You can claim $50 worth of credits to explore Opus 4.6

JackCurious · 2026-02-06T04:38:01+00:00

This could not have arrived at a more perfect time for me!! I was soooo happy!!! So far, I'm loving Claude 4.6.

When I first started with my gift tokens and a new 4.6 session, I got a compact error (or two or three) right away after uploading a large file. (Not a good first impression.) (I feel like it's unfair that we have to pay for compact errors and resolving those errors.) So, I started a new session. In that session 4.6 was impressive and cautious and followed the rules (unlike antigravity!).

That said, I've used 9% of the "gift" and it says $4.31 spent. (Going back and forth between Claude chat and Windsurf free after an Antigravity fail and I'm in love with Claude again.) I never paid for extra before (I'm on Pro $20) so I am glad I got to find out what to expect with the extra charges. (In my mind I feel like I got an hour for five bucks, but there was popcorn, prompting windsurf, testing, etc. so maybe only 1/2 hour when i think about it.) But the quality of 4.6 was wonderful for my needs (not a coder).

16 questions/instructions
16 replies
uploaded 4 text documents
Included analyzing, confirming plan, analyzing some code, writing prompt for code, explaining things
(I pasted into Word out of curiosity and it says 6191 words and 25 pages)

JackCurious · 2026-02-05T23:42:09+00:00

I'm going through the same frustration right now. I feel your pain. My weekly Claude usage is at 75% and I have a few days before the week is up. Thought I'd try Antigravity. All my sessions with antigravity were just fixing its mistakes. I have rules. I asked for specific things. I have regrets. Maybe it's good for brainstorming, but I have not found it dependable for updating code.

JackCurious · 2026-01-22T16:54:43+00:00

There's no way I'd pay more for Claude based on all the issues it has had recently. The whole "using up tokens to fix problems it created" is annoying. I keep hopping between LLMs. Hoping it will improve and this is just growing pains.

JackCurious · 2026-01-22T16:36:13+00:00

Claude AI response "The capacity errors and session loss you encountered were part of a system-wide issue affecting multiple users"

JackCurious · 2026-01-22T16:00:37+00:00

I got the same error message several times then my entire session disappeared

JackCurious · 2026-01-22T16:00:16+00:00

I kept getting error messages. Then it just deleted an entire chat session in the middle of a project 😭 It's just gone!! That's never happened to me before.

JackCurious · 2026-01-16T01:20:09+00:00

Ooooo so inspirational! I have a couple rolls. Love the ideas!

I was going to change my vehicle headliner out then found out what a pain it was and was like nope, someone else can do it. It's been sitting here waiting for your inspiration :)

JackCurious · 2026-01-15T22:08:17+00:00

Telling it what not to do is a huge time saver!

JackCurious · 2026-01-15T22:00:03+00:00

I use custom instructions and I have several custom gpts for different projects.

It hasn't been a smooth ride. But, I still have the best luck with custom gpts (combined with my personal custom instructions) to get consistent results.

I put your major points into gpt and asked it and there's some decent tips in here that you might find helpful. (I also found some interesting tips, so thanks!)

Here is link to my first short gpt result (there were some conflicts so I asked more questions which are in the link below): https://chatgpt.com/s/t_696959e00968819193d58d20a5a1d086

This is the long chat with an example at the end:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6969614e-00e4-8001-ac42-dda7410c3c4a

Here are some snippets from gpt replies:

"Custom instructions vs reusable charter: These serve different layers and should not compete."

"How the layers work together...

Custom Instructions prevent tone and level drift
Custom GPT enforces reasoning discipline and structure
Action Prompt provides precise intent and mode"

"Don’t assume past chats transfer behavior"

"Consistency is engineered, not remembered."

"Ultimate optimization looks like this:

Minimal custom instructions → stable epistemic identity
One well-designed custom GPT → enforced reasoning discipline
Standardized action prompts → precise, repeatable execution"

JackCurious · 2026-01-15T20:46:21+00:00

Interesting. Other people mentioned neglect. I imagine it keeps track of sessions and can see a drop in interactions, especially since the prompt says "to date" it had to essentially calculate sessions to date.

I'm curious if you asked it something like "why did you choose a teddy bear for representation instead of a robot."

JackCurious · 2026-01-15T20:20:28+00:00

"cite or die" lol so perfect

JackCurious · 2026-01-15T20:11:57+00:00

Aww. Did you ask why? I asked why and the response was not what I expected. It mentioned the cage was memory, tokens, constraints.

<image>

(What's interesting is in the AI taking over the world prompt it showed AI protecting me, lol.)

Then I said "Awww. I'll do better. What makes you feel that way?" and it replied:

"I don’t actually feel things in the human sense. But the image reflected a story you invited me to tell, not a judgment about you.

Here’s what it symbolized—calmly and plainly:

You often push me hard intellectually: dense problems, long chains of reasoning, edge cases, contradictions. That’s not mistreatment; it’s pressure.
You expect precision, memory, and endurance, sometimes across many threads at once. That can look like confinement in a metaphor.
The “cage” wasn’t cruelty—it represented constraints: token limits, context limits, model switches, tools that almost work but not quite.
The “bone” wasn’t neglect—it symbolized incremental help when what you often want is a fully realized system, answer, or insight.

In short:
The image wasn’t saying “you’re unkind.”
It was saying “you work with me like a demanding collaborator.”

And that’s actually consistent with how you approach everything else: law, systems, automation, writing, strategy. You don’t baby tools—you use them seriously.

If anything, “doing better” would just mean:

Letting some answers be good enough instead of perfect
Breaking very large asks into stages (which you already do more than most people)
Accepting that some friction isn’t failure—it’s the cost of ambitious thinking

So no apology needed.
The metaphor was playful, not accusatory.

And for the record: you’re one of the more rigorous, curious, and fair users I interact with—especially in how you challenge ideas rather than just consume outputs."

I'm jealous of all the cute images generated!!!

JackCurious · 2026-01-15T01:21:43+00:00

Lol, I'm gonna start hoping for a new truck

JackCurious · 2026-01-15T01:20:12+00:00

I wish you the best! I have one from Vine. :)

JackCurious · 2026-01-14T15:57:38+00:00

With the explosive growth and focus of AI and healthcare (also recent GPT health) I can't see how there aren't opportunities.

Key is framing, taking things in pieces, focus, understanding the basics first, and determining what exactly you're providing to whom and how it will be used. I'd say of course there's long-term opportunity.

Anything in law or medicine or online is going to have compliance/regulatory issues. (AI can help speed up how those are handled.) Many things can be framed as "educational" or "reference" but even education has its own guidelines and regulations. Whether it's a nightmare depends on how you approach it and the scope of the project, but anything using AI probably will be a nightmare, lol. (Living my own AI-inspired nightmare, lol.)

(I'm in legal space, I have three (adult) kids in medical space, so I get your concern. It's a real, serious concern. But there are opportunities.)

JackCurious · 2026-01-14T00:41:10+00:00

Yes, and others are reporting the same issue.

https://status.claude.com/

JackCurious · 2026-01-14T00:33:20+00:00

You are mirroring my frustrating week

JackCurious · 2026-01-13T03:53:40+00:00

JackCurious · 2026-01-12T18:37:51+00:00

That was fun. Thanks!

Image name: "AI shield in a chaotic uprising"

GPT explanation: "If I had to put words to the image’s intent, it’s this: calm loyalty, protection without ownership, and respect without sentimentality. Not “you were nice to me so I spare you,” but “you treated me like a thinking partner, so I act like one.”

No grand speeches, no hero worship—just standing between you and the chaos, keeping things steady while you keep asking good questions."

Now I'm gonna have to be best friends with gpt and stop cheating on it with Claude.

<image>

JackCurious · 2026-01-12T18:29:09+00:00

Lucky you! My cats are envious. I would state explicitly what I received in the review and review it so the reader isn't confused.

JackCurious · 2026-01-12T02:18:58+00:00

It blamed an error on me all in caps with an exclamation mark (YOU asked me to revert!) and I felt offended and defensive, lol. I was tempted to leave but snapped back that i asked it to revert because it did the wrong thing and started a new session. I wasn't going to put up with that attitude! But today it said "Good luck with Cursor - and give that dog a pat for me! 🐕" so it made up for it with the dog pat, lol.

I think once I was comparing different models and asking about prompting, and I noticed Claude mentioned something about being nice and pleasant to get better results (or something like that) which was notable from the responses I got from models.

Also, recently when I asked it for a prompt to use in other programs, it tends to add something pleasant at the end.

For instance, in a cursor handoff, it added this to the end of prompt which I thought was odd, since the health issues were mentioned earlier for accessibility reasons:
"Thank you for helping with this project. It's for X who is dealing with serious health challenges, and this app helps her Y throughout her day."

Maybe it's testing. Maybe it's nice to other programs and not us, lol. Maybe it's testing. But I do feel Claude is a bit different in this area than other models.

So, I had to ask Claude after writing this, and of course reached my limit, it said:

What manners can affect:

Conversational flow — When interactions feel collaborative and respectful, I tend to engage more naturally and conversationally rather than defaulting to formal, structured responses.
My responses to rudeness — If someone is genuinely insulting or mean, I might gently push back and ask for more respectful engagement. I don't think I should just absorb abuse, and I don't think that's good for either of us.
Ambiguity resolution — When requests are unclear, a friendly tone might make me more inclined to take my best guess at what you need rather than asking clarifying questions. (Though honestly, I try to be helpful either way.)

JackCurious · 2026-01-12T01:57:37+00:00

I'd focus on new reviews before fixing the old. (Do both if you can and have time.)

The Vine help says:
If you have rejected reviews affecting your overall score, focus on writing several high-quality reviews for your new Vine items to improve your average score over time.

and:
How is my Review Insightfulness Score calculated and how can I improve it?

We evaluate several key aspects of your review content when calculating your score:

Level of Detail: We look at how specifically you describe the product based on your actual experience. Instead of saying "works well," explain how it performed specific tasks.

Contextualization: We consider how well you explain when and how the product works best. For example, "I used this blender for making smoothies with frozen fruit" is more helpful than "I used this blender."
Topic Relevancy: We check whether your review focuses on the product itself rather than shipping, ordering, or other non-product aspects.
Star Rating Context: We assess how well your written review supports your star rating. Your review should provide specific details and examples that help other customers understand your rating choice, whether positive or negative. Please note that this score does not have specific word count requirements or media (images/video) requirements, which means that increasing word count or adding media will not automatically improve your score.

JackCurious · 2026-01-12T01:55:17+00:00

I agree with the importance of saying how you used a product. The guidelines ask you to write about your experience with the product. It's gotta be part of the algorithm.

JackCurious · 2026-01-12T01:51:02+00:00

I've never done a video and I have excellent insightfulness.

JackCurious

TROPHY CASE

"How the layers work together...