[daveoc64]

>My overall feel is that people underestimate the complexity of the systems at Anthropic and the chaos of the growth.

Making changes like reducing the usage window at peak times (https://x.com/trq212/status/2037254607001559305) without announcing it (until after the backlash) is the sort of thing that's making people lose trust in Anthropic. They completely ignored support tickets and GitHub issues about that for 3 days.

You shouldn't have to rely on finding an individual employee's posts on Reddit or X for policy announcements.

That policy hasn't even been put into their official documentation nearly one month on - https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11647753-how-do-usage...

A company with their resources could easily do better.

[xpe]

> You shouldn't have to rely on finding an individual employee's posts on Reddit or X for policy announcements.

I agree with this as a principle. Which raises this question: is it true? Are you certain these messages don't show up in (a) Claude Code and (b) Claude on the Web?

I've seen these kinds of messages pop up. I haven't taken inventory of how often they do. As a guess, maybe I see notifications like this several times a month. If any important ones are missing, that is a mistake.

Anyhow, this is the kind of discussion that I want people to have. I appreciate the detail.

> A company with their resources could easily do better.

Yes, they could. But easily? I'm not so sure.

Also ask yourself: what function does saying e.g. "they could have done better" serve? What does it help accomplish? I'm asking. I think it often serves as a sort of self-reinforcing thing to say that doesn't really invite more thinking.

Ask yourself: If "doing better" was easy, why didn't it happen? Maybe it isn't quite as easy as you think? Maybe you've baked in a lot of assumptions. Easy for who? Easy why? Try the questions I asked, above. They are not rhetorical. Here they are again, rephrased a bit

    > take the top three companies whose product you 
    > interact with on a regular basis. Take stock of
    > (1) how fast the technology is moving;
    > (2) how often things break from your POV;
    > (3) how soon the company acknowledges it;
    > (4) how long it takes for a fix.
    >
    > Then ask "if a friend of mine (competent, hard working)
    > worked there, how would I be thinking about the situation?"

There is a reason why I recommend asking these questions. Forcing yourself to write down your reference class is ... to me, table stakes, but well, lots of people just leave it floating and then ask other people to magically reconstruct it. Envisioning a friend working there shifts your viewpoint and can shake lose many common biases.

[xpe]

Thanks for the example -- you are one of the first people to quote a source, so I appreciate it. This makes constructive discussion much easier. You quoted this:

    > To manage growing demand for Claude we're adjusting our
    > 5 hour session limits for free/Pro/Max subs during peak
    > hours. Your weekly limits remain unchanged.
    >
    > During weekdays between 5am–11am PT / 1pm–7pm GMT, you'll
    > move through your 5-hour session limits faster than before.

And yeah, no disagreement from me: many users are not going to like this. Narrowly speaking, I don't want any chance that reduces what I get for what I pay for. I also care about overall reliability, so if some users on the right tail of the usage distribution find themselves losing out, my take is "Yeah, they are disappointed, but this is rational decision for any company with this kind of subscription model."

Broken expectations are highly dependent on perception. People get used to having some particular level. When that changes and they notice, and being humans a strong default is to reach for something to blame. Then we rationalize. That last two parts are unhelpful, and I push back on them frequently.