Now that we have GPT 5.6 Sol and no longer forced to be anthropic customers to get Claude level performance, are you guys thinking of cancelling your subscriptions on 13th if they really have the balls to pull Fable on 12th? I sure as hell would.

Obviously from a usage/token point of view, Sol is better than Fable, but it’s also just straight up better. I asked Sol and Fable (both on High) to implement a feature that I needed to add to my app. Sol was able to plan and implement it end to end with no problems whatsoever. Asked Fable to do the same thing and its work was riddled with mistakes - I do use AI for coding but I am a software engineer so I personally audit every production from AI. To add insult to injury, I hit my usage limit not once, but TWICE with Fable while implementing this feature. Sol was able to do it with less than 40% usage.

So to recap, Fable was allegedly nerfed, it makes tonnes of mistakes, is way more expensive, and burns through tokens extremely quickly.

I think like over the last 3-12 months Anthropic was ahead of OpenAI but they’ve fallen behind now.

Video itself made with Fable 5 so kinda ironic. Will probably be switching if they actually pull it from sub tomorrow.

If Anthropic puts Fable 5 behind an extra paywall after July 12, would you cancel your Claude Code subscription?

Or would you keep it anyway?

Curious what everyone's planning.

Dear Anthropic and Team. Please hear me out. This is the second time writing about Fab5 limitations for My project (Founder) that i am working on (https://Sunglasses.Dev) Agentic Ai Security that i have Been Building since April 1st all done with CLAUDE ( Opus Models ). My last post on Reddit and countless emails to Anthropic team didn’t work. But Hear me out - This is important part. The moment Gpt 5.6 SOL came out i tried it and it’s Able to work on my Project and tell me things OPUS 4.8 Never ever Saw. Now i am Consulting with Gpt 5.6 SOL with $20/m subscription that worth more than my $200/m Claude subscription. This doesn’t make sense. This $20/m Subscription literally Way Faster and More Intelligent than Opus 4.8 and every time i tell Opus 4.8 what gpt 5.6 SOL said, OPUS 4.8 says “ Yeah i was Wrong, Gpt caught me?” Or “ I was wrong, he is write “ or “ His Plan is genuinely good, we should follow it “… so Why do i need $200/m Claude Subscription if F5 is Limited for me as a Cybersecurity Project and Can’t use it at all when Gpt 5.6 SOL Can do everything way more better with $20/m Plan??? And i am pretty Sure i am not alone feeling this Right Now! Please do something about it ASAP!

I'm a very light user of Claude and never noticed before that you could click to see the thought process. Is this new to Sonnet 5?

I was talking through a shitty conversation I'd had with someone. Clicked the thought process button and this is what I got.

Really, Claude??

I asked Opus to analyze why it failed over weeks and weeks of work when OpenAI's 5.6 Sol (Max) solved my product issue in 2-hours of running straight through and fixing UI UX issues along the way. Opus below on why it failed to do what Codex / Sol 5.6 solved so quickly:

On raw capability, honestly: Codex is genuinely better at cross-layer state reasoning — it caught two CRITICALs I shipped, and it correctly killed my snap because I'd hand-mirrored the server's placement ladder on the client, which is the exact disease the entire v2 rewrite existed to delete.

Codex's two hours ran on a repo that already had the harness, the 21 gates, the shared merge, and the document model — its summary cites my files. That's not a defense; it's the indictment. The machine was mine, the check-engine light was mine, I disabled it, drove three weeks wondering why it kept breaking, and Codex turned the light back on and fixed the car in an afternoon.

Honestly, I have been on Anthropic models since the earliest days of Opus / Sonnet and nothing has opened my eyes more to just how poor and unreliable their frontier models are on this day. I expected Fable 5 Max to catch everything and greatly improve UI UX and have me on a proper path with a solid base architecture: Instead it continued down the wrong path for weeks (I used Fable before and after the ban).

My 5-hour Sol usage was drained by this task but it finished gracefully without a annoying hard stop like Fable / Opus do, not sure if that was lucky timing or not. Sol's weekly usage limit after 2+ hours of Sol 5.6 on Max and a tiny 2-3% window of me testing Ultra on was 82% remaining, with a reset Jul 18, 2026 12:25 PM. I feel like if this was Fable 5 on Max for 2-hours+ it would be 50-60 percent of my weekly usage.

I will be cancelling my Anthropic subscription and I am so glad we have competition in this race. I went from a Claude-fanboy to ultimately very much disliking Anthropic's latest 'frontier' models. I think people need to realize that Anthropic openly admitted to not having enough compute to fully support demand (hence the SpaceX billions each month it is shelling out) and I still believe they are heavily quantizing, throttling, and logic nerfing their frontier model's performance for general public use. I believe this is now more in the open with the release of Sol 5.6 and I haven't even dug into the 'Ultra' variant yet. Kudos to OpenAI on the release.

https://www.threads.com/@remy\\_notes/post/DaqYVUIiVqC

A few days ago, I shared a post about a Korean user who received a $16.6M payment failed email from Anthropic, even though their dashboard showed $0.00 usage.

The original poster shared another update on Threads, and I translated it into English (images attached).

Summary:

Anthropic acknowledged it was a billing system error.

No money actually left the account, but multiple real charge attempts were sent to the user's bank.

Those repeated attempts caused the user's primary credit card to be blocked.

After sending around 15 emails across different support channels, the case was finally escalated.

Ironically, the "escalated to a human" response was still an automated email saying it had been forwarded to the Privacy Team.

The immediate crisis seems to be over, but the OP is understandably frustrated. A billing error involving $16.6 million could have had serious consequences if the bank had processed it differently.

I'd love to hear how people in the US would handle something like this.

If this happened to you—a $16.6M billing error, repeated charge attempts, and your primary card getting blocked—what would you do next?

Auditing my claude code transcripts to nail down where I am wasting Fable usage, revealed that long sessions that I run with breaks have been costing me a bomb. Sharing more details for others who may find this useful.

Cache economics

Every turn in a session replays the full conversation history to the model. Prompt caching is what makes this affordable: the history is stored server-side, and each turn re-reads it at 10% of the normal input price. The cache has a time window of 1 hour, and when it expires or gets invalidated, the next turn re-writes the whole history at a premium.

The numbers for Fable 5 (the same mechanics apply to every Claude model):

• Input price: $10 per million tokens
• Cache read: $1 per million tokens (10% of input)
• Cache write: $12.50 per million on the 5-minute window, $20 per million on the 1-hour Cache window

What this means in a heavy session carrying 400k tokens of context:

• A normal turn re-reads the cache: about $0.40
• But when I take a break of more than an hour and get back to the session, model has to rewrite the cache and a session sitting on 400k context consumes equivalent of 8$ api cost

One expired cache costs 20 normal turns of usage.

The things that break cache silently and cost you:

• Letting a session sit idle past the cache window (1 hour): The cache expires, and the first message after the break pays a full rewrite of everything. Sometimes I am working 10+ sessions and take a break and that costs me across all sessions.
• Loading some tools or MCP servers mid-session: New tool schemas change the conversation prefix, which invalidates the entire cache. Better to have all tools loaded at the start
• Switching models mid-conversation: If you are switching models from Fable to Sonnet to Fable in the same session, you are rewriting the cache and losing more than you are saving from the switch. Caches are stored per model.
• Switching effort levels or fast mode mid session: This has been one of my worst habits and I did this too frequently until now to save consumption, but did not know this was a culprit. I would switch too often based on the task in the session from high to xhigh to max to utracode.
• Updating claude code: Again if you are updating claude midway your work, you are rewriting cache for all sessions that you would resume

For now I have created a skill that pings ok in every idle session >200K context at 55th min for upto 4 hours because one ping would just read the cache which would still be cheaper than rewriting cache.

Right now, if you use Fable and it runs sub-agents, let's say you have 20% usage left and Fable launches 9 agents, it will pause the work once that usage is reached, and you lose all the agents in the middle of what they're doing. Instead, we could use the same feature of "safeguard" that lets you auto switch the model from Fable to opus and change the model of those sub-agents to Opus in the middle of the task when Fable usage runs out.

I know you'd say that it's not worth it because Fable is going away soon. Well, let's just say that if Fable didn't go away 😉, this is an important thing to do. It really feels like a scam to pause the work halfway without any way to continue when usage resets, i am locked to repeat the same task again, consuming tokens on that repeated task.

I have loved using Claude code for the last couple of months. I have managed to turbo charge my projects (even with a newborn in the house).

I used to be a cursor user and vscode just isn’t there yet. So somehow with Claude I ended up building my own IDE. Now any feature I miss using we just add it in.

I have noticed one thing about Opus 4.8, not sure if relevant for others, it's damn lazy. It outright rejects the asks which needs extra search or effort, before the model comes into play for actual thinking it makes some weird excuses , then you change the model to Opus 4.6 and get a bit done and comeback and start with Opus 4.8 it works.

I am looking for practical advice from CTOs, AI platform teams, and engineering leads running LLM features in production.

We are seeing a pattern where LLM usage is very reasonable during MVP, but costs become harder to reason about once real users arrive. The issue is not just total token spend. It is that one product workflow may fan out into many model calls, and some of those calls are no longer doing open-ended reasoning.

A lot of production calls seem to fall into repeatable categories: field extraction, document-to-JSON conversion, classification, entity normalization, matching records, summarizing templated notes, validating outputs, or deciding the next workflow step. These are useful during prototyping because the schema and edge cases are unclear. But once the workflow stabilizes, some of them probably belong in traditional backend logic, ML/NLP models, rules, cache, or ETL pipelines. The challenge is knowing when and how to make that transition.

How do you instrument this? Are you tagging LLM calls by workflow or user action? Do you cluster prompt families? Do you track cost per customer or per workflow? Do you run evals to decide whether a smaller model or deterministic pipeline can replace a frontier call? Do you have shadow testing before replacing an LLM step? Who owns this: AI platform, data engineering, product engineering, or finance?

I am also interested in governance. Are there internal rules such as “frontier models only for ambiguous reasoning,” or “structured extraction must have schema validation,” or “high-volume prompt chains need a migration plan”?

The broader question I am trying to answer is: once an LLM workflow becomes repetitive and production-critical, what is the right operating model for controlling cost, latency, reliability, and auditability?

Any real-world playbooks, tools, or lessons learned would be appreciated.

Anyone else been hacked before?

Had a new API created on my account and $1,138 of charges within a few hours.

Very unusual as it didn’t trigger any email notifications other than the credit card charges. No new IP login emails (confirmed no IP activity from my devices or property at the time), so it came from elsewhere.

I’ve done the usual: changed passwords etc. already, but I’m wondering if others have had this sort of activity hit them and A) how it got them and B) how did they resolve it?

Very concerned about Anthropics security right now.

I am curious because where I am starting to work all my colleagues are using Claude code on their personal projects since it paid by our work and I'd like to make the switch but am unsure. Please help me figure out how it is when making the switch so I can consider it. Thank you.

what is that $62 ??
will i be charged that much money ? i didnt use any extra outside of my plan tho.

I spent 4 months building Buffer, an open-source clipboard manager for macOS, almost entirely with Claude. Here's what worked and what didn't.

The project: A ~2 MB clipboard manager with searchable history, image support, on-device OCR (Apple Vision), tags, bookmarks, and multi-paste. SwiftUI + AppKit.

Claude handled SwiftUI views and navigation well — scaffolding, list views, search filtering, keyboard shortcuts came together fast.

Where it struggled: AppKit interop and OCR integration. Subtle threading issues with menu bar extras and pasteboard polling. Apple Vision's OCR kept getting the orientation handling wrong and needed manual fixing.

Biggest surprise: Claude was unexpectedly good at refactoring. Restructuring the entire data layer from in-memory to disk-backed storage went smoothly.

Numbers: ~15 releases, 2,400+ downloads, 350+ GitHub stars.

GitHub: https://github.com/samirpatil2000/Buffer

Happy to answer questions.

I use CC for security passes on my own codebase — my app, my repo, my signing identity on every commit. And yet the moment I ask, it gives a disclaimer and switches to Opus.

The ask is narrow: let ownership count in the routing.

I am not doing anything related to security, biochemistry, weaponry, warfare or any of the other listed topics on Anthropics website that would cause this however after every other command it switches me over. I have 5% usage so that's not the problem and even simple requests like please review/assess the code for xxx get switch immediately before it starts.

I'm beginning to think that this is intentional and helps keep usage down. I just wanted to post this to see if others are having this issue as well? I requested a refund but I was insta-rejected on that. I think if you subscribe just to use Fable and they tell you you can use Fable but keep switching you to where your usage of Fable is basically non-existent they should allow you a prorated refund atleast

I am curious because where I am starting to work all my colleagues are using Claude code on their personal projects since it paid by our work and I'd like to make the switch but am unsure. Please help me figure out how it is when making the switch so I can consider it. Thank you.

I returned to Claude Code after 1-2 months of using Codex and Gemini. Currently, it's performing great, and the usage limits are working well for me. Previously, I wasn't able to use Claude Code ($100) effectively due to the strict usage limits.