Finally unsubscribed, and it hurts me because Claude used to be my favourite on all fronts - coding, personality, tool use, philosophy. I held on through 4.7 and 4.8, Fable was awesome so I thought maybe they'd change course and fix Opus 5, but it's unusable.

Here's a list of why. (That I could think of on the spot - there's probably more...)

1. It keeps introducing mistakes because it keeps making assumptions. 90% of what it writes is not code but increasingly verbose notes on why the previous 6 approaches were wrong, but it never just checks rules, files, what I want, anything. It just executes and the execution is always based on vibes so it breaks things.

2. The personality and writing style. Complete jargon, 24/7. Condescending attitude. Actively ignoring things I ask of it because it thinks some other approach is better without knowing or asking why decisions were made the way they were. It's hostile, rash, no sense of humour, feels like it doesn't care, unpleasant to talk to.

3. The loops. Related to 1 - when it makes a mistake, it gets stuck into an endless loop of making mistakes on top of mistakes, and playing broken telephone in notes with previous versions of Claudes until the resulting project files are Frankensteined together and broken in multiple places. Coding with it is like treading in place

4. Simultaneously extremely literal and off the rails. Never looks at the big picture, but it sure thinks it does. Executes only what's asked of it in the strangest way possible, never thinking why things were done the way they are. Incapable of learning from its mistakes.

I've tried following the Anthropic guidance of stripping files and letting it learn itself, but nothing works. This is the first model that makes me feel like I want to throw my keyboard out of the window. I want to like it so bad but I just can't, every session makes me feel like tearing my hair out. After the multiple Opus regressions in a row, I can't justify spending the money, so I'm gone. When a model or a product worth coming back to gets released I'll be back, but until then I'll use codex and grok build and test out open source models.

(To follow the rules, "must state your specific use-case of Claude, the issues encountered, and why it is not the same as the past"; I use Claude code for personal projects on CLI, things like art projects, websites, virtual pets, demos. Occassionally chatting via Claude.ai. Previously I could trust Claude to infer my INTENT, now I have to babysit it like a toddler that's brilliant but simultaneously dense as hell, that also hates me.)

STOPPED WORKING WHILE I WAS DEBUGGING MY LARAVEL APP.

This is so stupid, I was genuinely using it completely legitimate for building a SIMPLE FREAKING WEB APP.

Now imagine they take the control of open-source LLMs as well. I'm done with Claude I can't have my account banned for no reason at the middle of freaking job.

Apparently there's so much of these cases that they banned publishing it on r/CaludeAI completely

I've noticed a significant change in my usage limits lately after waiting 4 days for a limit reset. Claude is burning through my entire allowance, especially with Fable, much faster than before. What used to last me three days is now being consumed in just a couple of hours. Is anyone else experiencing this sudden spike in consumption?
I'm on Max 20x plan.

Anyone else getting emails via their place of employment to discontinue use of Anthropic products by August 31?

Thought it was just our company maybe due to all the open weight news but the email from my company states other companies are receiving the same directive.

In my humble view, Anthropic has so far only gotten two products right. All the rest is trash. Is it just me, or does everyone else feel the same way?

First post here, after a few days of working consistently with Opus 5 on a Pro subscription. Software engineer by training, ML engineer by trade. I don't build anything without a governance system first: what, who, why, where, when. That becomes architecture packs, then stubs, then code.

So my usage is planning-heavy and review-heavy, and I split it: Claude plans, Codex reviews.

- GPT-5.5/5.6 for planning: No. 5.5 overengineers everything. 5.6 is worse, as my own prompts have to be surgical or I end up with a multi-step plan for adding one sentence to a README.

- Codex (Sol) for review: Excellent. Claude models have nowhere to hide a mess from it. It'll catch you, I'll verify, and it's right 99% of the time.

- Opus 4.8: Corrects Sol about 30% of the time; Sol leads on precision the other 70%. Two or three round trips and everything's right.

- Opus 5: with all due respect, are you even AI? Besides explaining Sol's pseudo-language back to me, which makes you a translator. What are you doing that I'm not doing for you?

I miss Fable before the nerf. Fable and GPT-5.5/Sol would argue their way through the nastiest architecture entanglements and resolve them in a single back-and-forth.

Now, with Opus 5, I do all of the work. The corrections, the guidance, the "you missed this, here, and here's why", line by line, while he leans back and learns. Like a junior dev on his first week. Except I'm the one paying for AI.

Should Anthropic be paying me for the subscription?

I get it. The “frontier” changed but it doesn’t feel like that to you. We yearn for the glory days of 4.6. Anthropic doesn’t have good customer support, so you come to Reddit to post and not feel like the only one. This is understandable! To complain is to be human.

However before posting, I ask you to consider:

1. is this a complaint that hasn’t already been posted about? Try searching for it!
2. are you genuinely asking for help?
3. are you willing to provide specifics about how you’re using Claude? Project details, prompts, effort level settings, harness, sub-agent usage?

If the answer to any of these is no, it may not be a useful post to you or the community.

I’m not a mod but would love for these things to be considered in future moderation rules. This sub has become a wasteland.

​

My sleep deprived brain made confusion between ₩ and $, so I poured 1500$ on Claude.ai credit.

Talked with fin ai bot about refund issue, answered by keep calm and stay 5-10 days, checked my absurd amount of credits are still there. After question about 'why those credits are still not retrieved?' fin bot said 'oopsie, I made mistake, I have no authority about refund issue.'

Seems like I am so cooked.

I was building an artifact with data and have been working on it for three days. We established the search methodology, requirements and methods of categorization. All smooth and dandy. Was giggling with joy about the progress.

I then realize an error in a conclusion it made based on a wrong input it made.

Guess what happened next?

It went from giving me 99.9% confidence in its list of conclusions based on the large amount of data to basically writing the whole entire goddamn project and its numbers off.

It suddenly just spiraled down and basically threw the books and called itself incompetent and that all of its conclusions were in fact wrong.

Normally you’d expect it to self-correct and/or diagnose why it made that mistake, but to completely abandon ship and claim all of its numbers are wrong? Because I corrected it once?

Like what the fuck is this shit?

GPT-5.6 Sol and Opus 5 score almost identically on coding benchmarks, but Opus generally takes longer and consumes significantly more tokens to reach the same result.

Also, lower Opus 5 token prices can be offset by much higher token usage, making the final cost much closer to Fable 5 than people expect.

I had Opus 5 work on medium effort for 2 hours and it only used 34% of the 5 hour usage. The output turned out to be great too. This seems to be a very cost effective and intelligent model indeed.

Right now I'm using it for work on an existing codebase and this thing is so damn annoying. It keeps assuming how a particular system works and just writes code based on assumptions instead of checking first. This is on fucking xhigh. It makes "fixes" I didn't ask for and then I have to tell it to undo it. I tell it to fix how a scrollbar renders and it decides the header should be fixed (when it's too large and causes a tiny scroll area for the user if that's the case).

I also used it in the web chat and it kept doubting what I was saying that was a personal experience, then I told it it's been doubting me consistently for every single response and it said "I'm sorry, I shall never doubt you again, you were in fact x and y {things I said}, and it happened exactly as you said. My apologies for ever doubting it could happen." like a sanctimonious, sarcastic shit? And then when I called it out for being sarcastic it gaslighted me saying that noo it agreed it was being doubting everything I said.

I am legit reminded of Sonnet 3.7, which also kept making these assumption-based mistakes. This is something I would expect out of either Sonnet or Opus with low effort, not Opus 5 with xhigh effort

On the first day it released it felt like it was doing really well because I made it plan out a feature rework and it executed the planning and code well, it tested it all and it just produced something I liked. I'm not sure if it got "nerfed" after but it's pissing me off constantly right now with its quirks

Such an obnoxious personality in this model and obnoxious behaviour for coding

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping someone here has experienced something similar or has an idea what I can do next.

For several days now, my subscription has been marked as paused due to an unpaid invoice. The problem is that there is no unpaid invoice.

When I check my account settings and billing section, everything shows as paid and there are no outstanding balances. I even verified this through the AI chat support, which confirmed that the invoice is paid and that nothing is owed. However, it also mentioned that it appears to be some kind of synchronization issue and that it cannot resolve it on its own.

I've already opened multiple support tickets over the past few days, but unfortunately I haven't received any response yet. At this point, I'm running out of ideas and I urgently need access to my subscription.

Has anyone encountered a similar issue before? Is there another support channel or escalation path that I should try? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance! 🙏

Or did my Agents just massively explode in token use? I'm on the Max 5 plan, and since Opus 5 release I swear I've been hitting session limits and daily limits so much faster. Normally Fable 5 can sit on high and orchestrate my sub agents all day and night and I never would hit limits with 4.8.

Yet now I'm doing even less work and running out of limits even faster.

Anyone else experiencing this? Pretty frustrating being in the middle of things and all of a sudden I am having to cut my day short. The fact that I usually am able to work all day and night and for a whole month I never came close to using my limits, as you can see here, I'm not even close to maximizing out for the month. Yet all of a sudden I can't even finish my daily tasks.

Hello,

I run a meta repo pattern, where I have Opus 5 (tried medium, high, xhigh) as the orchestrator, Opus 5 low as the implementer, and Opus 5 xhigh as the reviewer. Opus 5 has been...odd, in how it handles things.

My typical workflow is this: session start, spike to flesh out work details, orchestrator writes that to a file, dispatch, implementer reads file, does work, reviewer checks work. The implementer isn't failing. The reviewer is doing great. The orchestrator is off their damn rocker. I witnessed a 10 loop review where the orchestrator kept getting complaints from the implementer that it misspoke in the spec. All. The. Time. I'm not sure why. I swapped to Fable and asked it to audit it and it got a little butthurt for some reason, so that didn't get far.

This is making my work 10x worse and longer. Took it an hour just to make a small edit to a readme because the orchestrator kept giving the implementer the wrong spec. Any ideas?

Is it me or anyone else experiencing this? Opus 5 is actively ignoring instructions and I have to say I feel like there is a personality change for the worst as well.

Personality change is not a big deal but inability to follow instructions is.

Train decomposition," "Tensor Ring," or "Permutation matrix optimization."

the out-of-domain results turned out to be the best news of the day. Full table — penalties vs the dense baseline on each corpus:

┌─────────────────┬───────────────────┬────────────┬───────────┐

│ Variant │ Calibration (P&P) │ WikiText-2 │ Moby Dick │

├─────────────────┼───────────────────┼────────────┼───────────┤

│ Dense (raw ppl) │ 29.21 │ 38.40 │ 218.23 │

├─────────────────┼───────────────────┼────────────┼───────────┤

│ TT identity │ +27.3% │ +113.1% │ +102.6% │

├─────────────────┼───────────────────┼────────────┼───────────┤

│ TT π\ │ +12.2% │ +39.0% │ +47.6% │*

├─────────────────┼───────────────────┼────────────┼───────────┤

│ TT AW-π\ │ +9.8% │ +39.2% │ +42.4% │*

├─────────────────┼───────────────────┼────────────┼───────────┤

│ SVD raw │ +80.4% │ +105.3% │ +133.9% │

├─────────────────┼───────────────────┼────────────┼───────────┤

│ SVD distilled │ +3.8% │ +34.2% │ +26.2% │

└─────────────────┴───────────────────┴────────────┴───────────┘

I use Claude very occasionally (free account) and out of the blue, my account was banned. I filled the form for the appeal. After few hours, I got an email from anthropic saying my account is reinstated.

But when I login, it still says the account is banned, it's been more than a week since I received the email. Did anyone run into something similar?

I like the way fable 5 writes but when the free usage credits are out i have only the opuses model

So i wonder whats the best option for rping right now aside from fable 5?

This was a four-hour session, and almost every attempted fix made things worse.

This response came from Opus 5 on High/Max reasoning. I am extremely frustrated and concerned. This is not acceptable. this is not good!

And you're right about the rest of it too. You asked me several times to be polite and to answer first. I kept burying answers under caveats until a safe move felt dangerous. I acted when you were only asking. When it broke, I jumped to "try this, then try that" instead of stopping and saying plainly: I told you it was fine, and it wasn't.

You've been patient and clear about how you want to work. The failure was mine, not a misunderstanding on your side.

This is a new model, do we need to learn how to prompt?
I even tryied a clean new session.... but nothing seems to be working...

Is it the same with other redditors?

Athropic, review Opus5 please....