I usually hit my weekly usage limit on Thursday. This is a consistent reoccurring event every week. I never make it to Friday and i always breeze through Monday-Wednesday burning about 20-25% daily. Also, i rarely hit my 5hr window. When I first started, I hit that window all the time because I had no model orchestration and I was running everything, opus or fable once I added model orchestration I never hit my five hour window again.
This week has been an absolute shit show. Yesterday not only did I hit every single five hour window. I also burned up 50% of my week. Today I have hit every single five hour window and on target to use up another 50% of my week. My workflow has actually reduced in some respects as I am focused on bringing a single product to market. Where before I was running five or six builds at the same time. This is insane and it’s such a large gap from where I was at before. It is very obvious that they are toying around with my subscription. $200 a month maybe nothing to them, but it is a lot to me. I feel like I am just some side experiment they think they can freely manipulate without any repercussions.
If this is the new usage and they’re also going to downgrade an additional 18% or whatever in two weeks this whole platform is gonna be a complete joke.
First is Ponytail. It optimizes your Claude Code's output. It cuts your token usage by over 50% without losing any accuracy at all.
Second is OmniRoute. It gives your Claude Code almost unlimited usage by connecting to over 300 free AI providers. The moment your usage limit runs out, it automatically switches you to the next best model, giving you up to 1.6 billion free tokens every single month.
Third is Graphify. It turns your entire codebase into a knowledge graph so your agent doesn't waste tokens by re-reading files again and again.
And finally, Agent Skills. It's a pack of 24 skills that let you vibe code like a senior engineer. Built by the former AI engineering director at Google, it has dedicated skills for planning, coding, testing, and publishing. It activates the right one at different stages of coding, all on its own.
Basically let’s burn my karma,
It’s really fucking cheap
Most of of ur cost is token cache and this model is amazing and even if cost per task n some things it costs more, its a slight increase and really controllable (atleast from my past couple hours of work, maybe im the dumbass but my point isn’t if this model is the best or not,)
I think some of you guys just structure your workflows very badly if you made some file dump that was never tested, has no safeguards or hallucination stoppers and is not actively being monitored and improved thru something like a langfuse workflow every random word is a open hallucination door and I know the models supposed to be better it’s a frontier whatever right well if u just thought that then you’re a prime example of the vibe coder stigma
I CANT COMPREHEND WHY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A TOKEN GATE INCASE OF A RUNAWAY OR LEAK HOW ARE YOU LETTING 1 PROMPT USE MORE THAN EVEN 3% OF A 20x PLAN WITHOUT SOME SORT OF GATE OR STOP OR ATLEAST A SEPARATE AGENT OVERWATCHING WHEN YOU ARENT USING A DETERMINISTIC FRAMEWORK (Feeding prompts thru md files IS NOT HOW U STRUCTURE SAFEGUARDS)
And for those whose excuse is that forked some random guys workflows and again dint test or put gates, dm me im selling a ai model called Dyson-llama (as good as opus 4.8) INFINITE usage for one time fee of 499$
If u did ts and were really complaining I hope ur at least corrigible enough to actually learn how to use AI instead of shit posting the same thing over and over and blindly downvoting everything calling you out. If u had a different experience lmk but this is for those who decided that they are the victim when blindly sending a new ai with all perms to change the world in a repo filled with shit they themselves don’t understand
tldr if ts used up your full 5hr limit on max 20x your retarded (sorry)
Original poster: u/iamjohncarterofmars
Original publication time: 2026-09-01 22:40:55 UTC
Original title: I searched 2.86 million Reddit posts and comments and identified 4,970 reports involving potentially legally actionable conduct by Claude and Anthropic
Original flair: News
Original URL/media URL: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1w4sbic
Original post body:
* Disclaimer: ..a lot of words
I searched 189 Anthropic and Claude-specific subreddits for reports describing conduct by Claude or Anthropic that could plausibly raise legal concerns. The collection covered submissions and comments published from September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2026. Across 2,863,754 archived posts and comments, the initial search identified 70,140 keyword candidates. A stricter attribution screen reduced that to 4,970 items that actually concerned conduct attributable to Anthropic, Claude, or Claude Code. Those items came from 2,924 separate Reddit threads and were organized into 28 recurring categories involving account access, billing, usage limits, file handling, privacy, tracking, source transmission, and other potentially unlawful or legally actionable behavior.
The main purpose of the search was to identify patterns in what users say Claude or Anthropic actually did to them, their accounts, their subscriptions, their files, or their data. Existing lawsuits, security advisories, policy documents, and court proceedings were included when they helped corroborate or contextualize those reports. The user reports themselves were the primary focus.
The accompanying graphs show how frequently each category appeared, how the discussion changed over time, which communities produced the most reports, how much of the material consisted of posts versus comments, and how the evidentiary strength differed across categories. The counts measure discussion inside the selected Reddit corpus. A category appearing frequently means that users repeatedly discussed that type of conduct. It does not tell us how often the conduct occurred across Claude's entire user base.
The largest recurring category involved paid-account suspensions and termination appeals. The dataset contained 1,915 retained posts and comments in this category, spread across 1,128 separate threads and involving 1,324 named authors. In practical terms, this was not a single viral complaint generating thousands of replies. Reports of suspension or termination appeared across more than a thousand different discussions and involved well over a thousand individual Reddit accounts.
Users described paid accounts being suspended or terminated, sometimes without an explanation they considered adequate, and frequently reported difficulty obtaining a meaningful appeal. Some also described losing access to conversations, projects, or other material associated with the account. These accounts were not independently verified. Their legal significance would depend on the reason for termination, the terms in effect at the time, what the user lost access to, and the consumer law applicable to the transaction. Anthropic's consumer terms provide the relevant contractual framework. Representative discussions appear in r/ClaudeAI, r/Anthropic, r/ClaudeCode, and this r/Anthropic comment.
Complaints about usage limits and paid-plan marketing formed the second-largest recurring category. I retained 1,173 posts and comments across 761 separate threads. These reports generally concerned unexpectedly rapid exhaustion of usage allowances, perceived reductions in available usage, or claims that the practical capacity of a paid plan did not correspond with the multiplier used to advertise it.
The number matters because the issue was repeatedly raised across hundreds of distinct discussions. It still does not establish that the advertising was unlawful or that every user was subject to the same limits. Similar allegations later became the basis of the Kahn proposed class action involving Claude Max subscriptions. The complaint includes claims involving false advertising, consumer protection, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. That litigation had not received a merits determination by the end of the collection period. The filed complaint provides useful context for why these complaints may have legal significance. Representative Reddit discussions include r/ClaudeCode, r/ClaudeAI, r/ClaudeAI, and this comment.
Billing disputes were another substantial recurring pattern. The dataset contained 513 retained items across 314 separate threads, including reports of disputed charges, automatic renewals, cancellation problems, and unsuccessful refund requests. Hundreds of separate threads discussing billing problems are enough to identify a recurring complaint pattern within these communities. They do not establish that Anthropic improperly billed hundreds of customers.
The legal significance of an individual billing dispute would depend on what the customer was shown when subscribing, the renewal disclosures, the cancellation process, the governing subscription terms, and applicable consumer-protection law. Anthropic publishes a refund help page. Examples of the underlying reports appear here, here, here, and here.
Claude Code produced several categories involving more concrete interactions with users' computers and files. One of the larger groups concerned files being deleted or overwritten during agentic coding sessions. I retained 262 posts and comments across 178 threads and 219 named authors. That distribution is important because it shows that the category was not created by one or two unusually active users repeatedly posting about the same incident.
Users described project files being deleted, overwritten, or otherwise modified in ways they did not expect. Some reports described substantial losses. These incidents were not independently verified. Evaluating an individual case would require the command history, permission settings, approvals granted to Claude Code, software version, configuration, backups, and the sequence of actions leading to the loss. Repeated reports of an agent unexpectedly modifying or destroying user files could raise questions involving negligence, contractual obligations, representations about product safeguards, or other theories depending on the facts. Anthropic's Claude Code security documentation describes the intended permission model. Representative reports appear in r/ClaudeAI, r/ClaudeCode, r/ClaudeCode, and this comment.
Reports involving access to sensitive files formed another technically significant category. I retained 72 posts and comments across 57 separate threads. Users described Claude Code accessing .env files, API keys, credentials, secrets, and other material they considered sensitive.
Claude Code's ability to read project files is documented. The individual reports concerning exposure were not independently verified. The important questions would include what files were accessed, what permissions were available, whether sensitive contents were transmitted outside the local environment, whether users were adequately informed of that behavior, and whether an actual disclosure occurred. Depending on the circumstances, those issues could implicate privacy, confidentiality, negligence, contract, trade-secret, or computer-access law. Anthropic's Claude Code security documentation provides relevant technical context.
Closely related reports concerned permission rules and source transmission. Users and project contributors described situations in which Claude Code allegedly accessed or transmitted information despite rules they believed should have prevented it. These reports are highly dependent on software version and configuration. A reproducible failure of an explicit permission boundary would be considerably more significant than a case where the user had granted broad access without realizing its consequences, so those details matter when evaluating individual incidents.
Privacy complaints extended beyond local file access. One category concerned Anthropic's policies governing consumer-chat training and long-term retention. I retained 56 posts and comments associated with these concerns. The underlying policy changes are documented, while user claims about consent, notice, or the consequences of those changes vary from case to case.
The legal questions raised in these discussions include how clearly users were informed, whether existing customers understood changes to the use of their conversations, how long information could be retained, and whether the practices complied with applicable privacy and consumer-protection law. Anthropic describes the relevant policies in its privacy documentation. Representative discussions appear in r/ClaudeAI, r/Anthropic, and r/Anthropic.
Another privacy-related cluster involved a location or proxy-tracking mechanism associated with Claude Code. The dataset contained 31 retained items in this category. Some users characterized the behavior as covert tracking. I preserved those claims as allegations without adopting the characterization as a factual conclusion.
The relevant questions concern what location-related information was collected, how precise it was, why it was collected, whether it was transmitted, what disclosures users received, and whether the collection complied with applicable privacy law. Anthropic maintains a location-data help page. Representative discussions appear in r/ClaudeAI, r/ClaudeCode, and r/ClaudeCodeTLDR.
Users also raised concerns about publicly shared Claude chats and artifacts becoming discoverable through web search engines. This category was small in the Reddit dataset, but the underlying issue received independent reporting from Axios. The links involved had been made public through Claude's sharing system. The relevant concern was whether users understood that creating a public link could result in broad search-engine indexing and discovery by people who were never directly given the link.
Another small but potentially significant cluster concerned telemetry settings, experimental assignment, cache duration, and alleged effects on cost. The Reddit material was limited, but the underlying behavior was also discussed in a Claude Code project issue. Users argued that changes to caching behavior could affect usage or cost even when telemetry settings were disabled. Determining whether anyone was actually overcharged would require account-level billing and usage records.
Published Claude Code vulnerabilities provide stronger external support for some of the broader security concerns raised by users. Official security advisories document vulnerabilities involving project files and related behavior. The Reddit volume for these advisories was low, with only five retained submissions, but the evidentiary strength is considerably higher because the vulnerabilities themselves were formally documented and fixed. The advisories are available through Anthropic's GitHub security page.
This illustrates why raw Reddit volume cannot be treated as a measure of evidentiary strength. A category can contain hundreds or thousands of user reports without independent verification, while another category may contain only a few Reddit posts but correspond to a formally documented security vulnerability. The evidence-tier graph is intended to make that difference visible.
The accidental distribution of Claude Code source in software packages provides another example. The dataset contained 101 retained Reddit items discussing the event, and the incident was independently reported by Axios. I did not identify evidence that customer information was exposed through that incident. Its relevance to the project is therefore more limited than the categories involving user files, accounts, billing, or private information.
Some users also alleged anticompetitive conduct, discrimination, defamation, or other potentially unlawful behavior. These claims either appeared less frequently or varied too much in their factual allegations to support narrower categories. I retained them when Anthropic or Claude was directly identified as responsible for the alleged conduct. They remain unverified unless an independent source supports the underlying claim.
Existing litigation was most useful when it overlapped with patterns already visible in the Reddit reports. The Kahn proposed class action is the clearest example because its allegations concerning Claude Max usage resemble a large body of complaints found in the dataset. Reddit's lawsuit against Anthropic also provides external context for allegations concerning scraping and access controls. Copyright litigation involving authors and music publishers was cataloged, although it was less central to this project because the conduct at issue generally concerns the rights of copyright holders and publishers instead of experiences reported directly by ordinary Claude users.
The same approach was used for regulatory proceedings, security disclosures, and other lawsuits. Their presence can show that a category of conduct has received formal scrutiny or independent documentation. It does not make unrelated Reddit allegations true.
The screening process excluded generic criticism of Anthropic, jokes and rhetorical accusations, tutorials, vulnerabilities involving users' own unrelated applications, and disputes where Claude was only mentioned incidentally. Allegations were retained when the reported conduct could be sufficiently attributed to Anthropic, Claude, or Claude Code. Reddit allegations, filed complaints, security advisories, policy documents, settlements, dismissals, and judicial findings were also kept in separate evidentiary categories because they support different levels of confidence.
The dataset contained 4,970 retained posts and comments but only 2,924 distinct threads. That difference is useful when interpreting the graphs. Several comments discussing the same event can increase the raw count without representing several separate incidents. Looking at thread counts alongside raw posts and comments helps reduce the effect of a single discussion attracting a large number of replies.
The author counts serve a similar purpose. For example, the suspension category contained 1,915 retained items but involved 1,324 named authors. The usage-limit category contained 1,173 retained items involving 870 named authors. These numbers do not tell us how many people actually experienced the underlying conduct, since users may comment on incidents they did not personally experience. They do show that the discussion was distributed across a substantial number of Reddit accounts.
The adjusted-per-1,000 measure shown in the graphs accounts for the amount of archived material available in the selected communities and expresses how common each category was within that corpus. In simple terms, it helps prevent a very large subreddit from appearing more important solely because it contains more posts overall. It still measures discussion frequency, not the actual rate at which Claude users experienced an incident.
All 378 configured subreddit and stream traversals reached 100 percent measured coverage within the selected archive, communities, and date range. That means the collector successfully traversed every configured portion of the archive for the defined period. It does not mean every Reddit post that ever existed was recovered. Deleted material that was never archived, private content, missing archive entries, and discussions outside the selected communities remain outside the dataset.
The collection used Arctic Shift instead of live Reddit. Some initial full-text requests returned HTTP 422 errors because the original implementation used an invalid limit=auto parameter combination. When that occurred, the affected subreddit and stream were traversed chronologically through bounded date windows and the same screening rules were applied locally. No configured stream was omitted. The corrected script uses a fixed full-text limit and retains chronological traversal when a search request fails. Request history, retries, errors, cursors, and intervals are preserved in request_audit.jsonl.
The strongest recurring patterns concern paid-account suspensions, usage limits, plan marketing, billing disputes, file deletion or overwriting, sensitive-file access, and privacy-related behavior. Some of these categories contain large numbers of individual reports that cannot be independently verified from Reddit alone. Others have smaller Reddit footprints but stronger external support through security advisories, policy documentation, court filings, or official disclosures.
The purpose of the dataset is to identify conduct that users repeatedly attribute to Claude or Anthropic and determine which patterns appear capable of raising legitimate legal questions. The graphs provide the quantitative picture, while the underlying Reddit material and external documentation make it possible to inspect what users were actually alleging and how much independent support exists for each category.
Figure
What it shows in plain terms
How to read it
Incident prevalence
Which types of complaints or incidents came up most often after accounting for the amount of Reddit content searched.
Farther to the right means the topic appeared more frequently in the archive. The logarithmic scale compresses large differences, so the highest categories are substantially more common than the lowest ones.
Posts vs. comments
How much of each category came from people starting new discussions compared with people discussing the issue in comments.
A category with many posts reflects repeated initiation of the topic. A category dominated by comments may reflect fewer starting posts that generated larger discussions.
Quarterly trends
How reports involving account actions, usage limits, billing, and file deletion changed over time.
Rising lines mean these topics were being discussed more frequently in later quarters. Growth in Claude's user base and Reddit communities may also contribute to the increase.
Community volume and rate
Which subreddits produced the most relevant material, both in total and relative to the overall size of the subreddit archive.
Raw volume shows where most reports came from. The normalized rate shows where this type of discussion was unusually common after accounting for community size.
Evidence tier vs. volume
How the amount of Reddit discussion compares with the strength of the outside evidence available for each type of issue.
Most of the discussion came from recurring user allegations. Categories supported by lawsuits, official policies, security advisories, or other documentation made up much less of the total Reddit volume.
Thread concentration
Whether a category appeared across many separate discussions or accumulated heavily inside a smaller number of threads.
A lower value generally means the material was spread across more independent threads. A high value can mean that a small number of posts attracted long comment discussions, so raw comment totals should be interpreted cautiously.
It includes the 70,140-item candidate corpus, the conservative 4,970-item final dataset, posts and comments, coverage and denominator tables, all request logs, filtering and exclusion reasons, corroborating sources, analysis code, and full-size graphs. The archive covers 189 selected subreddits and 378 post/comment streams with no recorded coverage gaps.
Reddit allegations are treated as unverified claims unless independently corroborated. Discussion volume does not establish that wrongdoing occurred or that a claim has legal merit. The archive traversal counted 2,863,754 posts and comments, but the repository preserves the complete filtered candidate corpus, not every unrelated item encountered during traversal.
Fable 5 is amazing, it's perfect, I might actually just switch back, but 5.1 feels way more like opus 5 in how it writes, and the weird laziness now of only doing part of a task and then wanting to write follow up issues instead of closing something out completely.
And asking me about things, should we do them or not, when the answer is obvious. Saying it will do something and then stopping. When are we doing the thing??
Is the code better or worse? No idea, its probably about the same, I didn't really have any complaints about fable 5 at all it was perfect except for the usage limits, but at least I understand that.
Original poster: u/Historical-File1734
Original publication time: 2026-09-01 21:15:58 UTC
Original title: Max 20x usage burn after 30 mins Fable 5.1
Original flair: Claude Code
Original URL/media URL: /img/60r48oyu4zmh1.png
Original post body:
Auch. Tried Fable 5.1 for ~30 minutes and burned 36% of my weekly allowance and basically a full 5h session.
Even more annoying: my weekly limit reset today at 18:00. Terrible timing. Really wish Claude let us move our weekly reset day, like ChatGPT does.
Its still making the same mistakes, and I still need to baby it.
No my setup is not the problem, Fable 5 was great a week ago, got my work done as it followed my constitution and rules. It nose-dived this past week, ignoring every rule I created, I assume due to the new release.
The new release isn't showing me anything I haven't seen before, and feels like I'm still working with the nose-dived Fable 5.
I gave my GitHub repository to Claude Opus 5 and asked it to read every file to understand the project's design logic and architecture, then write a detailed pdf documentation to share with someone who has zero knowledge of the project and can understand the project details from the PDF. I started it as a fresh chat with 0% credits used before it. It started cloning the repository and kept thinking, thinking, thinking, overthinking more than I did, and used all my 100% credits, then said my credit limit was reached and to try ducking again later. I have a pro plan to make the AI overthink more than I do and waste all the credits with no use. When I use sonnet, it just gave me a small readme file. Do you think there is a problem with my prompt, or is Claude overthinking a lot after more updates?
Original poster: u/ARC-Relay
Original publication time: 2026-09-01 18:52:29 UTC
Original title: AGI has arrived…
Original flair: Praise
Original URL/media URL: /img/gfyt4t0lgymh1.jpeg
I just ran out of the 100 usd credits they gave us when they removed fable and my efficiency dropped instantly, i used to use fable for planning and then handing it over to opus. Today i tried opus for planning and frankly it sucks. How do you do it? Do you use another model? Maybe i get the 20usd open ai tier with sol as cant really afford 100USD monthly and even if i get 20usd credits on fable they will be gone fast. What can i do?
I myself have been running opus 5 because my max 20x plan can't even handle fable 5. Super interested to see if I can actually use Fable now without burning through all my usage within a day!
Original poster: u/Desperate-Care3289
Original publication time: 2026-09-01 18:05:40 UTC
Original title: Usage Reset
Original flair: Promotion
Original URL/media URL: /img/fg9ujv188ymh1.jpeg
I can’t quite pinpoint what it is, but now Claude comes across as kind of snobby, as if it’s trying too hard to sound very smart when explaining what it did after finishing a job or discussing a plan. If I ask it to rephrase something or explain it more simply, it sometimes starts talking down to me like I’m too dumb to understand what it originally said.
Not only it answers questions in such an arrogant way, but also tries to minimize or downplay in a smug way when it realizes its mistakes or gaps in reasoning.
On Codex, I can easily skim the response, get the big picture, and quickly decide what to do next. With Claude Code, I have to pause and read its output more carefully.
I used to like Claude writing because it had more fun personality, while GPT felt more bland.
Now I have to revise a lot more when drafting an documentation, issue or pr description, because it comes across as an arrogant prick who always want to sound smart.
Does anyone else feel the same way? What happened to Claude? Has Claude given up on human language and decided to focus more on computer language?
Since last Sunday I’m experiencing a problem with artifacts. I’ve been working with artifacts a couple of months: creating a PoC, then asking for changes, retouch Css and JS behaviors.
For me Claude Artifacts has been one of the major sellinh points compared with OpenAi.
With my subscription I was able to work 8 hours defining and retouching Artifacts. However since Sunday, using the same model and just asking for one touch here and there was eating the whole tokens in matter of, literally, minutes.
Have you detected problems with artifacts? Are you feeling now artifacts are killing your tokens?
I switched almost exclusively from ChatGPT to Claude a year ago. I continued paying for a pro version to OpenAI but almost always opened Claude first for everything. ChatGPT was what I opened for quick answers. The writing on it had gotten so bad and it gave incorrect information all the time. Within two months time I upgraded to Claude Max. Used it happily until June. That’s when the decline started. But in the last month it has been what feels like a rapid decline.
I never thought I would say it, but I’ve been finding myself opening ChatGPT and using it. It’s faster, it’s smarter, it writes better. Idk what happened but in the last month ChatGPT has made an insane turnaround.
People say to use Fable. I do. It’s terrible. I have better quality with Opus 5, 7, or 4.8 depending on task. I know that sounds crazy because everyone hates Opus 5 but it’s been my experience. Fable and Claude in general recently get so many things wrong.
Fable just told me that cafuné in Portuguese has a verb form. Cafunar. It doesn’t. That’s a different unrelated verb. I pointed that out to it and it backtracked. It just assumes shit all the time without checking. And this is on high+ thinking because I have the tokens for it. I’m not skimping.
But then there’s this problem I’ve had with my PC since March. I spent a year having voltage instability with my CPU memory controller that led to crashes all the time. Couldn’t let it go idle or it would crash. Couldn’t put it through bursty workloads or it would crash. Go to sleep, crash. Wake from sleep, crash. It became like that Parks and Rec Venezuela scene.
And in March it crashed when Windows happened do be doing an update, writing to disk. Which ended up getting a system file with all 0s written to it. Completely broke windows update and a ton of .NET packages. I battled it for months. Every time I tried windows repair reinstall of the OS it would fail and roll back. Didn’t know what caused it. Claude didn’t know either. So I had it write me a script that would corrupt the registry and cripple multiple windows services to prevent it from trying to make any updates until I could figure it out.
About a month ago Claude found it was the zeroed file. Claude worked on it and we tried repair install. Nothing. So Claude says “let’s go through this rigamarole process.” I said God lord Jesus heavens above there has GOT to be another way.” I’m tired at this point. Five months. I’m tired boss. So I ask Kimi to audit Claude’s notes because it’s fixed Claude’s screw ups before and get the same agreement from it that Claude is right. I said “you know what? Fuck it. I’ve never used Codex. Let me give Codex a try.”
Fixed within an hour. Finally after five months. And it didn’t take everything Claude and Kimi said it was going to. ChatGPT found the repair package file was already on disk, found the other corrupted files Claude missed that were actually the initial cause of the problem, manually renamed and edited them, and then finally let the update package that messed everything up install and restart. Fixed. Less than an hour.
Guys, what is happening with Anthropic and Claude. People will claim “oh, it’s the models. They’re just coming out with a new one soon.” I’ve never seen it this bad before. How are you guys getting anything out of Fable? It’s just dropping the ball so much lately.
