HN user
I struggle to imagine where anthropic is going with sub users...
Fable 5 might not be accessible for sub in the future despite their "best effort".
And 5.6-sol is as expensive as 5.5, so highly probable to be kept in sub.
So what's the plan? Hoping people stay on ClaudeCode because Sonnet 5 while Codex offers 5.6-sol to subsription peasants?
Seems risky
If it's the case then software engineers still have the same place as pre-ClaudeCode era, because 4.8 and 5.5 are damn good at algo but notoriously bad at architecture and coordination.
I believe the ideal solution would be to take a genAI image from gpt-image2 and transform it onto a pseudo-deterministic layout.
Did anyone tried a non-naive approach, aka throwing the image with a simple "rebuild it" prompt ?
It's all speculation.
Reality is Fable is x2 price increase against previous.
GPT5.5 is x2 price increase against previous. And after the last week reset, codex is hungry for your sub allowance.
Everybody can see that the massive raises are not matching the revenue, at all.
It's a surprising headline. Yes it does make sense to cut the price to gain market share, but it also make sense to keep it at a sustainable level, which seems to not have been reached yet.
A "plans for agents" interface because I'm tired of reading huge markdown plans to iterate on the real work. Is supports infinite 2d space like miro, but has one thread per card, a cli for the agent to treat open notes. It support voice prompting too.
It feels like you have parallel conversation with an agent, except it understands all the surface. And it's granular, surgical and precise.
Usage: I'm writing a game design document of 70 pages with it, working surgically without having to worry about what page number the edit was.
It really solved my main bottleneck which is telling the AI what to do in a complete and comprehensive context.
Readme is trash but your agent will understand what to do
I wonder if profitable means that investment must be recouped or just if your operational expenses must be compensated by your earnings.
Anthropic is becoming "profitable" while burning a series H of 69 bns usd. Does it count as profitable?
I'm curious if someone well versed in finance can answer, because from my uneducated perspective, it's not profitable to burn billions in order to make a billion.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/20/anthropic-revenue-explosive-...
I'm making a 3D game and I hate flat worlds, a planet is much more elegant, both finite and infinite in gameplay terms since the surface is not expandable, but you can't hit a world border at the same time.
Cartesian coordinates doesn't work well for the player so I wanted a lat/long/altitude grid system.
I could have spent few days walking through stackoverflow and debuging my upcoming flawed implementation.
ChatGPT web version almost one shot the helpers in 2024 and boy, there were a lot of pitfalls.
Yes I got how they used the phrase. And it was wrong, so I wanted to react. Thanks for your addition, it dissipates any doubt on the intention of OP: he thinks Anthropic is hiding the lack of power by pretending it's too dangerous. But he is wrong to assume that without proof, hence my reaction.
I agree, saying "it's clear" when at best, "it's plausible" doesn't let the conversation happen. And pretending to know what is going on behind the scene, anon on HN is not credible
It's not clear, there is no tangible proof that Mythos is not released because they don't have compute power to serve it. Saying that would imply that the "too dangerous" is a lie. Nobody has proof. It can feel "clear" for you, but it's not. Hence, I correct it.
Unsure about that, opus was already insanely good and we got it for a fractional cost via subscriptions.
They want the plebs, they want the mass.
Yeah and apparently, Mythos is pretty effective at finding critical issues. So it seams to be a good product served with a genius offer. Anthropic founding engineers are already comfortable, they will end rich.
They did produce great value, claude code and opus 4.5 are a singularity in software engineering.
The job we practiced for decades simply doesn't exist anymore.
I don't have enough elements to conclude if the world would collapse if Mythos was released publicly without Glasswing.
Nor publicly or in my internal reasoning. I rarely conclude without proof or very intense and clear intuition.
From a strategic PoV it makes sense to check if their model is dangerous, I wouldn't want to have my brand name associated with "NK hacker team find zero day in all linux servers of the web and ..."
Where did I use the word scam?
Marketing move doesn't mean scam. It describe the ability to sell people over a narrative and surpassing your competitor in market share. And that's exactly what is happening.
My post is a "tribute" to the efficiency of Anthropic's communication. I never complained about anything, nor calling it a scam, nor saying they should have released mythos to the public instead of rolling it out to a selected cohort.
You tried to expand my words to make me say something I didn't, because my post wasn't giving you a clear conclusion of my opinion regarding their private release.
Here spoke the wise man!
It is not "clear", as your comment suggests, it's hidden. Which is semantically the opposite of clear. Regarding your theory, might be true, might be false. But it's highly speculative.
Genius^2
Our game is to craft shit, their game is to sell shit. You gotta respect the different tastes in the nature!
Genius marketing move doesn't mean there is no value.
It means than even if the value you offer is similar as your competitors, you are the one conquering the market.
That's the only way to not becoming a commodity.
Urgency x scarcity, unbeatable marketing move.
Step 1: claim you created a tool so dangerous you can't release it
Step2: offer to test it, but only for the biggest companies in the world
Step 3: onboard those big players on your tooling and product
Step 4: profit
This is genius.
I have a rule for Claude to stop watermarking the commits. I feel exposed when it's doing it and I rewrote the entire Claude assisted commit history after switching from Copilot to Claude.
Now dig into copilot plus and how they price the premium requests. The math is not mathing, they are aggressively trying to capture the market.
If you check the actual tokens consumption and compare it to the API you will find a factor 10.
Training models cost tens of millions, their revenues from sub + api are well above hundreds of millions.
If you look at minimax IPO data, you can see that they spent 3x their revenue on "cloud bills".
So yes, it's probable that they do subsidize inference through subscriptions in order to capture market.
No inferrence provider is profitable, and most run on VC money to serve customers.
1. Didn't know, will look.
2. Trained on opensource vs trained on copyright is a solid rationale. But yes, LLM have been trained on copyrighted code, as an UnrealEngine user, it's pretty obvious that any LLM has knowledge of the engine source code and patterns, not only the doc. But it might be marginal since the quantity of open source code is gigantic.
Retribution to copyright holders for artistic work would make a lot of sense. It reminds me the shift from emule/kazaa everything towards spotify. Legal streaming has almost totally replaced music pirating. And it looks beneficial for artists since we never had that much production in human history.
I don't believe in LLM replacing devs either, it increases my scope but not in any point allow me to prompt in the morning and collect the money on the evening. It's still a job of full focus, even if I'm braining less. I feel I moved to a managing position instead of a crafter. Pretty happy to leave the webdev world for gamedev since LLM are years away to handle complex abstracts and produce clean code.
Not trolling but def not hanging out on HN as much as twitter. I'm in the gamedev circle and GenAI is the only concern, not LLM code. Despite games being a mix of art and code. I'm also in the solopreneur / build in public circle where everybody wants to vibe code the next SaaS.
From your feedback, GenAI makes obvious some important problems our society is facing. LLM result is technical, genAI result is emotional because despite being the same exact tools, one produces text and the other produces images.
Same problems, different tool?
I'm genuinely asking what are your input on that, and telling why I can't see a diff. What would a better AskHN would look like for you, happy to edit to increase the quality of the post.
I obviously see the rants of my own echo chamber, but the complaints about GenAI are mostly about copyright (as you said) but they also make it a moral stand. GameDev using GenAI are accused of being "lazy", of having no vision, etc... unquantifiable.
Your remark about aesthetic would map 1:1 to poor code quality. (LLM code quality can be pretty bad, depends on prompt like always).
"Stealing" is a word aften use to criticize genAI.
I didn't lose my edge, I increased my handlable scope and power to control machines.
Software engineer here, using LLM for coding is shifting the job from mono tasking to multi tasking.
I have several agents runing in parallel, they require inputs every 1 to 5 minutes.
Im switching context all the time, and I must hold a larger context in my brain RAM instead of being focused on a single topic.
I'm not writing code anymore for web development.
On the other side, when doing game dev, with all the spatial geometry necessary, LLM are useless 97% of thr time.