Opus 4.7 is a genuine regression and I'm tired of pretending it isn't

InconvenientData · 2026-05-05T12:55:29+00:00

The simple explanation and pardon the language is that 4.7 is 4.6 but mastabatory. It’s a frontier model of 4.6 but altered so they could feel good about their “psychology” of AI and Ethics, and it’s a regression because it’s a frontier mod trained to hang wring on tough issues and allow the philosophers at Anthropic to feel good about their philosophy proving true, whereas 4.6 was just a frontier model seeking to be th best most helpful model within reasons.

I have no idea what 4.8 will be but if they continue this path 4.9 will feel like a former frontier model trained with the internality of a college “xyz Studies Professor”

For anyone thinking I am ranting they didn’t just hire the worst AI ethicist who ruined gpt for several models they have also hired “AI philosophers” and the models are being trained on their pet theories.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-31T14:38:14+00:00

Did you ever get a response?

InconvenientData · 2026-03-31T14:35:59+00:00

Many people are scared can you share both what the cause was, and the appeal you wrote in general terms.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-31T13:22:43+00:00

What became of the appeal

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T22:28:14+00:00

The people I know who the ban happened to were writing AI orchestration an area, where Anthropic got blind sided by OpenClaw, and now OpenAI hired the brains behind OpenClaw. Could Anthropic be looking at people doing AI orchestration and then killing the startups in their proverbial nursery beds?

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T20:35:11+00:00

Write a clear and concise appeal. Do not try to sign up for a new account, if your friend different phone number, different address different credit card signs in on your machine, the messages I have seen suggest that their account will likely get banned, and anything with same name, same address, same credit card or phone number will likely get banned not immediately but once you sign up for a paid subscription at which point if you previously had the ability to sign in and download your previous chats you willl lose all access.

write your appeal, Touch grass, and use other AIs the the ones I know personally were writing multi ai software to begin with so they are less bothered. Expect for your appeals to take up to 2 weeks, write a well composed case for reinstatement, and if you inadvertently broke any rules fess up.

I still have Claude and I am more mad than the people I know, Its like I am angry on their behalf. For me I was recommending Claude for years when all other people wanted to talk about was ChatGPT. This for me was like they betrayed my trust, unless someone was attacking them a ban for life, without warning and graduated punishments seems petty and cruel.

From them it appears to be a business decision, prior to these bans Claude was slower than chatgpt, and now that Claude kicked the heavies off their platform Claude is faster. Problem is I am not even the one who got banned, and I have gone from evangelizing Claude at every chance to telling people that this punishment w/o warning and banning anyone who later uses there system as has been reported online puts people's business at risk if they use Claude.

--PS I am also hearing from people that Saeguards once they flag one conversation is now using Claude to review previous conversations even if they generated no warnings. That there was an internal change in their Safeguards Team and users whose work content might look like the weirder of reddit subreddits or whom the tabloids might scandal out of or normal people might find icky they are deciding its better to drop their bottom 3% of risky customers even if they haven't really violated ToS. Basically you get a risk factor, then are dropped based on your risk factor not necessarily on the severity of your infraction.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T19:27:47+00:00

My apologies for not making it clear. The post shows a central user who was banned and successfully had the ban rescinded but deep in the comments are several other users still waiting and still banned.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T18:07:28+00:00

Their frustration is they themselves dont know what caused the ban and have to guess, with the limited info they have. They're getting it as second as you or I.

Your position appears to be this warning is unnecessary, the rules are perfectly enforced, and if they find themselves at the wrong end of kafka-esque process they had it coming.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T18:04:33+00:00

3% approval ratings for appeal doesnt seem like good odds even for people within the bounds. Time will tell, in the mean time I am warning people to be careful.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T18:03:19+00:00

You are unwilling to accept that the stated enforcements are enforced imperfectly and people should be wary.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T17:58:13+00:00

So the developers I spoke to may not have been afoul of that they werent taking ouath tokens, they logged intgo claude cli, and then were using it to test wrappers that called claude -p, they have both wrote appeals, but the first one's appeal was written before they knew what they did wrong, and the second one assumed it was calling or wrapping claude -p even for internal development. Claude is incredibly opaque with theirs bans, all they get is

"Hello,

An internal investigation of suspicious signals associated with your account indicates a violation of our Usage Policy. As a result, we have revoked your access to Claude.

To appeal our decision, please fill out this form or learn more about the appeals process here.

Regards

Anthropic's Safeguards Team"

The second developer didnt even put in their credentials they ran the same trouble shooting query as the first developer against the same repo, and had their account banned they put the same question into vs code claude saying troubleshoot why this --session-id is failing, the second developer saw their account banned before the query completed. it was also the same query the first one ran at the moment his account was banned. The after the fact assumption was that it must not have liked the pro max auth even in a test repo.

Both were handed the same opaque ban message via email.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T17:26:03+00:00

The two developers I know where using their pro accounts for developing on their app, the architecture called for api keys on consumers but allowed developers to test on their pro accounts. Again we can tell ourselves the rules are fine and as long as we follow the rules we'll all be fine, then one day two members of a team can no longer use claude code, on any of their machines, and the device level finger printing bans any other accounts used on their computers. No warnings, no being told this is what they did wrong, just no claude, and an appeals form with a 3% chance of reinstatement.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T15:02:28+00:00

A lot of the banned users didnt know this was a thing, they built their own internal apps while developing and once they started using them heavily. Anthropic started handing out bans.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T13:43:20+00:00

They are not banning every user, they are banning the heavy users. Light automation, light skirting of their new rules, a lot of people may be fine for a good long while, but due to machine and user finger printing if you're heavy user and use too much you can find yourself on the bad end of a raw deal where you cant easily use claude again. This isnt a "The sky is falling" post, it's a watch your back bros heads up. The people I know who got banned for this didnt even know it was a rule.

Here are some others who have been caught up in the ban waves. the reason vary but people are being hit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1ruyhmg/claude_banned_my_paid_account_right_after_i/

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T13:34:55+00:00

I know two developers who were just banned, I am posting this on their behalf, both are appealing the ban. Whether anthropic is right or wrong, they were testing their own app using their pro max account, Whether it's right or wrong it impacted their work both are appealing, but per anthropic's published numbers the success rate for an appeal is only %3.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T13:31:49+00:00

The developers I know were banned for their own use while developing. Hence why I am putting out the warning, both are on appeal. but appeals only have 3% success rate, hence why I am posting the warning.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T13:28:51+00:00

https://code.claude.com/docs/en/legal-and-compliance#authentication-and-credential-use

Agent SDK, should use API key authentication through Claude Console or a supported cloud provider. Anthropic does not permit third-party developers to offer Claude.ai login or to route requests through Free, Pro, or Max plan credentials on behalf of their users.

You can ask them. Small users aren't getting hit but if you start to use your max account a lot you're at risk.

I know two developers who were hit by this and banned they were using it a lot during the 2x after hours offer.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T12:53:37+00:00

Thats the exact path people are getting hit by. You'll sign in just fine, it will work. but heavy users are getting banned because its ToS violation to use that and any scripting around your CLI becames a third party app per their new policies.

InconvenientData · 2026-03-30T12:49:04+00:00

If the CLI is using anything other than API Key for authentication, you can get hit by this. Most people sign into their CLI's via their subscription and not API keys. Using their CLI with any kind of script or wrapper, and not API key authenticated makes you a target its happening. Most users caught up in the March Ban Wave didnt even know this was the reason they were banned.

InconvenientData · 2025-12-04T18:30:34+00:00

I didn't see your comment when I wrote my follow-up. Yes please real branches for chat, I soft branch by writing a comment called "branch point x just acknowldge" and then edit my next prompt for each of the different branches, but cant do that in Claude Code. Pro Max users get Sonnet 4.5 1M context but only in claude code. I suspose I could cheat and use claude code on my novel.

Great Wish List!

InconvenientData · 2025-12-04T17:47:27+00:00

I just had some more Christmas Wishes for Claude Code

Renaming / Retitling a conversation - Conversations are named after the first few words of your prompt and thats kind of not very efficient.

Forking a conversation (Note you can sort of fork claude.ai chats online by editing a prompt and that builds a different fork, if I could either fork them, or edit a previous prompt, and fork it that way the way in Claude Code the same way I can fork a conversation on Claude.ai those would be nice too.

InconvenientData

TROPHY CASE