Users will say this-or-that about choice etc etc. It’s about subsidized tokens. Otherwise th users (and OpenCode) would have stopped pushing the workarounds months ago.
Yes, i completely agree - which was my question. To my understanding OC was using CC API directly instead of using the SDK. My question is, why? Does the SDK prevent some functionality they needed?
Listen, I want more open weight models in the world. They create entrepreneurial opportunities and support use cases which the foundation labs don’t want to support.
But open weight models are consistently three to six months behind on performance compared to closed models, as confirmed by both benchmarks and personal use. They’re closer on coding and much further away on non-coding tasks.
There are theories as to why these models lag, which I won’t get into. But anyone claiming open-weight models are close to closed-weight models is ignoring significant evidence to the contrary.
The onus isn’t on me. It’s on anyone contradicting findings by most benchmarks, because most of them show a clear advantage for Opus and GPT over OSS models.
What's amazing is that LLM technologies are so immature that even basic engineering diligence isn't being done. (Like detecting token loops, for example.)
I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms.
The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime.
Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscription licenses allow free usage of CC across any product surface - including competing products like OpenCode. While this is a great way to save on API costs, the assumption is incorrect. In fact, it is *so* incorrect that Anthropic has encoded their licensing terms into their Terms of Service, and a result can take legal action against any violating parties.
We can have separate discussions about Anthropic’s use of the Common Crawl in pre-training, or whether foundation labs adhere to robots.txt conventions. But those don’t directly impact Anthropic’s right to bring litigation.
——
Outside of that I think angry users have their own stated preferences v revealed preferences here. They claim they want Opus on their terms, and Anthropic’s actions infringe on their user rights.
Angry folks: Opus is right there! You just need an API key! The reality is you want Opus in your devtools of choice at discounted rates. You could at least be honest about your consternation
I think that’s a bit more nuanced. The actual „product” is not the harness, which is free anyway, but the Claude subscription. In any scenario, that’s what the customer continues to pay for. I understand why Anthropic is doing that, but I feel no need to defend it. Just like I understand why Apple limits your app choices to AppStore, but I’m not going to go out of my way to defend their decision.
It's way more nuanced, because the subscription is older then Claude Code - and they only started to have a problem with third parties using it after Claude Code. (And not with the release, just some time after the release)
>We can have separate discussions about Anthropic’s use of the Common Crawl in pre-training, or whether foundation labs adhere to robots.txt conventions. But those don’t directly impact Anthropic’s right to bring litigation.
Some of us don't care for Anthropic's "right to bring litigation" anymore than we care about some scumbag patent troll company doing things "within their legal rights".
We care for the morality of its conduct, the openess of its products, and the environment it creates.
I think this is disingenuous, people want to be able to use a tool that they pay for to do useful work on their own terms because they payed for it and don’t see the differential pricing model offered by Anthropic as legitimate.
I don’t agree, what people want is very consequential, because those people are paying customers of a service, if they aren’t happy with it they have every right to complain.
People should be vocal about what they do and do not think is reasonable behavior by corporations and then act based on those opinions with their wallets. Lord knows we have precious few other ways of influencing corporate behavior.
>What the people want is inconsequential here. The people also want to abolish copyright and freely share and download media too.
I already approved of the complaints against Anthropic here, you don't have to sell it this hard to me.
(Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy that their whole business is based on open copyright abuse - all that copyrighted training material, illegally obtained books and movies, etc).
Yes, it is true that companies often litigate against customers who violate their Terms of Service. The TOS is put into place to protect the company’s interests from user abuse.
Paying customers of Claude Code don’t receive a free-use license for any desired application. They’re paying to use Claude Code. Anthropic can take steps to litigate usage outside of those terms, even if customers find that fact really annoying.
LMSYS consistently provides a high standard for open, collaborative exploration of LLMs. Cool to see them explore LLM routing - this feels like a fertile area for problemsolving.
My experience this is common for specialty knowledge the founders might not possess. They know enough to know they cannot assess, say, AI/ML or infrastructure, and seek interview support from an advisor.
I took Adam’s point here to be that an Airflow DAG author primarily concerns themselves with the configuration of those objects, since the underlying components (Celery worker, Python execution process or K8s pod; data warehouse; RPC) have been abstracted in the form of Operators.
Is one no longer allowed to say "I wonder why thing A has properties that resemble thing B" without pretty directly implying "Thing A is exactly thing B"?
My hope was to have a conversation about whether the franchise model is bad in ways that have overtones of scams, or whether MLMs are only scams by virtue of the MLM bit and not because of any of the other behavior that is often called scammy, or any such thing, but apparently that was too much to ask.
> many of them require that you buy a huge chunk of inventory up front whether or not you sell it, which is one of many abusive tactics of current American MLMs
Purchasing unrefundable stock is not inventory loading. It does not “resemble an MLM” in a meaningful way - you might as well say that any company that offers a recruiting bonus to employees resembles an MLM.
If you want to talk about predatory business practices, there’s plenty of it around in the franchise model. When you keep saying “like an MLM” you sound like you think these attributes are specific to MLMs.
I use a trackball next to my keyboard which barely cracks the $100 barrier right now. The trackball won't change when the keyboard does in a few months.
Users will say this-or-that about choice etc etc. It’s about subsidized tokens. Otherwise th users (and OpenCode) would have stopped pushing the workarounds months ago.
reply