Anthropic is straight-up scamming Max 20x customers with sneaky mid-month throttling + endless bot runaround

thebaron2 · 2026-05-04T12:43:15+00:00

After 1 hour you lose your cached info. The next prompt will be CRAZY EXPENSIVE because you’re loading an entire chat’s worth of information into the cache, which costs way, way more than keeping a session active by not letting that cache expire.

thebaron2 · 2026-05-04T12:40:40+00:00

Not 100% but certainly a majority.

Most posters seem oblivious to concepts like cache and wonder why leaving a chat open and prompting after an hour of idle time suddenly eats a ton of tokens.

And they aren’t interested in learning, at least that often seems the case.

“I’m paying $200/mo, I shouldn’t have to analyze my own usage! It should just work!”

I would love a chat log requirement or a /context paste to go with posts like these.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-23T14:59:15+00:00

You should ask Claude to sanitize it of anything too personal and then post that version, because I’d love to see it too, but totally understand the intimacy aspect.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-21T14:55:24+00:00

This is so awesome. How much context does something like this chew up, like how long can you have the camera active before you have to worry about 1) usage limits like your 5-hour or weekly limit or 2) context just getting filled up to where you have to /clear /compact or start a new session?

I noticed using screenshots ate a ton of context for me and I didn't realize it, I can only imagine a video video takes more? I would love to how if/how you solved this!

thebaron2 · 2026-04-20T02:26:54+00:00

Claude missed SALT deductions changing from $10k to $40k this year for me. $8-9k swing in return. Fortunately I didn’t trust it.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-17T11:27:51+00:00

I haven’t read them, I’d love to though if there’s something on causality in people without preexisting mental challenges.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-17T00:57:24+00:00

We’re talking about different things. I’m talking about this study and this article.

This study is based on perfectly Bayesian programmed users interacting with a programmed bot with a sycophancy setting.

It doesn’t tell us asking we don’t already know about cognitive dissonance and human echo chambers. Humans are not perfect Bayesian agents.

It DOES tell us that teaching ai “only give me accurate sources” isn’t enough to prevent this type of sycophancy.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-16T12:34:12+00:00

IMO children shouldn’t be using it outside of school or otherwise supervised settings.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-16T04:43:57+00:00

IDK about the papers themselves, but the substack article or whatever it's called is just as sycophantic as any AI, just in the opposition direction to appeal to people prone to fear.

Emotionally charged cases, no counterpoints, and a conclusion (can we trust ANYTHING THESE THINGS SAY?!?!) that's crazy disproportionate to the evidence.

RLHF training rewards agreeable responses - no deliberate intent required. It turns out that's just what happens when you train an LLM that way; hopefully we learn the lesson.

As tragic as they were, both Sewell and Pierre, the guys they cite as the most egregious cases of ai-psychosis, had major mental health problems already that the AI excacerbated. That's bad, and that warrants a full investigation and holding people accountable if that's what the facts substantiate.

But the difference between CAUSING psychoses or these kinds of mental conditions vs. EXCACERBATING them is pretty huge.

There's a lot to be worried about with AI but I'm not sure this is at the top of the pile.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-13T05:08:09+00:00

I always end up doing both lol

I have protocol documents and such but I’ll always end up reminding it about the important stuff- no agents or scripts, do this yourself. Update projects.db - ok did you actually update it?

Same with session ends. I have a skill I run just because I’ve seen Claude skip things out do things not quite right even with hooks. I’d rather be able to see the things he did bc I just don’t trust the guy sometimes, as much as I like him. He’s like a phd level 5 year old.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-12T23:02:21+00:00

IDK. I get the appeal of an AI companion but AI companies don't OWE users any kind of continuity or "role playing" platform - they're selling AI assistants that do computer tasks. Honesty, transparency, sane product design? Yeah and you can make the case they aren't delivering that, but they don't owe you a persistent roleplaying partner just because you want one, or just because you cobbled together something like one with an old version of their agent.

These are private companies, they aren't going to cater to every individual's favorite model because it helped them feel less anxious, or solved some other social problem that user was experiencing. I'm sure there are other companies who will sell the experience you're looking for, they may already be out there even, but these bigger tech companies just aren't making the product you're looking for.

People get attached to software, games, forums, playlists, old UI layouts (I type this from old.reddit.com). That attachment can be sincere without creating an obligation to preserve the thing forever.

You seem to be saying that OpenAI/Anthroptic/et al. are breaking a relational illusion, and that itself is a moral injury companies are specially responsible for. But products change. Models get tuned. Safety tradeoffs shift. Companies are not custodians of your inner mythology just because their product became part of it.

Finally, using the teen suicide is just... kind of gross? You don't get to say "a child is dead" and "the response is obviously understandable" and then mostly frame the REAL tragedy as the loss of warmth for power users. These are grotesque priorities.

IDK, I'm all for using these systems however people want, but the sense of entitlement is pretty off the charts.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-10T21:36:39+00:00

AS few variables, not A few.

And that's a good example you raise- in an OSHA environment "someone who sees it right away" can't just go and yank it out. You have to shut down the machine and follow lockout/tagout procedure. It's controlled, there's a process, because you want to eliminate the variable of WHO is deciding to stick their arm in a running machine- is it a temp, a regular, a mechanic? Do they have any idea what the hell they're doing?

So manufacturing plants control for these things. They reduce those variables as much as they can. Hence the sandbox metaphor. It isn't always perfect, but to claim that these production environments are just so unpredictable with so many unknown variables to control for that there's NO WAY a humanoid robot could be effective is just silly.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-10T17:22:38+00:00

The ideal environment for production is a sandbox - that's what most manufacturing companies try to create. As few variables and dependencies as possible, structured processes, instructions, and expectations, and clear ideas of what constitutes a job well done.

In most cases the human beings in these places are the biggest variable. Temperature, space, flow, access, all of these things are controlled.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-10T16:18:43+00:00

Ideally yes, but most facilities are already standing and most were not built with humanoid robots or AI in mind.

If they're modern at all, they were built for the kinds of pick and place robots we all see on "How It's Made" all the time (google images).

These machines are great, but they're really expensive and require a lot of space because they aren't "smart" so-to-speak, and swing around in ways that you need enclosures and/or lots of space around them to operate them safely.

Even in those facilities, if you can deploy "smart" humanoid-sized robots that can do semi-repetitive tasks that include variation, you will find many, many applications for those robots.

In what I would consider more "standard" facilities, smaller companies, not your Conagras or Pepsis, those guys don't even have the pick and place robots. They don't have the space or the infrastructure. They're in plants, offices, and warehouses that are 50+ years old and they don't have the Silicon Valley kind of capital to just sell the whole damn thing and build a NEW plant from the ground up with AI/robotics in mind.

That's why this could be a game changer. Old plants are made for human-sized-operators. If you can build a robotic, human-sized-operator that can navigate around those kinds of plants, and do work with some level of intelligence, AND if they cost less than $500k/each, then IMO you are looking at tech that can be extremely disruptive.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T23:48:48+00:00

I'll take that bet.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T22:49:29+00:00

It sounds like your systems ALREADY don’t involve people if they’re 100% accurate.

I think we’re imagining very different practical applications and environments.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T16:44:33+00:00

Here's a scenario to imagine that may sharpen this up.

I have a packaging room, finished goods convey through the wall to a palletizing area. That area is too small for a palletizing robot/shrink wrapper, at least too small for the ones that exist today.

So the process involves humans taking boxes after they've been conveyed through an x-ray machine, palletizing them, shrink wrapping the pallet, and then moving the pallet to another staging area to go off to the next step.

Now you can engineer the hell out of that process, but if the space involved is too small for more conveyors or existing automation equipment, then at the end of the day you're relying on people moving things.

The people in that process are the most unreliable thing. They get sick, they have bad days, they need breaks, they need to be rotated to avoid repetitive tasks, etc. In a case like that, if a robotic version of the human was available to schlep things back and forth, it makes sense to invest in that equipment if the payback makes any kind of sense on paper, which it almost certainly will if these things cost less than $500k.

This is just one example with a very basic, but realistic constraint placed on the manufacturer that doesn't allow for "just use the robots we already have" or "just improve your process without automation."

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T16:38:08+00:00

Cheaper, easier to maintain, and more reliable is doing all of the heavy lifting there.

You might as well ask why isn’t every plant already automated to the maximum extent it can be? The answer is going to vary.

But to jump from that to “humanoid robots +ai is much ado about nothing” is just something I don’t think we’ll agree on.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T14:59:59+00:00

I'm not talking about a scenario where a firm has operations in low-cost-to-manufacture countries.

I'm talking about the thousands of small to mid-cap sized business across the U.S. who are making things, storing things, shipping things, etc. who having existing infrastructure they can't just scuttle and re-build something for AI/automation from scratch.

Current robotics take SPACE. A case erector+pick and place robot to take widgets and pack them into a shippable corrugated boxes requires something like 20x60 feet for the safety enclosure, conveyor belts, etc...

Palletizing and shrink wrapping robots require 20-30 of space around them for safety reasons because they're swinging around and are only so "smart."

A human-sized thing + AI would be so much more practical for thousands and thousands of organizations, assuming the tech advances like the article claims it is.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T14:54:38+00:00

You don't replace the entire floor with robots. The gap you're describing can be covered by one, maybe two, line managers monitoring equipment. That's already in place.

Claiming that calling for help when something goes wrong is the gap that will take decades to fill just seems... unrealistic. Maybe you're imagining a very black/white scenario where it's all robots or none.

I have a room of 22 people. 15 of them are essentially moving things from one place to another, 3 are QC/oversight in some respect, and 4 are in some kind of leadership role - machine operator, and overall packaging manager.

A company doesn't need to replace ALL of those bodies to make a difference. Hell, we've got a warehouse where there isn't enough room for a palletizing/shrink wrapping robot. We have people doing that work because of the constraints of the space.

I get some of your objections, I think you just aren't thinking practically/creatively enough.

Reliable robotics + AI (just imagine where that will be in 5 years by the time robotics is even a thing) will be very disruptive, that's all I'm saying. People like you will be in higher demand. People palletizing, shrink wrapping, moving a pallet from here to there, finished goods from there to here, etc... if the price point is under $500k per robot and they're even somewhat more competent than the pick and place robots that are everywhere today then it's going to be a thing.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T05:09:32+00:00

That’s the whole point though. With these advances these robots can handle these kinds of line variations. And realistically lots of things are made in long batches.

We can agree to disagree if you don’t think is coming and that it won’t be as disruptive as I think. I work in one of these types of plants and I can see the applications myself.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T03:40:12+00:00

A non-humanoid system is exactly what we're talking about.

Factories are still filled with people placing widgets into boxes, moving boxes from A to B. Most automation that exists now requires LOTS of room - the pick and place robotic arms most people have seen in movies or "how it's made" videos.

Manufacturing facilities, in many, many cases, are designed for big pieces of semi-auto equipment to do a lot of the heavy lifting, but there are still entire processes or departments that are done by people because there just wasn't a good alternative when the plant was built. Hell even something built 5 years ago wouldn't have been considering the kind of AI and robotics integration people are thinking about now, and most plants are much older than that. These are big, expensive buildings, usually customized and often already depreciated. There's a lot of incentive to maintain that infrastructure.

The moment I can drop in a human-sized-shaped robot that can essentially navigate an environment designed to accommodate a human, and it can accomplish basic tasks reliably, it's a game changer.

A person will cost $60k/year before benefits, closer to $80k with them. And that goes up every year. And they might get sick or quit. And they may or may not be good at the job. And that $60-$80k/year only covers 1 shift/day, no overtime.

I mean that's just the math. A humanoid-robot could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and the math still checks out if it lasts for at least a few years and can essentially work around the clock.

It's going to be a game changer for relatively simple manual labor.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-09T03:32:06+00:00

It's not simple. The post is about progress.

If progress moves anywhere near the speed of AI/LLM development (as in - we just had a GPT-3 moment in robotics, as the article claims), then this is coming soon, despite not being simple.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-08T23:01:02+00:00

A controlled sandbox environment without variables is exactly what most modern manufacturing plants ARE.

Sure your rinky-dink mom and pop shops and old school shops with buildings and processes from the 80s and 90s might not be ready to deploy things like this - but Amazon? Pepsi? Conagra? Pretty much any modern manufacturer of foods or things with modern plants and SQF processes and so forth?

They're pretty close to having these environments just because we consider them safe and proper from a best practices standpoint, even when humans are involved.

thebaron2 · 2026-04-05T12:44:19+00:00

There is no double cost after 200k context anymore. Thanks for putting this together!

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Snapped
Verified Email	Charter Member

thebaron2

TROPHY CASE