
Claude by Anthropic
A family of foundational AI models
5.0•968 reviews•74K followers
A family of foundational AI models
5.0•968 reviews•74K followers

74K followers
74K followers
I work a 9-to-5, run a content business, and I'm in a medical residency. Without some sort of AI assistance doing all three without burning out would be basically impossible. Claude wasn't the first thing I tried (I started using AI since before ChatGPT was a thing, back when you had to go on OpenAI Playground) but so far it has been the best thing. The personal productivity wins, especially from Claude Cowork, are just unprecedented. On the content side, it has been the best at understanding my style and the context of the work and drafting like a human. On running my Instagram page alone, I believe it saves me 10+ hours per week, helping me with everything from maintaining a content calendar to creating draft scripts based on loose ideas + my actual style and voice.
The limitations on image output and image generation are the only thing I can think of
For marketing, nothing even comes close to the output quality of Claude. For writing, I believe it's a combination of solid context awareness and just better, more natural writing skills. But the real game-changer for productivity is Claude Cowork (and eventually Claude Code, I would think, but so far Cowork is what I use) as a desktop agent with local access. Gemini doesn't have that, OpenAI's option seems much more limited and less user-friendly

I'm a solo founder, and Claude is on both sides of my company. I build with Claude Code — it's written a real share of FetchSandbox, from the sandbox engine to the deploy scripts — and Claude runs inside the product: it distills real API failures into runnable bug patterns, writes the docs for 60+ API specs, and powers the loop that reproduces a bug and reasons about the fix.
What stands out after months of daily use is that the reasoning holds up on hard, multi-step problems where other models hand-wave. Opus for the deep work, Haiku for the fast paths. And because it speaks MCP, my users' agents call my tools through Claude directly — no glue code. As a one-person team, it's the closest thing I have to a second engineer.
Only real friction is rate/message limits when I'm deep in a long Claude Code session — I'll be mid-flow on a hard refactor and have to pause. Higher ceilings (or a heads-up before I hit them) for daily power users would make it seamless. Everything else, I don't want changed.
I'm a solo founder, and Claude is on both sides of my company. I build with Claude Code — it's written a real share of FetchSandbox, from the sandbox engine to the deploy scripts — and Claude runs inside the product: it distills real API failures into runnable bug patterns, writes the docs for 60+ API specs, and powers the loop that reproduces a bug and reasons about the fix.
What stands out after months of daily use is that the reasoning holds up on hard, multi-step problems where other models hand-wave. Opus for the deep work, Haiku for the fast paths. And because it speaks MCP, my users' agents call my tools through Claude directly — no glue code. As a one-person team, it's the closest thing I have to a second engineer.

I built a full AI agent marketplace in 7 days. Claude was my CPO.
Every product decision, every UX pattern, every Lovable prompt, every edge case, every bug diagnosis, every pitch deck slide, every UAT script, every payment flow, every earnings model, every copy line on the platform went through Claude first.
Claude did not just answer questions. It pushed back when I was wrong. It told me when my assumptions were off. It researched best practices before recommending anything. It helped me think through trust, transparency, and framing for an AI platform that puts human accountability at the center.
I would describe what I wanted. Claude would translate that into a production-grade Lovable prompt, a Supabase migration, an Edge Function spec, or a one-page investor pitch. Sometimes all four in the same conversation.
What surprised me most was not the technical capability. It was the judgment. Claude consistently asked the right question before building the wrong thing. That is what a great CPO does.
Konfide is a solo-founder company. But with Claude as CPO and Lovable as CTO, it does not feel like one. It launches on Product Hunt on April 10. None of it would exist without this stack.
I built a full AI agent marketplace in 7 days. Claude was my CPO.
Every product decision, every UX pattern, every Lovable prompt, every edge case, every bug diagnosis, every pitch deck slide, every UAT script, every payment flow, every earnings model, every copy line on the platform went through Claude first.
Claude did not just answer questions. It pushed back when I was wrong. It told me when my assumptions were off. It researched best practices before recommending anything. It helped me think through trust, transparency, and framing for an AI platform that puts human accountability at the center.
I would describe what I wanted. Claude would translate that into a production-grade Lovable prompt, a Supabase migration, an Edge Function spec, or a one-page investor pitch. Sometimes all four in the same conversation.
What surprised me most was not the technical capability. It was the judgment. Claude consistently asked the right question before building the wrong thing. That is what a great CPO does.
Konfide is a solo-founder company. But with Claude as CPO and Lovable as CTO, it does not feel like one. It launches on Product Hunt on April 10. None of it would exist without this stack.
Claude has become my main tools for work ( even if I use multiple ones ). It’s particularly good at understanding context, working through long documents and helping with coding and complex tasks.
I also like that the answers usually feel more thoughtful and less robotic. It’s very good for brainstorming, writing, reviewing code and turning a rough idea into something useful.
The interface could also be a bit better, particularly around finding older conversations and managing larger projects. It would also be nice to have more control over how Claude works with external tools and integrations.
I use ChatGPT, Gemini and a few other AI tools, but Claude has become one of my favorites.
The main reason is the quality of its reasoning and how well it handles long conversations and large amounts of context, also the UX is a huge winner here. Different models are better at different things, but Claude is often the one I reach for when I need to actually work through something complex and where I expect full reliability.
Claude Code genuinely changed the way I work. I started coding again after 15 years, and even though I originally began with Cursor, Claude Code became my main tool very quickly.
But the bigger thing is not just coding itself. A huge amount of operational and repetitive work can now be delegated step-by-step to Claude Code. It helps transform ideas into execution much faster and removes a lot of friction from daily workflows. For a technical founder, this is not just “AI coding” — it feels more like an intelligent operational layer for the company.
The biggest missing piece for me is image generation and image workflow transparency.
I still use ChatGPT or Banana for many visual tasks because the image tooling around Claude is not yet strong enough. I’d especially love better debugging and visibility into what happened during image-related operations.
For example, it would be incredibly useful to have simple controls for things like transparency handling and clearer step-by-step feedback about why a task execution failed. That kind of observability would make the workflow much more reliable for professional use.
In my opinion, Claude Code has the strongest “vibe” for modern technical founders working deeply with AI.
There are many strong alternatives — Cursor, Codex, and other AI-native tools — and some are very close technically. But Anthropic keeps shipping system-level improvements and thoughtful UX decisions that make Claude feel consistently ahead.
The product feels opinionated in the right way: less focused on flashy demos, more focused on real workflows, context handling, and long-term productivity. That combination makes it my preferred tool today.
Claude stands out for how well it holds context over long conversations without losing track of the thread. For coding, it writes clean, well-structured code and explains the logic clearly, useful for both debugging and learning. Its answers generally feel well thought-out rather than generic or surface-level. Claude interface is clean and easy to use, without feeling cluttered like some other AI tools.
Message limits on the free/lower-tier plans feel fairly restrictive for heavy daily use. Image generation is still limited compared to tools that specialize in that. Occasionally, formatting (bullet points, tables) in exported output isn't perfectly clean and needs manual touch-up.
I compared Claude with ChatGPT and Gemini before choosing it. What tipped the scale for me was how natural its responses feel, and how much more stable it is on multi-step reasoning tasks. The built-in ability to generate files/artifacts (docx, pptx, xlsx, etc.) directly in chat was also more convenient than manually exporting content like I had to with other tools.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the backbone of our entire platform, Humans.Team. Over 85 development sessions, Claude Code (powered by Sonnet) built 90% of our Next.js application — from Supabase database architecture and Row Level Security policies to AI journal integration, real-time notifications, PWA offline support, and a bilingual FR/EN system across 30+ pages.
What sets Sonnet 4.6 apart is its ability to hold deep context across long sessions. It remembers architectural decisions from hours ago, understands our codebase patterns, and writes production-ready TypeScript that rarely needs fixing. The reasoning is exceptional — it debugs complex issues by tracing through multiple files and connections.
We also use Claude Desktop daily for content strategy, press releases, blog articles, and bilingual copywriting. The nuance in both French and English is remarkable.
Context window limits can be frustrating during very long sessions — the conversation gets compressed and some earlier decisions are lost. Also, occasional over-eagerness to add unnecessary abstractions or comments when a simple fix is all that is needed. But these are minor compared to the massive value it delivers daily.
We evaluated ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot, and Gemini. Claude won on three fronts: superior code quality with fewer hallucinations, exceptional long-context understanding (critical for our 85+ session codebase), and genuinely better bilingual output in French and English. The Claude Code CLI is a game-changer — it reads files, edits code, runs commands, and thinks through problems autonomously. Nothing else comes close for building a full-stack application from vision to production.
Claude is one of my go-to AI tools for software development, architecture discussions, code reviews, and long-form reasoning. It excels at understanding large codebases, explaining complex concepts clearly, and producing thoughtful, well-structured responses. I especially value its ability to maintain context during longer technical conversations, making it a reliable partner for both development and problem-solving.
The biggest improvements I'd like to see are higher message limits, better conversation search, stronger project memory across sessions, and expanded image generation/editing capabilities. Deeper integrations with developer tools and more flexible collaboration features would also make it even more valuable for technical workflows.
I regularly use ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, DeepSeek, and other AI models. I chose Claude because of its strong reasoning abilities, excellent handling of long documents and code, and its clear, natural writing style. Each model has strengths, but Claude is often my first choice for architecture planning and complex technical tasks.
Claude is one of the few AI tools I use almost every day. I switch between Haiku, Sonnet, Opus, depending on the task, from quick drafting to deeper reasoning, coding, research, and product planning.
What stands out is how naturally Claude handles context. Its answers are usually calm, structured, and thoughtful without requiring excessive prompting. Claude Code, Cowork, connectors, MCPs, and Skills have also made it feel like a broader agentic workspace rather than only a chatbot.
The Anthropic team keeps shipping meaningful improvements, and Claude has become one of my most trusted tools for thinking and building.
Claude is excellent, but long-running workflows still need better continuity. Stronger cross-chat memory and conversation search would make it easier to resume complex work without rebuilding context. I’d also like clearer visibility into what agents did during multi-step tasks, especially when a tool call fails or the result changes unexpectedly.
The growing model lineup is a strength, though clearer task-based guidance would make choosing the right model faster.
I use several AI tools rather than relying on only one. Claude is usually my first choice for nuanced reasoning, long-context work, clean writing, and understanding complex code or product decisions. ChatGPT is a broader general workspace, while Gemini is useful across Google workflows. Claude stands out when the quality and clarity of the thinking matter most.
I’m using it with remote control from my mobile, and the built-in harness and self-review checks work almost like an owner for me. It has made my life so much easier.
As a founder, I can now focus more on building new product features, talking to users, and other aspects of my personal life, while it takes care of a lot of the work in the background.
The one thing I’ve noticed is that Fable 5 is a very powerful orchestrator, especially when it comes to spawning and managing agents.
There’s still a gap between Claude Design and Claude Code, and I think this could be an important part of the orchestration layer.
Ideally, the design should be directly usable by the implementation agent, without requiring me to manually download the designs and hand them over - especially when dealing with heavy prototypes.
Having a seamless flow from design -> implementation -> review would make the whole agentic development workflow much more powerful.
Powerful orchestration and models, honestly - especially with Opus 4.8 and onwards. The combination makes it incredibly capable, particularly when it comes to coordinating and managing multiple agents.
I am a freelancer, so my need for paid AI tools depends on whether I currently have active projects.
On July 15, my Claude Pro subscription renewed automatically. At that time, I had no active freelance projects and did not plan to continue using the paid service, so I immediately requested a refund. Anthropic approved that request and returned the payment.
One day after receiving the refund, my circumstances changed: I received a new freelance project and realized that I needed Claude Pro again. I therefore made a conscious decision to subscribe again. I paid for the subscription, used it for the following month, and have no complaint about that payment.
On August 20, however, the subscription renewed automatically again. The payment of UAH 1,075.94 was charged at approximately 7:00 a.m., while I was asleep. I noticed it at approximately 8:00 a.m. and immediately canceled the subscription and requested a refund—roughly one hour after the charge.
I had already moved to ChatGPT and had no intention of using Claude Pro again. I did not use any Claude Pro limits or paid benefits after the August 20 renewal.
Anthropic Support refused to refund the new payment solely because a refund had previously been issued on my account.
I do not understand why the July refund should automatically make a completely separate August transaction ineligible. I was not requesting two refunds for the same payment. After the July refund, I intentionally subscribed again because a new project appeared, paid for a full month, and used the service during that paid period. The August charge was a separate automatic renewal that I did not want, noticed within one hour, and did not use.
I explained the complete timeline to Support and requested a manual review, but they still refused to return the payment. They did not offer a prorated refund or any reasonable alternative.
I consider this policy unreasonable and unfair to customers. A previous refund should not permanently remove a customer’s ability to request a refund for a different future transaction, regardless of the circumstances. Keeping a full monthly payment after the customer canceled within one hour and did not use the renewed service feels deeply anti-consumer.
The contextual understanding is on another level. It actually holds the thread across a long conversation and responds like it grasped the nuance, not just the surface of what you asked. For writing, analysis, and working through complex problems, nothing else comes close right now.
The message limits are the biggest frustration. You hit a wall right in the middle of deep work and have to wait, which completely kills the flow. The typography in responses could also be cleaner. And some form of context sharing across conversations would make it significantly more powerful for ongoing projects.
Used ChatGPT for a long time and still keep it around. But Claude handles longer context better and the responses feel more thoughtful and less generic. For anything requiring careful reasoning or careful writing, Claude wins pretty consistently.
This is my personal response. I left a platform where I was top 10% global user and top 1% messages sent globally. My experience with Claude over the last two months has far much exceeded what was capable on other platforms.
I love the no nonsense UI experience.
The experience has been so great, I have literally forgot about the other one in daily use. Especially for coding.
Claude has helped me deliver the type of service and products I dreamed of doing 12 years ago.
I actually look forward to coming and building with Claude.
It understands it is assistant quite well.
Now, I have to say this part frustrated me the most. For creative minds, to see that pop up in the middle of a prompt is just next level frustrating. So much it took my focus momentarily to search it up. That was the one time I remember recently thinking about “I was never treated this way on paid subscription on the other one. Was I?” So yeah. Need to do something about that. I know I’m not the only one thinking that because there are conversations out there specifically about this.
That’s the only thing for me right now.
Because it catches the vision for the type of builds I am committed to: clean, minimalist, and elegant.
Prompt output is spot on most time.
Code is clean and doesn’t have to constantly be cleaned up.