I used to love Claude, but the latest models are slowly ruining it

BBrajeshwar about 3 hours ago 21 commentsRead Article on androidauthority.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

75% Positive

Analyzed from 904 words in the discussion.

Discussion (21 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

visarga•about 1 hour ago

My own experience is that Opus 4.8 has an adversarial-teacher voice, unsolicited grading as if I submitted an essay for grading, declarations about the "real" issue, and constant "honest notes" self grading its own responses even before it answers. I can't stand its tone. We can't have a normal chat.

While Fable reverts to Opus for simple questions like "What is digestion?"

nolok•about 1 hour ago

For chatting and getting informations, and be corrected on things you're wrong without being reprimended by your own tool, GPT 5.5/5.6 is way better. Gemini 3.1 pro is surprisingly good at verifying your stuff, even though it's always making mistakes about its own stuff (don't ask him question, but ask him to verify your answer to the question).

Same for graphics, visual consistency, anything around the "does the look make sense and is pleasing" really, which makes claude design such a (good) surprise, I hope very hard for a Codex equivalent. And Gemini "gets" graphics.

Claude is definitely a code and cowork tool first, that's where it shines.

8note•about 1 hour ago

what i dislike more with opus 4.8 is that i can get a straightforward plan, and it just stops after the first 5% to wait for another message, and if i set a goal/ralph loop or anything for it to keep going through the plan, it cancels the loop and proclaims conpletion when its barely started

stevenhubertron•about 1 hour ago

Same, I was just fighting it as it accused me over and over again of Ctrl+Cing a process that clearly errored out. 3 turns for it to find why the shell script actually crashed.

JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago

It's quite obnoxious. I asked if brown rice left in the fridge for a couple days–originally put in for use in fried rices–was still safe. Fable decided I'm trying to produce biotoxins. Which, ironically, prompted me to learn how to produce Bacillus cereus at home [1].

I paid for a year but am going back to Kagi's multi-model system [2].

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7913059/ Don't Do It

[2] https://assistant.kagi.com

nozzlegear•43 minutes ago

> I paid for a year but am going back to Kagi's multi-model system [2].

I've been using DuckDuckGo's multi-model service for my "ask an AI random questions" needs. I was already paying them and discovered this LLM thing is part of my subscription. Works pretty well and has privacy guarantees I'd expect out of DDG, though I think they've been tightening the usage you can get out of it recently.

I'll have to try Kagi if DDG gets much tighter.

nolok•about 1 hour ago

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

(he, in this case, would not be the llm but the people over it)

I find those kind of limitation very dystopian and way more dangerous than the threat they claim to fight against.

skybrian•about 1 hour ago

Businesses are usually allowed to refuse service: "Sorry, we're closed" or "sir, this is a Wendy's." There's nothing dystopian about that.

But it's a rather annoying service if the customer can't predict in advance what sort of tasks they're willing to take on. You should have some idea about what they're normally willing to do for you.

nolok•about 1 hour ago

I do not disagree with business deciding to only provide the service they want, I am not talking about the AI business themselves, I am thinking about the people who think we should remove pages from knowledge book.

Whether the book takes the form of an llm or an online website or a printed book is merely implementation details.

ronsor•about 1 hour ago

I think no one objects to the refusals in the abstract but rather to the inconsistencies and the presentation. You don't know what request might be refused or downgraded. You do know that the marketing copy and CEO's words present it as being for your own good (or the good of society) instead of plainly stated as a business policy based on business or personal concerns. These aspects are what make it grating and yes, potentially dystopian.

vkou•44 minutes ago

> There's nothing dystopian about that.

It'll be dystopian when that'll become your only source of information, and we're working on getting there. If you want to be horrified, look at what students (in school and post-secondary) are doing these days.

It's insane to offload your thinking and knowledge to a machine owned by other people, but you have to if you want to keep up with the rat race.

dmix•about 2 hours ago

Claude has never been the best Chat agent. GPT and Gemini have the lead there. But Claude chat is still perfectly serviceable if you don’t want to pay for two.

solidasparagus•about 1 hour ago

I hate it. A useful tip - Claude goes into what I call Safety Mode when it gets afraid of risk. Once it's in that mode, you will never get out and it lobotomizes its effective intelligence. As soon as Claude sends a message like this, use the "edit message" feature in the chat UI to try again and avoid Safety Mode rather than trying to convince it or redirect it out by continuing the conversation.

garganzol•about 1 hour ago

Claude always was slightly lobotomized - instead of solving problems intellectually, it often prefers to be a middle-level code monkey. Maybe this was a part of the implicit safe mode from the very beginning. Cursor/Codex always work better for a way lower spend.

antod•about 2 hours ago

> Can AI have mental breakdowns?

I recall Microsoft's Sidney having a hilarious one regarding the date or something. Anyone have a link to that?

zitterbewegung•about 1 hour ago

I love Claude Code and I don't use the rest of the models since I use ChatGPT for productivity work it. Fable is pretty great and the UI / UX is much better than codex

babelfish•about 2 hours ago

Sol is really good

user43928•about 1 hour ago

Apart from the 'Approve for me' in Codex where it has massively regressed.

With GPT 5.5 it never got in the way.

Now it's infuriatingly deciding to reject the most basic actions used hundreds of times before. It just gave me this gem:

> The push to GitLab was blocked because the repository's privacy status couldn't be confirmed. Since the code is private, do you explicitly authorize pushing it to the configured origin on gitlab.com, so the merge request can be opened?

This is not a new project, and Codex has opened a hundred merge requests without issue before.

RandyRanderson•about 2 hours ago

My claim is that this is due to alignment

cyanydeez•about 2 hours ago

as long as you submit to the cloud's idea of what you're allowed to talk about, it'll keep changing the degree to which you're allowed to drink from the sacred fountain of knowledge.

This is more about how MBAs are wanting to mediate between you and the knowledge than anything else.

firasd•about 1 hour ago

But this is what all the tech bros wanted right? Spending 2025 panicking about sycophancy[1] and how GPT-4o needed to be shut down ASAP meant that 2026 models would be prone to thinking they know Better Than You. That was the germ of the sycophancy panic, the idea that there is a Truth that the GPUs know better than the user.

[1] HN thread on my post in January https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46488396