The simpler explanation is probably some mix of marketing and also an expected use from people paying for a plan. The money to be made is not from plans ever. It’s in everyone’s best interest for these companies to accurately oversubscribe plans. Enterprise is where the money is to be made and I don’t feel that pricing has changed much on that end.
I had never thought of it that way, but it seems very likely that Enterprise oversubscribing is in the mix. Which does tie in nicely with this change; if a few devs are using their max plan to programmatically run parts of the business that could break the oversubscribes assumption.
I think people are being too generous with these comparisons. Not defending Anthropic but at the same time they are releasing new features and adjusting cost at pretty record speed for a new industry. Uber/doordash were subsidizing cost for what felt like a decade. Anthropic and related companies are adjusting price within months.
To me the bigger takeaway is that these business are seeing massive volume in use and figuring out how to price the products accordingly.
They have to speedrun boiling the frog because the capital expenditure is insane. Remains to be seen just how fast you can boil a frog before the frog notices
Disagree. Most businesses of size are going to enterprise agreements which are all on demand rates. Those rates have not been changing other than the underlying cost to the model API rates fluctuating. You could make argument they are secretly using that has the price lever.
With volume enterprises can already negotiate lower token rates. I don’t see a boiling the frog situation.
They will still need to increase costs for enterprise to be profitable, they're just going to be more greasy about it. Claude 5 will cost 20% more but not be 20% better, more shenanigans with "oh no we had a bug in our cache system :^)", or this gem from the current enterprise pricing page: "Opus 4.7 uses a new tokenizer... may use up to 35% more tokens for the same fixed text".
You kind of just proved my point. Sorry I should not have been joking but i don’t think you have a grasp what’s going on around you.
This is how IT acts in my enterprise orgs. There is absolutely a need for compliance and governance but unfortunately the people in these roles are typically not technically minded and have low incentives to innovate so you get these folks only really arguing for their jobs.
Do you think the MSFT sales person, or anyone who has the financial incentive to innovate, doesn't want you to innovate? They want you on Azure and O365 regardless, they don't care.
Hell, Microsoft will give you will give you 150k [0] of credits to do so.
But keep talking as if you have some magical, unique, special insight that escapes contracts and the law, compared to the people who, sadly, have to deal with reality.
What is your deal about contract law? It’s not some mystical thing. You can get red lines with Anthropic, you can get a DPA with Anthropic. You keep going on and on about governance and contract law on a thread about how Claude Code is pretty useful for nontechnical people.
Risk is always nonzero but you can already today get pretty comfortable with most of these orgs with some customization in the contracts.
Does Anthropic's DPA provide indemnity to code thats produced from the product and any damages associated with security vulnerabilities within that code?
We are talking about vibe coded applications by executives and the risks that are associated with that, nothing within a DPA covers that. Please, be my guest, link an Anthropic DPA which includes indemnity for damages associated with the code produced.
Again, you keep showing your lacking of understanding of the domain in some really fundamental ways which shows that you haven't negotiated B2B contracts nor have you held a position of responsibility where you hold liability.
But keep responding because this feels more like therapy for you, and your feelings about people like me, rather than the realities of the exposure that come from vibe coded applications for executives.
I concede that I started the thread with a joke but wow you really are upset. Let’s take a step back. Apologies again for that joke it just the entire discussion reads like non-technical non-legal advice you get from the typical corporate IT.
Each entity and group have to consider the risks. I don’t think anything you’re trying to point at though is really useful for the discussion at hand. There is absolutely a use case for Claude code/cowork/codex and related tools to be used by non-technical folks. There is also a lot of figuring out in each of these groups. Unfortunately IT in most orgs in what I have seen have ignored the art of what’s possible for the last 3 years and now that we have hit this inflection point are scrambling to catch up but sadly the incentives are usually not aligned so they are really only incentivized to not take any risks.
If I am wasting your time then stop replying with links to the rules. Like I keep saying you guys are pointing out specific legal questions that only a business can answer and are not constructive to the main thread. Lots of leaps to conclusions and finger pointing which anecdotally aligns with what I have seen in corporate IT.
There is a fundamental difference between non-technical users from using Claude, or any other LLM, for whatever reason and whatever they produce being produced into production.
There are significant reasons why an organization would not want to use Cowork, because it does not fall under Anthropic's ZDR [0], which is a huge issue for... anyone dealing with anything sensitive.
What I think this comes down to is that you value velocity regardless of whatever the costs. We will get to see how that solves itself, there are going to be a lot of billable hours that are going to figure that out.
But none of this means that you have any idea what you are talking about nor do you understand why individuals or organizations act the way that they do.
Again you’re raising a bunch of issues that don’t matter in this thread and can only be answered by the specific business groups that are trying to utilize tools like Claude code. They are mostly worthy questions but you are attacking them very specifically and honestly I don’t think relevant to the discussion where someone talked about show the art of possible to people.
I am sorry you feel this way, it does not change the facts of whats being discussed, its just that you disagree and you lacked the initial courage or intellectual capabilities to express that constructively, so you had to obfuscate through providing nothing of value to the discussion via low value comments. I get that YOU don't think something, but just because YOU feel something doesn't make it valid, grounded in reason, or should be listened too.
Others pointed it out better but you jumped to a conclusion in 30 seconds pointing out pointed legal and risk asks that don’t apply to the thread. Just look at the other threads of conversation where you go massively downvoted. You can capitalize YOU all you want but my point still stands. Yall are jumping to oddly specific conclusions that don’t matter in this thread. There is an absolutely interesting discussion around risk to be had but you attacking someone’s 30second paragraph about their anecdote does not open the door.
I get that you lack the intellectual capability and capacity to make the point yourself, which is why you refer to others without linking, to make the point on your own, its ok. I also understand that your own internal bias and lack of actual ownership/responsibility/liability, which might be tied to the intellectual deficiencies noted up top, to understand the danger of executives/leaders shipping applications given their access to information.
But you are totally free to build a company where there is no oppressive corporate IT, where there is always an incentive to innovate and grow, you can build that future.
The reason why that will not happen might be contained within the first ten words of the first sentence of my first paragraph, but you can prove me wrong. Let me be your motivation! Your dream should be your reality!
Sorry we hit a sore spot and I am sorry that I started the conversation poorly but I hope you also gain some self awareness that some of it was in how rude you yourself are.
Not sure by you keep thinking I have anything to prove to you. My point stands. The governance and risk are very valuable discussion and it’s going to change between industry and the trust level of each group.
Unfortunately most IT is short sighted and trying to play catchup. We had 3 years of thinking about how these tools are going to impact the workplace and are now rushing to catch up while also being insistent that Copilot is a worthwhile alternative. I generally disagree with that. I am not advocating that IT oppressive but that unfortunately most IT leaders are not technical and it shows.
I know. I don't expect them to come up with anything, but its fun to see how far they will backtrack/change the goalposts and how much they will tie themselves into knots to try and justify their lack of integrity.
> You can get red lines with Anthropic, you can get a DPA with Anthropic.
IMHO,
1. Dismissing attorney client privilege is reckless
2. and the vast majority of users aren't aware of what "customization in the contracts" is needed to enable autonomous agents or if it's already contractually allowed.
This is still a fair question:
> Do you, and those executives, own the risks associated with that practice? Are those risks actually indemnified?
I think you guys are hitting on very specific issues that would only be constructive in the context of the business group using these tools. There is a discussion but I don’t really see the point in this thread. I see some folks from more of an IT background pointing fingers instead of the discussion at hand. Absolutely groups need to work with their legal representation to figure out an acceptable level of risk. Everything has non-zero risk. But again none of these specific points really hit on anything for this thread.
I was actually going to disagree on first glance but I absolutely agree with this.
Transmission has no business edge, you will gain the best economies of scale by having the city (or larger regional) manage it.
Free-market works on the generation side because as prices change, producers can decide to build out more capacity or innovate to gain an edge. I don’t think a single monopoly construct, like the PG&Es of the world, have incentive to innovate and properly serve the market.
I still think decoupling generation from transmission is part of the problem and I don’t know if I love the construct of a single legislated monopoly.
In this specific case, Liberty and constituents should have come up with a plan on the first contract term for generation. Maybe it meant spinning up their own generation plant within CA or NV.
It’s not a popular idea here but I still think energy markets can help solve this problem. If you have multiple producers and a market rate for electricity you can more quickly incentivize new generation and innovation compared to the single operator monopolies that exist.
This is an interesting problem. I have been wanting to dig deeper on some of the complaints around water and power. This one is unique though.
Doesn’t read much like a problem so much with data center growth as it does with Liberty mismanaging their business/assets. For almost 20 years liberty acted as nothing more than a transmission operator with very weak agreements on power generation. They should have been figuring out this problem long ago.
I would think that a lot of rural electrical cooperatives are "nothing more than a transmission operator" i.e. they own/manage/maintain the lines from their providers out to their customers, but don't have the capital or expertise to run generating plants.
“nothing more than a transmission operator with very weak agreements on power generation” don’t take the quote out of context now.
I would bet most coops have fairly concrete contracts on generation. This one is unique because they were using usage from a grid they have no standing in. Weak agreement, folks should have been figuring it out 20 years ago.
If the residents of Tahoe owned their electricity provider, we wouldn't be having this problem. This was the norm up utnil the late 20th century and then we started selling off all the utilities for "efficiency". These public-private "partnerships" (or just straight privatization with a regulated industry) allow investors to keep profits while pushing losses onto the public.
Private equity is getting into utilities because it's a captive market, the service is highly inelastic and the owners are generally allowed to push all capex onto customer bills without recourse.
So your "interesting problem" is simply not seeing this as what it is: profit extraction.
The Tahoe area has very strong NIMBYism regulations making it effectively impossible to build power plants in the area.
It's not just a Liberty Utilities problem. Other nearby utilities, like TDPUD are in the same boat, only buying electricity and not generating it, and they are publicly owned.
Don’t start throwing private equity as another scape goat. This is more of a regulatory gap than anything. They pay CPUC rates but NV is effectively their grid. This is definitely in the wheelhouse of Liberty and Lake Tahoe residents should have been figuring out the issue.
As someone who has been wearing earplugs for decades for motorcycles, firearms and other loud events, this information at face value is a bit off.
Foam by far has the most effective NRR. Silicone and wax are fine but will not provide as effective of NRR. That said, if it’s for sleeping silicone and wax are probably fine. I would argue that foam is not scratchy at all but I usually buy more expensive brands like Mack’s and it’s good to try out different sizes.
I don’t think this it’s worth being reported for asking for a source on this kind of claim. I would argue of a middle ground though. I think field tests origins came from a good intent of trying to distinguish intoxicated drivers but has morphed over the years and used to give reason to search your belongings. I think the original post is wrong, the intent is not to arrest people but they are commonly used as a means to get cause to search your vehicle.
And I don’t have a source, so it’s anecdotal but one of those things where you read enough of these cases and even see how cops are trained that the intent for most stops unrelated to genuine traffic violations is to get cause to search the vehicle.
I think back to some of those corridors within the United States where law enforcement abuse cash forfeiture laws to take peoples money.
reply