[solenoid0937]

It's the same phenomenon as when you learn a new vocabulary word you see it everywhere.

People heard "Claude is nerfed" and now they see it everywhere, they notice failures a lot more than they would have otherwise.

Doesn't matter that Claude is not, in fact, nerfed. Perception is powerful and most humans are not rational.

[fendy3002]

Oh Opus is nerfed sure, but not that hard. Early this year opus 4.6 can understand your prompt and your intention easily, it got worse around mid April. Opus 4.7 even worse than that.

However that's just it, you just need to improve and make clearer of your prompt and it will perform just as good.

[fragmede]

Or just switch over to OpenAI. Codex-5.5 is quite good.

[arkadiytehgraet]

This account is an LLM-hype peddler, shilling for Anthropic (check comment history). If they say that Claude is not nerfed, then most likely it is, in fact, nerfed.

[solenoid0937]

I wouldn't call correcting misinformation and FUD "peddling hype" or "shilling" but I suppose we are in a post-truth world, where if you push back against the anti-AI emotions and vibes with grounded facts, you must be a shill.

Anyways, please take your discourse of calling people you disagree with "shills" back to Reddit. I'd much rather engage with someone debating the merits of an argument.

[arkadiytehgraet]

If you are an LLM-hype peddler, you really should not be offended at being called out. Also, this is the merit you are ostensibly looking for — since you are a shill, everyone should know this first before taking your words seriously.

You should also check your LLM prompt for HN comments, because the original comment you replied to was not anti-AI, and, in fact, very much pro-AI. The only criticism it had was about model being degraded, so they could not go as hard at AI-assisted development anymore as they used to before. I guess it's a bit difficult for LLMs to spot the difference and make proper conclusion for now.

Also even if taking you seriously — how does writing "no, model performance is not degraded because I say so" serve as correcting misinformation? It only does if you are shilling for Anthropic (which you do), otherwise it's just hot air.

[solenoid0937]

Not offended at all, but just ranting about how someone is a shill instead of responding to the substance of their argument is simply not the kind of discussion we have on HN. Read the guidelines.

> "no, model performance is not degraded because I say so" serve as correcting misinformation?

Because zero evidence has been provided other than feelings. That is not evidence of degradation, and we know they don't serve quants.

[arkadiytehgraet]

You are an Anthropic shill, and this is an explicit marker that needs to be added to all of your comments, so that all information you provide can be adjusted for that bias. But I do understand why you ignore this point since it devalues all your comments (as it should), and instead cling to "ranting how someone is a shill bla-bla-bla".

Those people, unlike you, are actually using AI in development. And it is not a singular person who reports their frustration with the model being degraded after a certain period of time, so the anecdata does gradually become data. Your attempts at gaslighting are weak, you should really ask your bosses for a new guidebook on how to deal with reports of models performing at worse levels than before. Just writing "because I say so" is not cutting it.

> "we know they don't serve quants"

How do you know that unless you are working at Antrhopic? Yet another evidence of you being an Anthropic shill.

[solenoid0937]

You have no substantive arguments other than calling people you disagree with shills.

> so the anecdata does gradually become data.

No, it does not. Countless social phenomena demonstrate how factually incorrect misconceptions spread rapidly. Frequency illusion is real and contagious.

> How do you know that [they are not serving quants]

Lots of ways to tell, if you weren't busy calling people shills.

First, Anthropic and OpenAI have both stated they don't serve quants. Weak protection, but it's there.

Second, no one has shown an A/B or eval proving a regression.

Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution. Despite having access to this data, no one has any evidence proving a quant has been served.

> You are an Anthropic shill

I'd explain the reasons I favor Anthropic over the others, but you'd just go back to yelling "shill" instead of engaging in a real conversation. That said, I am a fan of GDM as well, and think Gemini is better than Anthropic for everything other than code.

I've seen nothing resembling sane, reasoned thought from you in this thread. Just anger.

You haven't substantively debated a single point, it's like "shill" is the only word in your vocabulary. Again, this isn't Reddit.