I had the same and switched to Claude code max and have been continuing the way of working on Opus. Now with the lower credit burn of Opus 4.5 i haven’t had a rate limit since. Imo the Claude Code token proposition and the Claude ecosystem far outweigh the benefits of cursor. This stuff is far too effective to hold back on
> If they had a 200$ subscription with proper unlimited usage (within some limits obviously)
I don't understand the "within some limits" people ask for.
If we use a service to provide value, and it is worth the value it provides, why would we ever accept a limit or cap? We want to stop adding value until next calendar month?
Or if the idea is $200 plus overages, might as well just be usage based.
Imagine a rental car that shut off after 100 km instead of just billing 20 km overage to go 120 km. Would you be thrilled for a day of errands knowing the hard cut off? Or would you want flex? You go 60 km out, 40 km back; now it's not worth paying to drive the last 20? If that's the case, probably should have walked the whole way?
Perhaps not a terrible analogy if some devs think of using these models like hitchhiking. Mostly out for the hike but if I can get an Uber now and then for $200/month, then I can do some errands faster, but still hike most places…
OR, hitchhikers don't think they need that much, they only run an errand a week, in which case, back to usage pricing, don't pay for what you don't use.
- - -
As an example: The primary limiter for our firm's wholesale adoption of Anthropic are their monthly caps. The business accounts have a cap! WTH, Anthropic, firms shouldn't LLM review code for the last week or two of the month? It can't be relied on.
To be clear, there's no cap on the usage per se, the cap is at the billing, even if you have it on a corp card that recharges fully constantly, it can tick over at $1500/day for 3 days, then halfway through day 4, it won't recharge again, because you hit $5k/month limit.
If you write to them and ask (like the error messages tells you) they say: Move to Enterprise, it's X users. Well, no, we don't have X people? Sure, but Enterprise is X users. What if we buy empty seats? Um...
(The simplest explanation is that $5k/month really burns more than $5k/month of costs so every API call loses them money, and they'd rather shepherd people to occasional subscription usage where they train them to leave it idle most of the time. Fine, offer usage at cost instead of loss, see who bites.)
Meanwhile, we use unlimited from their competitors, and have added several other ways to buy Anthropic indirectly, which seems weird they'd want to earn less per API call but someone somewhere is meeting their incentives I guess.
> That brings us to what training actually is, Reading. There is no requirement for attribution to read something.
> My concern is that people appear to be extending their claims to suggest that they control the right to be learned from.
Some would claim that training actually is not reading / learning but embedding / encoding. This take creates arguments like the following;
If I were to take his work and gzip it; does that mean I should be able to use it?
Why? Because this is an automated system. You are anthropomorphizing it unwarrantedly.
Not to mention usual copyright arguments like "If I memorize his code and write it on my computer by hand; can I do it now? What if I only remember 90%? 80%? What if I just change variable names?"
This isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be, in my humble opinion.
I think your points were mostly addressed in my post. Your issue is with reproduction. I'm not sure if there is any legal ruling on encoding without reproduction. I would expect hashes to be safe.
With regard to percentage change, that is not a factor of whether or not a reproduction should be allowed, but rather if something can be considered a reproduction. That should be a task for domain experts, and I think historically that has been done, Even Philip Yorke did that.
It is certainly not cut and dry, generally I tend to argue precisely that point when it comes to the details, but the guiding principles are clear.
Ideas are not copyrightable.
The laws involved are supposed to benefit society as a whole.
Patents provide some protection in the area of ideas. While heavily misused they are intended to incentivise development to make things actually work granting some exclusivity as a reward. A pure idea should not be considered enough (but often is) it ought to be the application of the idea.
Copyright is intended to promote creativity by offering a means to generate revenue from a creative work. The goal was to produce more (or at the least avoid inhibiting) works providing rewards to those who produce them.
There are issues today with laws being influenced to benefit a minority. A lot of IP laws were created in this way. I think the solution is to advocate and work towards laws that benefit society as a whole. Unfortunately people seem to see the imbalance and it normalizes the view that you should leverage the notion of intellectual property to get something for yourself (or your tribe).
The world is changing, when the notion of copyright was first
Expressed, there was no ability to create a thing and then sell a million of them with no extra effort. When mass production and then mass media enabled this it allowed more creative works by allowing the cost of the work to be distributed across many. It was never the intention for copyright to enable a few people to get wealthy from a few popular works. As soon as the dominance of those few popular works made it harder for other creatives to make things themselves, copyright law started acting against the principles that it was founded upon
