As a claude code power user, when I get the 'rate the feedback on Claude' pop up, I used to say good or fine out of habit, and immediately after sending this feedback, I felt an instant degradation and mistakes that usually don't happen.
Now I dismiss it every time and the quality is more consistent.
Complete adhoc and personal experience but something I've observed, wouldn't be surprised if they nerfed on a per session basis
On the one hand, yes, on the other hand it would also not be too hard to do routing based on such a parameter and Antrophic has shown (through Fable and Mythos) that they have such a transparent routing system in place.
In fact, since they have some rule based system (if bioenegineering or security, route to degraded model) it would be almost trivial to add 'user has filed feedback' to it.
Not saying this is what happens, but just that it's not as insane as it sounds.
msejas · · focus · HN ↗
Now I dismiss it every time and the quality is more consistent.
Complete adhoc and personal experience but something I've observed, wouldn't be surprised if they nerfed on a per session basis
xnorswap · · focus · HN ↗
Random performance is random, your brain will jump through hurdles to fit patterns where there aren't any.
unglaublich · · focus · HN ↗
In fact, since they have some rule based system (if bioenegineering or security, route to degraded model) it would be almost trivial to add 'user has filed feedback' to it.
Not saying this is what happens, but just that it's not as insane as it sounds.
ftchd · · focus · HN ↗
smashed · · focus · HN ↗
And it's also the kind of solution a misaligned agent would implement:
Make sure users are happy about their experience but also optimize resources.
The obvious solution is to route users based on feedback.