I see an objective difference in speed between Team account and my personal max 20 and a subjective difference in quality.

On my personal account projects get 90% and then get stuck on a bug and then I have to hand the project over to codex to fix. Then codex usually is like “this feature was stubbed out and not connected at all”. Like wtf is going on with Claude. It gets so much complicated stuff right and then completely whiffs the main details.

On my teams premium account, I can complete things fine and fast.

Quality has always a component of subjective perception, but the percentage of outages is really undeniable. The code quality, thou, is in my opionion improving, not decreasing. When I think, what I did with Claude 6 months ago, and what I do with it now... Ask someone in the late 90s, how his experience with Windows 1995 changed, not to dare to ask, if it improved... We see a unimaginable fast-paced development compared to anything else ever before imo.

Isn't it weird to run an analysis scoped to currently open issues? Of course more recent issues will be more likely to be open right now.

Weird thing is, is that for some people Opus 4.6 has been acting incredibly dumb but for me there is no difference at all.

Not sure what is happening at Anthropic atm

This article is mostly clickbait. Even if there’s an uptick in complaints, that’s likely just a function of more people using Claude, Claude Code, and similar tools.

people have been saying “the model got worse” after almost every major update since early ChatGPT releases. Quality has always been somewhat variable and user dependent, so individual experiences can fluctuate. But it's undeniable that state-of-the-art models have consistently improved with each generation.

What’s really happening is that as models get more widely used, their weaknesses become more visible—and people tend to focus on those rather than the overall progress. and ok maybe they had some outages lately but that's not really news

Using Claude as a benchmark for its own quality is pretty funny. If we think the quality has declined, wouldn't that also apply to the benchmarking process itself?

Quality is highly subjective which means it will be very easy for these companies to dramatically drop their opex without users being aware. Think of it as an invisible rate limit.

Have fun with your ruby-Goldberg machines.

[dead]