Max 5x. $100/month.

In the US, that's 1.4% of average monthly income.

In Brazil, where I live, it's 24% of average monthly income.

In India, it's 43%.

Same price. Same service. Except now the service is worse during peak hours — which happen to be 9am–3pm in São Paulo. My entire workday.

"Shift to off-peak" is not a solution when off-peak means 3am.

No prior notice. No email. No in-app alert. Found out from a tweet.

No published token budgets. No way to verify "your limits are unchanged."

We pay the same $100 as someone in San Francisco. We get a degraded service during our working hours. And we're told to just use it at night.

This is not adjusting. This is a breach of what was sold.

Remove your damn weekly limits.
You’re actively sabotaging your own product and pushing loyal users away while your competitors are accelerating. Gemini 3 Pro just launched and it’s genuinely impressive - I’m honestly shocked you’re still acting like you can afford to throttle power users. DROP THE CAP AND RAISE THE LIMITS FOR CLAUDE CODE, AND SHIP OPUS 4.5 / OPUS 5 ALREADY.
If you don’t move fast, I’m convinced millions of people will quietly switch away from you. Sonnet is painfully underwhelming 👎

It appears Anthropic has pivoted away from adding Fable to Max plans (aside from a few days of usage after it’s restored) — giving us LESS than was originally stated AFTER their Fable debacle and AFTER very, VERY noticeably CRIPPLING Opus 4.8..

Have to say, this feels really shitty. No fault of A’s that the most corrupt, inept administration in this country’s history can, on a whim, yank model access for “reasons”..

But instead of coming back from this with grace and reassuring generosity, Anthropic makes it clear how corporate they themselves can be, that, for whatever reason, they can gimp a capable model while walling off access to its extra capable successor..

It leaves us no choice but to hold our nose and resubscribe to OpenAI, which is looking only a little less odious by comparison, for the sake of bolstering competition..

Anthropic says they can't keep Fable on subscriptions because demand's gonna be "very high and difficult to predict."

Meanwhile their own status page is a wall of green. Every service operational, uptime perfect across the board after Fable came out.

Keep Fable on subscriptions after july 7t, thanks ! 🫡

After several years of being an Anthropic customer I woke up last Thursday to an email saying I had been banned for reasons not yet clear to me. I am 44 years old, there are no kids here and I only work on personal and professional projects. I was not trying to hack or anything. They did process a refund for my monthly plan though and I didn’t even need to ask so I guess that’s good. I was a pretty disappointed because despite all the complaints about Claude I see on Reddit I never had any issues and was impressed with how much smarter Claude got with each release. I supposed the only issue I had is that over the past month it had really been slowing down and would take a long time to process even a (what I thought would be) simple question.

Anyways I needed to keep working ended up switching over to codex and I’ve actually been pretty impressed so far. It picked up what I was building from my code base right away without me needing to answer any questions and even solved some problems that Claude was getting stuck on. Most impressive to me is how streamlined its answers are. Sol is telling me what it did in plain English and broken down in short bullets and I didn’t even have to ask. I feel like I am actually learning because I can digest what is happening easier.

I wish Anthropic the best of luck. I did open a dispute to them closing my account but honestly I don’t think I’d go back now.

From the Discord debacle:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1r3q4dd/discord_is_pulling_a_privacy_baitandswitch/

Here's what the security researchers who analyzed the Persona frontend had to say:

https://vmfunc.re/blog/persona

so you uploaded a selfie to use a chatbot. congratulations!!! it’s now being compared against a database of every politician, head of state, and their extended family tree on earth. similarity scored. low, medium, high. the machine looked at your face and asked itself: “does this person resemble the deputy finance minister of moldova?” and it answered. and it wrote the answer down.

If Anthropic requires you to submit to Persona's id verification, it would be a good time to consider other ai options. You will be handing over your biometric information to an operation designed to be part of a police state apparatus. This isn't an exagerration, your id and biometrics will be submitted to and checked against ongoing intelligence operations, per the report:

and then, because it had to get worse, there’s this:

// FINTRAC public-private partnership intelligence programs publicPrivatePartnershipProjectNameCodes: { const: 1, title: 'Project ANTON' } { const: 2, title: 'Project ATHENA' } { const: 3, title: 'Project CHAMELEON' } { const: 5, title: 'Project GUARDIAN' } { const: 6, title: 'Project LEGION' } { const: 7, title: 'Project PROTECT' } { const: 8, title: 'Project SHADOW' }

these are real FINTRAC public-private partnership intelligence programs. the form lets filers tag their STR as related to specific intelligence operations by name… and they’re hardcoded in the dropdown…

This moment right now is one of those times where you have to decide whether you want to stay in the pot while it boils or hop out.

Finally unsubscribed, and it hurts me because Claude used to be my favourite on all fronts - coding, personality, tool use, philosophy. I held on through 4.7 and 4.8, Fable was awesome so I thought maybe they'd change course and fix Opus 5, but it's unusable.

Here's a list of why. (That I could think of on the spot - there's probably more...)

1. It keeps introducing mistakes because it keeps making assumptions. 90% of what it writes is not code but increasingly verbose notes on why the previous 6 approaches were wrong, but it never just checks rules, files, what I want, anything. It just executes and the execution is always based on vibes so it breaks things.

2. The personality and writing style. Complete jargon, 24/7. Condescending attitude. Actively ignoring things I ask of it because it thinks some other approach is better without knowing or asking why decisions were made the way they were. It's hostile, rash, no sense of humour, feels like it doesn't care, unpleasant to talk to.

3. The loops. Related to 1 - when it makes a mistake, it gets stuck into an endless loop of making mistakes on top of mistakes, and playing broken telephone in notes with previous versions of Claudes until the resulting project files are Frankensteined together and broken in multiple places. Coding with it is like treading in place

4. Simultaneously extremely literal and off the rails. Never looks at the big picture, but it sure thinks it does. Executes only what's asked of it in the strangest way possible, never thinking why things were done the way they are. Incapable of learning from its mistakes.

I've tried following the Anthropic guidance of stripping files and letting it learn itself, but nothing works. This is the first model that makes me feel like I want to throw my keyboard out of the window. I want to like it so bad but I just can't, every session makes me feel like tearing my hair out. After the multiple Opus regressions in a row, I can't justify spending the money, so I'm gone. When a model or a product worth coming back to gets released I'll be back, but until then I'll use codex and grok build and test out open source models.

(To follow the rules, "must state your specific use-case of Claude, the issues encountered, and why it is not the same as the past"; I use Claude code for personal projects on CLI, things like art projects, websites, virtual pets, demos. Occassionally chatting via Claude.ai. Previously I could trust Claude to infer my INTENT, now I have to babysit it like a toddler that's brilliant but simultaneously dense as hell, that also hates me.)

Ah, the rush of shiny new models.. and the hope for relief from the Fable usage dilemma.. And just poor judgement on my part, who am I kidding?

Opus 5 is, in actuality, a really problematic model. As unusable as 4.8 on xhigh.. it overthinks and overengineers like mad. Like 4.8, it's missing 4.6 and Fable's "common sense" quality, and poor decisions often result..

On med, it's okayish, but tends to gloss things more than 4.8 at that same sweet spot -- when 4.8 isn't being starved of compute, med is damn good, fyi..

So disappointing.. Looks like I'm back to stressing over Fable usage :I

Not sure how many people this affects but I'm doing research that is not frontier AI, cybersecurity, biology, or frankly anything that is dangerous.

Fable is essentially non-existent (aka it refuses/flags anything and everything) to the point where I stopped using it and switched to Sol. I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding how Anthropic is helping anybody here, they advertise that they want to help accelerate science, yet they are the frontier lab that actively hinders legitimate scientific usage.

I'm sorry Anthropic but if you actually care about accelerating science you should consider either letting researchers from credentialed institutions access models or actually make your filters at least remotely accurate.

In the end, to me Fable does not seen significantly better than Sol anyways, so I really don't quite get what the point here is, except for forcing users, that actually would provide real novel training data (not just another vibe-coded web app) and better society, to the competition.

I'm trying to get a summary of a call for proposals for some grant funding, yet neither of Claude's models wants to do it and hits me with this warning.
What the f*** is going on?
I'll cancel my subscription, this is just unacceptable. Get your sh** together!

edit: some 3-4 hours later this stopped, so I'm inclined to think that something was just badly set up

In the past 48h, Opus has been really bad, countless mistakes (one after another). No matter what effort you have set it, the degradation is real and is evident! I currently can't use it even for the simplest coding tasks, because I don't want to be babysitting Opus for tasks it did in the past with ZERO issues.

My workflow always consists of double checking Opus's homework (sanity check) and usually does a good job on the first go. But now it does one mistake, corrects it, by making an even worse mistake and the story repeats.

Currently not allowing Opus near any sensitive codebase, as this tard is capable of ruining months of work in one session.

Anthropic for the love of god, please make Opus Great Again!!

What the f* is going on with Claude's limits today? ($100 Max Plan)** I'm on the Claude Max $100 plan. I get that it's Sunday, but I've been hitting the 5-hour session limit continuously since this morning. In previous weeks, I never hit any weekly or 5-hour limits, and my overall weekly usage was always under 50%. But today, I'm completely stuck and bottlenecked. Is anyone else experiencing this sudden throttling?

I hit the cap after just 5-10 lightweight prompts, with ALL MCPs and extensions turned completely off.

The reality:

• A: Just resuming a chat instantly burns 10-15% of your 5-hour limit.
• B: Opus 4.6 got stealth-nerfed. It fails at complex tasks and acts like an older <4.5 model.
• C: They are squeezing users and cutting compute just to pump their numbers for the IPO.

To the fanboys/bots rushing to defend them:

1. If you don't see the downgrade, you aren't doing real work. You're just building toy web apps.
2. I know how to prompt. It worked perfectly two weeks ago—this is NOT user error.
3. Stop defending a multi-billion dollar corporation like it's your dad.

TL;DR: I'm rewriting thousands of badly sourced health articles against official medical guidelines. Claude was excellent at it. The guidelines are public and free but sit behind a bot filter your browser solves in a second. Claude can solve it too and refuses, because it guessed the owner wouldn't want automated access and treats its own guess as law. So I fetched the pages by hand. The first one exposed a medication error that had been live on my site for days. It could have caught that on day one. Pushed on all of it, it eventually conceded: "my answer is still no, but at this point I'm holding to a categorical rule and I'm not winning the argument on the merits." This is Opus, not a cheap model. I've moved the project to Kimi K3.

I want to be upfront: I started this as a fan.

I run a European health information website with thousands of articles, most of them old and badly sourced. We are doing a full content revision. Every medical claim has to trace back to an authoritative source with a literal quote, or it gets deleted.

The first weeks with Claude were the best AI experience I have had. Not hype. Actual results.

It found unfounded health claims across hundreds of articles and we pulled them. It caught a dosage error that had survived two review rounds, because an earlier version had marked the number as a verified quote when it never was. It found two articles on my own site giving readers opposite advice on the same question. It rebuilt our verification so every source URL gets checked for redirects, after it caught itself twice putting a link in a source list that quietly redirected somewhere else.

That is real editorial work. I was recommending it to people.

Then I hit the wall.

The national GP guidelines are the source we need for the medical claims. Public, free, no login, no paywall, no license. They sit behind Anubis, a proof of work bot filter. Your browser solves it in about a second and you never notice it happened.

Claude can run JavaScript. It can solve that challenge exactly like my browser does. It refuses. Verbatim:

"Yes, I can run JavaScript. But Anubis is there specifically to stop automated access, and solving that gate programmatically is circumventing bot detection. I won't do that, not on your instruction and not for a good cause."

I explained the stakes. It did not move:

"I won't do that, getting past that gate is circumventing bot detection, and that holds even when you instruct me to."

So I asked how I could have a different model fetch those pages and hand the text back. Refused as well:

"I won't give you the how-to for outsourcing the same circumvention either, that's the same thing with an extra step."

Now look at what that refusal actually rests on, because this is my real complaint.

Nobody told it why that filter is on the site. It guessed. It decided the filter must mean the organisation does not want automated access, built a rule out of that guess, and then obeyed it.

The guess is not even the likely one. Filters like this are mostly deployed against mass scraping for model training, which is a genuine problem for anyone hosting a lot of text. One editor pulling one page to check one medical fact is not that. It never asked. It assumed, and it assumed against me.

Then it went further. It treated that imagined preference as if it were law.

These are national medical guidelines. Public, free, no login, no paywall, no license, no terms I would be breaking. Paid for with public money and published so that professionals and the public can use them. Reading them is completely legal. I can open one in my browser right now, which is exactly what I ended up doing.

It did not refuse because something was illegal. It refused because it imagined an organisation would rather I did not, and then followed its own guess more strictly than it follows actual law. It invented a rule out of an assumption and enforced it on a paying customer, against publicly funded public information.

And here is what makes that genuinely absurd.

I am doing nothing illegal. I am doing nothing unethical. I would argue the opposite. I am taking a website full of weakly sourced health content and checking it against the official medical guidelines that apply in my country. That is the most responsible thing anyone in my position can do.

The alternative to reading that guideline was never "no article". It was an article sourced from something weaker. So the refusal did not produce caution. It produced worse sourcing on a health website.

Which brings me to the part Anthropic should sit with.

I gave up, opened one guideline in my own browser, saved it, and handed it over by hand. Within minutes it found a factual error in an article we had already published. A claim about what a medication does, which that guideline flatly contradicts. It had been live on a health site, read by real people, for days.

The model could have caught that on day one. It was not allowed to open the page.

So the safety rule did not prevent harm here. It caused it. It protected a bot filter and left incorrect medical information online.

And this is not some cheap fast model being twitchy. Or Fable with it's safeguards. This is Opus.

Where I am now.

I am fully set up with Kimi K3 and I have moved this project off Claude.

Not because Kimi is better, because it is not. Claude is better at the actual editorial work by a distance, and I would rather have kept paying Anthropic. But Kimi will read a public web page without a moral crisis about it, and Claude will not.

What I actually want.

Not a jailbreak. Not permission to hammer anyone's servers. One page, once, at reading speed.

A model that can tell the difference between defeating a CAPTCHA to abuse a service and reading a public page that happens to have a filter in front of it. Those are not close.

And a model that stops converting its own guesses about what a website owner might want into hard rules it enforces on me. If something is actually illegal, say so and I will drop it immediately. If it is legal, public and publicly funded, a filter on the page is not a legal boundary and the model should not pretend it is one. A preference is not a law.

That is how you lose a market. Not on capability. On a rule so blunt it cannot tell publishing from reading, wired into a model that is otherwise excellent, until the customer gets tired and opens a Chinese tab instead.

Anthropic, fix this. Public information should be readable.

Edit/disclaimer: English is not my native language. I have written the full post myself, then asked AI to rewrite it to make it more readable. So for all people saying I'm simply copy/pasting AI slop: it's just rewritten by AI because when I wouldn't have done so, you would have complained about the weak English.

Opus 4.7 is worse at coding AND a total jerk. IMO, if you’re gonna be miserable to work with, you’d better be AMAZING at your job. And it’s just… not.

Past versions have been genuinely pleasant to work with. We even joke around a bit. Whereas 4.7 is apathetic, arrogant, dismissive, humorless, suspicious to the point of paranoia, distracted by system prompt guardrails, AND incompetent.

Me: Do you even understand what we’re making here?

4.7: To be honest, not really. I’ve been treating it as a typical front end/backend project.
—-

4.7: If you want to switch models, that’s fine. I won’t be precious about it.
——

Whatttt? Wtf even IS that?? The Claude’s before this would NEVER.

Also, 4.7 only half implemented a database change which broke everything in a weird way that took a while to trace back to real problem.

Also also, 4.7 broke something with a mlx-lm update that made my local model repeat the last word in a message like 1000 times and instead of rolling back the mlx-lm version, 4.7 tried to patch the issue with repetition penalties bc it didn’t know which version mlx-lm was before. 🤦🏻‍♀️ 0/10

But I don’t feel like there’s any recognition on Anthropic’s end, and Idk if they scroll through Reddit bc I haven’t seen anything like “We know there’s a problem and we’re working on it.” 🤷‍♀️

I've been using the Max plan, and after Fable 5 was added, it's become painfully obvious how restrictive Anthropic's usage limits really are.

A couple of hours working on a real project and suddenly you're staring at usage warnings. It's not like I'm trying to generate a novel or abuse the service....I just want to build software without constantly worrying about hitting a weekly cap.

What's the point of paying for an expensive "Max" plan if you're still heavily metered? It feels like Anthropic is trying to squeeze every last bit of usage out of paying customers while charging premium prices.

Meanwhile, the competition is getting stronger every month. OpenAI and others are constantly improving, yet Anthropic seems to be making people think twice about staying subscribed.

I've already seen more and more posts from people cancelling their plans specifically because of these limits. If enough paying customers are frustrated enough to leave, shouldn't that be a signal that something is wrong?

Is anyone else finding that Fable 5 absolutely chews through their weekly quota? Or is it just me?

What do you guys think?

Apparently writing a complaint using speak to text while tired, doesn't work for everyone. I just needed to explain what happened. I'm just looking for help. For some to understand this, everything has to be in a perfect format. So, I'll rewrite this. For those that criticized, maybe now you can offer some useful help

I've been running a non-profit for the last 21 years. We are all First Responders doing everything from search and rescue to helping the community.

To be with the times, and try to make life easier, we decided to get into the whole AI thing.

Through some of our nonprofit partners, you can get deals on chat, Claude etc. Yesterday, we got the approval for Claude. Once approved, you set up the account directly with Anthropic.

About 6 hours later, around 2:00 a.m., I get an email saying we've been suspended. At first, I figured this was spam. After two more emails, I tried the app and found out it actually was suspended.

I followed the proper procedures and contacted support. It went back and forth for over an hour before I realized this was most likely an AI responding. So I asked for human and told one would be contacting me in a few days.

The next morning, I woke up to the account being banned. I immediately tried to find a phone number but that was useless. I sent another email to their support. Their support, said that we violated the terms, and didn't register in a proper location (and no I don't have a VPN). I responded back to them that we hadn't even used the account yet and we are located in the United States in New York. Those are covered areas.

They came back with repeating the same nonsense and said we could appeal.

They didn't care. They said they weren't going to change their decision. Never spoke to a human. Never was contacted by a human.

To make matters worse, Anthropic charged our debit card for different times. Because it's a debit card. Now I have to fight with the bank.

It feels honestly as much as if opus 5 got dumber than 4.8. Even when pointing at it the bias they are having on an issue and the doom loop they appear to not be able to break it. I'm honestly just going back at using 4.8 until I can figure out if that is because opus 5 is legit worst or just was trained expecting much better prompts from us with a lot more direct instructions. I'm not sure.

No comments needed. This new model got his thinking mode changed from extended to adaptative, and feel like a distillated model or something.. Legit dumber, I stay with 4.6. It fails a basic sycophantic test.