I've been using 4.6 models since each of them launched. Same for 4.5.

4.6 performers worse or the same in most of the tasks I have. If there is a parameter that made me use 4.6 more frequently is because 4.5 get dumber and not because 4.6 seemed smarter.

It does cost more but I found the quality of output much higher. I prefer it over the dumbing of effort/models they were doing for the last two months. They have to get users used to picking the appropriate model for their task (or have an automatic mode - but still let me force it to a model).

Yeah I noticed today, I had it work up a spreadsheet for me and I only got 3 or 4 turns in the conversation before it used up all my (pro) credits. It wasn't even super-complicated or anything, only moderately so.

This is probably an adjacent result of this (from anthropic launch post):

> In Claude Code, we’ve raised the default effort level to xhigh for all plans.

Try changing your effort level and see what results you get

Anthropic must be loving it. It's free money.

This is the reality I'm seeing too. Does this mean that the subscriptions (5x, 10x, 20x) are essentially reduced in token-count by 20-30%?

I can manage session cost effectively myself if forking and rewinds were first class features

4.7 one-shot rate is at least 20-30% higher for me

Contrary to people here who feel the price increases, reduction of subscription limits etc are the result of the Anthropic models being more expensive to run than the API & subscription revenue they generate I have a theory that Anthropic has been in the enshittification & rent seeking phase for a while in which they will attempt to extract as much money out of existing users as possible.

Commercial inference providers serve Chinese models of comparable quality at 0.1x-0.25x. I think Anthropic realised that the game is up and they will not be able to hold the lead in quality forever so it's best to switch to value extraction whilst that lead is still somewhat there.

I'm still using Sonnet 4.6 with no issues.