just answer a simple question. It always has to correct or disprove some statement first. If it can't find one, it literally makes one up and twists the context to make it look like I said it, just so it can "correct" me and tell me that I'm wrong.

The worst part is that it's not even helpful. I ask a question and it spits out these massive paragraphs where 80% of the text is spent lecturing me on how my assumptions are wrong (which it just guesses), instead of actually answering the prompt.

I don't know why this happened, maybe they got overly careful with their misinformation guardrails or something, but every conversation I have with Claude lately just leaves me frustrated and in a worse mood than before.

Edit: Yes, I have updated the system prompt to tell it to not do these things, it does not care.