[const_cast]

> clearly that's abusive and should be targeted.

You can't abuse a company by buying their services and using them to their own terms and conditions. The T&C is already stacked against you, you're in a position of no leverage.

The correct solution is what Anthropic is doing here - change the T&C so you can make money. If you offer unlimited stuff, people will use it... unlimitedly. So, don't let them call your bluff.

[Tokumei-no-hito]

we differ on the opinion that you can be abusive without breaking ToS. perhaps a charitable view is that this type of [abuse || acceptable use] helps lawyers stay employed so they can [eliminate exploitation of || more adequately describe] their ToS.

[const_cast]

IMO abuse requires an exercise of power. End-users have no power - they hold zero leverage over the contract, and they have zero room to negotiate. It's a fully take-it-or-leave-it deal, and pray they do not alter the deal further.

Because of that, IMO end-users can't abuse the contract, no matter how hard they try. It's not on them to do that, because they have zero control over the contract. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too problem.

Anthropic simultaneously retains complete control of the contract, but they want to "outsource" responsibility for how it's used to their end-users. No... it's either one or the other. Either you're in complete control and therefore hold complete accountability, or you share accountability.

[Tokumei-no-hito]

it's not a court of law.

end users did have power. the power to use the service legitimately, even as a power user. two choices were possible, with the users given the power to decide:

1. use it for an entire 8 hour workday with 1-2 agents at most - limited by a what a human could possibly entertain in terms of review and guidance.

2. use for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with recursive agents on full opus blast. no human review could even be possible with this much production. its the functional equivalent of one person managing a team of 10-20 cracked engineers on adderall that pump out code 24 hours a day.

the former was the extreme of a power user with a practical deliverable. the latter is a circus whose sole purpose is to push the bounds and tweet about it.

now the lawyers get some fresh work to do and everyone gets throttled. oh and that 2nd group? they'll be, and are, the loudest about how they've been "rug pulled just like cursor".

[Tokumei-no-hito]

there's a famous quote that i think captures the spirit of what i'm trying to express

"you're not wrong, you're just an asshole" - the dude to walter.

(no particular offense directed, the you here is of course the "royal you").

[const_cast]

I just fundamentally am resistant to calling the "little people" the assholes.

Look, in my view, Anthropic made a mistake. And that's okay, we all do.

But I'm not going to let a multi-billion dollar company off the hook because some nobodies called them out on their bluff. No, Anthropic made the mistake, and now they're fixing it.

Ultimately, this came out of greed - but not the greed of the little people. Anthropic chose aggressive pricing because, like all somewhat large corporations, they usually opt for cheating instead of winning by value. What I mean is, Anthropic didn't strive for The Best product, they instead used their capital as collateral to sell a service at loss to squeeze competitors, particularly small, non-incumbent ones.

And, that's fine, it's a legitimate business strategy. Walmart does it, Amazon does it, whatever. But if that backfires, I don't care and I won't extend sympathy. Such a strategy is inherently risky. They gambled, people called their bluff, and now they're folding.

[Tokumei-no-hito]

i get it, fuck the "man" and so forth.

I’m not suggesting you be sympathetic to anthropic. I’m suggesting sympathy for people who were using it legitimately, such as myself and others in areas where $200/mo is an extraordinary commitment, and we're not blind but appreciative to their subsidizing the cost.

the core of my position is, was it necessary for people to use it wastefully because they could? what was gained from that activity? sticking it to that greedy corporation? did it outweigh what was lost to the other 95%+ of users?

i don't think we're debating from compatible viewpoints. i maintain it's not wrong, just abusive. you maintain it's not wrong, it is [was] allowed. so be it.

the party's over anyways. the result is an acceleration on the path of normalizing the true cost of usage and it's clear that will unfortunately, or maybe justifiably in your eyes, exclude a lot of people who can't afford it. cheers man.