zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. usef-+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 21:29:09
That wouldn't solve this problem.

And they do? That's what the API is.

The subscription always seemed clearly advertised for client usage, not general API usage, to me. I don't know why people are surprised after hacking the auth out of the client. (note in clients they can control prompting patterns for caching etc, it can be cheaper)

replies(1): >>esafak+61
2. esafak+61[view] [source] 2026-02-04 21:35:29
>>usef-+(OP)
End users -- people who use harnesses -- have subscriptions so that makes no sense. General API usage is for production.
replies(1): >>usef-+v3
◧◩
3. usef-+v3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 21:48:00
>>esafak+61
"Production" what?

The API is for using the model directly with your own tools. It can be in dev, or experiments, or anything.

Subscriptions are for using the apps Claude + code. That's what it always said when you sign up.

replies(2): >>esafak+55 >>eli+ea
◧◩◪
4. esafak+55[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 21:56:27
>>usef-+v3
Production code, of course; deployed software. For when you need to make LLM calls.
◧◩◪
5. eli+ea[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:21:59
>>usef-+v3
Production = people who can afford to pay API rates for a coding harness
replies(1): >>usef-+Nc
◧◩◪◨
6. usef-+Nc[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:34:28
>>eli+ea
Saying their prices are too high is an understandable complaint; I'm only arguing against the complaint that people were stopped from hacking the subscriptions.

LLMs are a hyper-competitive market at the moment, and we have a wealth of options, so if Anthropic is overpricing their API they'll likely be hurting themselves.

[go to top]