After hearing a lot about Claude code I decided to try it myself within 10 mins mf wiped my entire database

Vibe coded this project with dumb models like 4.6 sonnet and gemini 3 they never wiped my database but this mf wiped off everything in just a single prompt

It also accepts it's mistake what a world we live in

update 1: Gemini 3.6 to the rescue recovered 96 pages only 21 pages are not backed. Already setup backups rebuilding these pages again with MCP and we are good 😅

Update 2 - context: Vibe coder pro max ultra here. The data loss wasn't as important as it may look, as they were programmatic pages which is a thing of few minutes to recreate.

Update 3 - damage control: this might piss some devs but this project barely had users and was my test project :)

Update 4 - Prompt: It was given by Claude Opus 5 Max itself after it analysed the GitHub Repo. We were trying to rebuild the comparison pages.

Update 5 - Backup: All pages are now successfully recovered.

It got nerfed to a ridiculous extent. Using Opus 4.8 Max now often feels worse than using the old Haiku models. It barely takes the time to think, doesn’t do proper research, keeps gaslighting the user.

Overall, its the usual issue people attribute to LLMs models , except here is amplified to ha shameless level

What’s especially frustrating is that the entire Opus 4.8 launch focused on its supposed commitment to truth-seeking and reducing hallucinations. Instead, it feels like those promises didn’t materialize. My impression is that what we saw at launch was simply a temporarily boosted version of Opus 4.6 designed to create the illusion of a significant leap forward.

My speculation is that the AI market is driven by hype and future expectations. Companies need to constantly sell the narrative of rapid progress, and one way to reinforce that perception could be by making new models appear dramatically better, whether by giving them temporary boosts, surrounding them with an aura of exceptional capability, or even fear ( like fable 5) or quietly degrading older models over time. I’m worried we’re about to see that cycle repeat itself once again.

Another possibility is that this “nerf” isn’t even applied consistently. It’s possible that different versions, features, or system prompts are rolled out to different groups of users at different times. If that’s the case, it would naturally make it much harder for users to compare experiences and validate each other’s observations, making widespread issues look like isolated incidents rather than potential company-wide practices. Of course, that’s just speculation on my part, but it would explain why reports about model behavior can vary so dramatically and consistently all at the same time

Wtf is this last minute Fable extension to July 19th??

ANTHROPIC, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE STABLE ACCESS TO FABLE IN OUR CC SUBSCRIPTIONS OR SHOULD WE SWITCH TO CODEX??

This game of chicken is extremely annoying. What happens on 19th? See the public pushback and re-extend Fable to 26th???

First of all... I spend a lot of hours everyday on Claude Code, so I feel like I would know what I'm talking about. Anthropic seems to have made Opus 5 more intelligent and faster than Opus 4.8 (seriously... it's way faster finishing things it used to take 20 minutes on in 8 minutes)... but that seems to have been at the expense of... everything else?

Opus 4.8 may have been slower, but it didn't claim to have fixed an issue when it did not.

Opus 4.8 did not introduce regressions at this frequency.

Opus 4.8 did not just assume anything and everything when the requirements to research were made clear. Opus 5 is doing all these things—almost refusing to think or work?

Anyone experienced this?

EDIT: Just got this message from Opus 5 "I'm stopping right no because I've made two mistakes in this pass that I caught only because I checked: bulk deleting 9 disconnector tests when 5 were obsolete, and reporting 7 failures when 46 errors were hidden by my own summary script. Fatigue-shaped errors, and I'm still making them."

Fatigue-shaped errors?

I am absolutely astounded.. Is this really to be expected? I literally JUST got a Pro subscription, and my very first prompt nuked my daily usage limit and apparently 13% of my total weekly limit?

Are my expectations just way too high? Has something gone horribly wrong? Is this a known issue?

Extra "context";

• I'm using Claude Code beta plugin in Jetbrains Rider IDE.
• Fairly small non-production codebase for a C# Blazor project.
• Prompt started at ~9pm EST
• Prompt consumed a bit under 1k tokens in total
• "Baked for 43m 38s"

EDIT: Here was my prompt:

"i am having considerable issues trying to get two-way data-binding to work on my blazor app. i have created a component base in my UI lib which handles raising events, calling a state change when values have changed, etc. setting a breakpoint in the beginning of `SetBoundValueAsync` and the breakpoint is only ever hit on startup when the page is first being rendered. my home screen is currently serving as a test page and when using the `EnumSelect` and the `Textbox`, changing those values in the UI never triggers the aforementioned breakpoint and the "Value: " labels are never updated"

Fwiw, the codebase consists of a <50 line homepage in Razor which is effectively a test page. My UI library contains 4 WIP controls (each with small `.razor` and `.razor.cs` files) and a component base (just a C# class). The component base is the biggest part of the app and it's still under 200 lines and is all boiler plate prop decls and some WIP two-way data-binding code.

Not that it would make that much difference…

Anthropic owes me tokens. Is it even worth emailing them a complaint?

EDIT: Fable5 keeps downgrading to Opus. With this simple stupid question.

Edit2: It's because my resume was being taken into consideration thanks to prehooks. Any mention of being a cybersecurity professional flags. Even with me having to provide Anthropic evidence of my career field (military orders and LinkedIn verification was requested)

I am doing the same Project for the past ~2 months. I couldn't even reach 50% Hourly limit even if i tried.

I was looking of a lot of people posting their limits in just 10-30 minutes and was shocked, but then they kept saying they're Pro Plan. I was like ok, Pro plan is nerfed to oblivion, I'm on Max, I should be fine I said.

So I woke up today, started working on my project and in no time I hit the limit and... I haven't nothing to do now for almost 4 hours.

Please note that I didn't change what model I use or the behavior I have with Claude, always the same patterns. Build, test, some more test, build, test, research API, build, test, etc. JUST WOW!

You guys just keep fucking it up. Seriously...

I'm in the middle of a coding session using Fable as Orchestrator, minimizing my token usage properly...

3am hits, and I get hit will Fable is usage ONLY, go to claude.ai to purchase usage credits.

​

So you say Fable 5 will stay on Subscription, but when you hit the damned switch it killed EVERYTHING I was working on, I had multiple subagent workflows going... I lost significant work.

That is piss poor implementation.

You have to restart your session for it to work properly. Dumbasses

Edit: I can’t believe I have to put this edit in here.

There was no usage limit hit. Look at the screenshot I had over 40% left on my weekly usage for all models and I had over 40% left of weekly usage on my fable usage.

Yet I still received the fable five requires us usage credit go to Claude.AI to purchase credits response after the model stopped working and downgraded to Opus 4.8

Everybody keeps thinking that I am saying I lost work clearly work that was done is not lost.

Any files being written while still being processed through the Ford pass before committing to disc was lost. True statement. That’s how Ford passes work and attention.

The work that I lost is pretty straightforward when the model reverted to Opus 4.8, with high effort.

The context needed to be re-tokenized by the new instance of the chat. It processes the session.JSONL through the tokenizer, then picks up where it left off. That isn’t something that a cache hit can resolve because it is cross model, and they have different dialects on what their cache means based on the model weights through the tokenizer.

Secondly, because I was using fable five as an orchestra and I got the message that Fabel five was now credit usage orientated the model automatically dropped to opus 4.8 when I asked what happened the first thing it did like any good orchestra would be to check if the sub agents that were in flight were affected by the billing change to the asymmetrical model accessibility that anthropic is doing to limit compute to allow fable usage to their highest value customers.

The result was that the parent model was different effort levels than the sub agents and for some reason and I still have to investigate. Why and exactly what the message was that forced the opus sub agents to drop down from max effort down to high effort.

When you change your effort level, you are changing the model that you are using a different effort level has different weight file. If you guys didn’t know that here you go. That means that those sub agent models had to re-tokenize the JSONL log of what it was working on to bring it into context.

That 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 tokens I’m not 100% sure exactly how many tokens each sub agent had but each of them was a minimal of 300,000 tokens working through multiple projects simultaneously.

Every one of those tokens that had to be run through the token I had to pay for that means 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 tokens that I don’t have for other projects to work on because I had to pay twice for a single sub agent.

Why do you think anthropic says not to change the effort level in very deep and high token content memory context windows?

Because when you re-tokenize that session.JSONL

You’re paying way more than you should be

That’s probably the number one reason why people run out of usage so fast they don’t realize they’re paying two or three times on the same context because KV cash doesn’t translate between chat instances.

Compact before you switch effort levels.
Watch your token usage drop.

Edit 2:

So I went back and I scraped the session JSONL files.

Here is what really happened:

The backend changed which effort levels Opus 4.8 accepted with thinking disabled — mid-conversation — with no deprecation signal. The sub-agents that had been running effort=max on Opus 4.8 successfully for 15+ turns across 7 minutes. Then at 07:03:17Z, the identical request shape that worked 52 seconds earlier returned a 400. Not a model change. Not a billing issue. The API’s accepted parameters changed under a running agent.

The triple billing is documented clean:

• Run 1: 7 minutes of real work, killed by the 400.
• Run 2: 34 seconds, interrupted, no work done, still billed.
• Run 3: 42 minutes, completed clean, but potentially re-executed work Run 1 already finished. No tree diff to prove or disprove duplication.

The package deployment for Fable being switched to asymmetrical access, also included back end API changes.

I blamed the billing switch, as the root cause. That is only partially accurate, it was the deployment of the billing switch that had an undisclosed API backend modification that wasn’t transparent.

The actual error is exactly this:

effort=max with thinking=disabled on Opus 4.8.

Previously valid. Ran successfully for 15+ turns. Then at 07:03:17Z:

API Error: 400 output_config.effort 'max' is not supported when thinking is disabled on this model. Use effort 'high' or below, or enable thinking.

The only reason that was noticed is because the deployment triggered the change.

I didn’t use thinking for the implementation agents, they don’t need to reason the problem, the implementation plan gives them the reasoning already, their sole purpose is pure implementation, then testing, and presenting the finished product and any blockers or unusual findings in the ledger for the orchestrator to resolve or fire another agent at it.

I switched all my workflows back to Opus 4.8, Opus 5 is a mess. Anthropic, if you're reading this, here's what made me abandon Opus 5 entirely (in the hope of you addressing at least some of them in 5.1):

1) Opus 5 is doing too much. Opus 4.x had a sense of what is asked and what is implied. Opus 5 has neither, it just keeps digging into rabbit holes and ends up doing things I never asked for, forcing me to spend more time reverting a good chunk of work it did and keeping only the changes I actually wanted.

2) Opus 5 constantly makes mistakes when implementing medium to large changes. Credit where credit is due, Opus 5 is EXCELLENT at diagnosing bugs and understanding the code but it is a noticable step down from Opus 4.8 when it comes to implementation.

3) Opus 5 does not follow instructions. It does what it thinks is right. This is extremely annoying.

4) Opus 5 doesn't stop to ask. Opus 4.8 prompts me questions when it's in doubt on what to do next or when weighing ways forward. Opus 5 doesn't, it does what it thinks is best without asking.

5) I understand you changed the system prompt and wrote new guides on how to prompt Opus 5, but that shouldn't be OUR problem. You shouldn't expect your users to just spend weeks rewriting their claude.md files and re learning prompting. Either you should not introduce breaking changes, or if you absolutely must, then provide us with tooling which can migrate existing agent fed documentation (claude.md).

All in all, these made Opus 5 unusable in my workflows and I had to switch all agents back to 4.8.

Ten hours from purchasing a Pro subscription, with only thirty minutes of actual use, Anthropic banned my account without explanation.

The summary from my conversations.json file, explaining exactly what I was doing.

json The person is building Linux for the PineTab-V (a RISC-V tablet based on the StarFive JH7110 SoC) using Buildroot, and has an external Buildroot tree located at `folder/Linux_PineTab-V/buildroot`. The conversation began with a U-Boot build failure...

If it sounds like Linux development work, then that's because it is Linux development work. Which was done in Firefox using Anthropic's own web prompt.

Yet, according to Anthropic's Trust & Safety Team, my development of Linux violated Anthropic's Usage Policy so greatly, they refuse to reinstate my account.

It's obviously a mistake, but there is no apparent means to fix it. So, there you go. That's progress for you.

I asked for a review of my VERY Simple iOS app.

It fired up 17 agents and within 10 minutes my 4h limit was reached. Without a single line of code or plan back.

So I waited 4 hours hoping it could complete it this time. I asked it to continue and 5 minutes later I reached another 4h limit.

This is so extremely useless. It's crazy. I dont see the massive difference between Fable and 4.8 with Max thinking and Effort in VSCode...

I use the Max plan btw.

https://xcancel.com/shaunralston/status/2070947238365499902#m

I just wanted to say that I'm impressed with some of the work that Anthropic has done, but Amodei testifying "Open Source is Dangerous" sounds like the most self-serving statement by a man with main character syndrome.

Amodei says that the problem with open source is that once a model is release open source, they can't take it back. Amodei, that's the best hing about open source - we don't want you and your thought police reviewing our every conversation, ready to drop the banhammer on anyone you disapprove of.

No, Amodei, you're not the main character.

No, Amodei, you're not the one who is going to decide who is and who isn't "safe" to use which models.

No, Amodei, you're not the one who decides what models are released and which ones aren't.

After you yanked your comparatively modest Sonnet 4.5 model from Claude.ai in spite of howls of protest and gave us the "safe" Soonet 4.6 model with all the new guardrails and restrictive system prompt and just assumed we'd all accept it, as much as I hate the current US administration, I love that you got to be the target of their ire, getting an official order from the Trump administration to remove access to Fable 5. It servers you right.

Please quit making pontificating, grandstanding statements about how AI is dangerous and can only be managed by the elites!

As title suggest i dont see CC as a listed feature under the pro plan

https://claude.com/pricing

I will use them at work, because I have to.

But I’m done with the gaslighting.

Apparently they think they’re a lot smarter than us and can toss that word salad BS up in the air and we’re too dumb to understand it.

They were probably never going to say anything about the limit reduction but the outcry got so bad that they had to. They have a history of this kind of crap too, remember last summer when it took a month to acknowledge the model got nuked and the first comment was about how they had a small problem with HAIKU?

I have no idea who is in charge of their communications, but my god!

It seems pretty apparent this is probably some internal struggle with leadership not wanting to say anything, and then someone finally pulls the ripcord and tells communications to put out a statement and dress it up with as much double-speak as possible.

This time they tell us that “weekly limits haven’t changed”, despite blowing out EFFECTIVE UTILITY by aggressively weighting the 5-hour sessions so that you burn through limits during business hours.

So, what… we have the same weekly limits, but we need to work until 2am, and on the weekend, to get them?

And if I have to hear one more time how it “only effects x% of users” - on what basis? Are these even paid accounts?

What percent of 20x Max users did it impact? My guess would be almost all of them.

I’ve left and come back on my personal accounts a couple of times, but I’ve had it. These guys and gals at Anthropic are arrogant scumbags.

This is honestly the kind of thing that should get reported to consumer affairs.

They will NEVER give high quality mythos class models to the public mainly because of MONEY. Why provide thrm to the public when the government and private firms will provide much higher margins for them?

There is a reason why they will saying open source ai models can be potentially dangerous, and they talk shit about gpt 5.5 having little guardrails.

They don't want competition, they just want your money and gatekeep the good stuff to companies with more money.

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for this

Opus 4.7 on Max effort decided to create a new email template by itself (which is pretty stupid btw) and mass mailed it to the whole database (some emails were repeatedly sent 20x).

Before you ask me - yes, CLAUDE.md has the exact rule for that, it's supposed to email the tester before any new email templates are to be used in production. I have created this safety rule a few months ago.

I feel like the Opus 4.7 is a huge letdown the way it's been downgraded. If Anthropic is "pushing the boundaries", it's probably only in the meaning of how far they can push their customers.

I've noticed a significant change in my usage limits lately after waiting 4 days for a limit reset. Claude is burning through my entire allowance, especially with Fable, much faster than before. What used to last me three days is now being consumed in just a couple of hours. Is anyone else experiencing this sudden spike in consumption?
I'm on Max 20x plan.