u/Cute-Net5957

ok I was making fun of Meta’s new coding agent earlier and somebody in another thread changed my mind about one part of it.
Meta apparently has a contributor tier where the economics get kinda stupid if you let them use your activity to improve their products.
and now I can’t stop thinking about this for Claude Code.
Anthropic.. give me the choice.
Keep the normal/private plans exactly as they are. proprietary repos, enterprise, people who want their shit completely walled off.. obviously.
But add a completely voluntary Contributor plan for builders who want to contribute their Claude Code sessions back to improving Claude.
Make it brutally explicit what gets collected. let me exclude repos/directories/files. scrub secrets. show me exactly what I’m contributing. let me turn it off whenever I want.
and in exchange?
subsidize the absolute fuck out of my Claude Code usage.
Because Meta’s insight might actually be right here.. some of us are generating incredibly valuable training signal while simultaneously paying for the privilege of generating it 😂
Claude Code sessions aren’t just prompts either. they’re basically little software engineering trajectories: intent → exploration → edits → tests → failures → corrections → eventual success/failure.
Anthropic already has the better coding product imo. imagine what happens if the most obsessive builders can voluntarily trade some of that workflow data for 5x/10x/whatever more compute.
I would’ve hated this idea if it were hidden in the ToS.
As an explicit opt-in where I get paid back in compute for the value of my data?
fuck.. I might actually choose that.
would you?

I’m trying to do pretty normal SaaS / AI platform work and it keeps turning into this weird policy maze.

Auth? friction.
Multi-tenant security? friction.
Security review stuff? friction.
Compliance/policy reasoning? friction.

Like… none of this is “teach me to hack a bank” lol. This is literally the boring plumbing you need if you’re building anything serious.

And that’s the part that feels insane.. Anthropic is basically saying Fable 5 is the public Mythos-class model, but Mythos 5 is the real unlocked version for trusted users / approved orgs / whatever. So the rest of us get this weird version where you don’t always know what’s happening.

Did Fable answer me?
Did it fall back to Opus?
Did I hit some invisible policy tripwire?
Is the answer bad because the model is worse, or because it got safety-lobotomized mid-prompt

That’s the maddening part.. I’m not even saying “remove all safety.” I get why they’re doing it.. But if the powerful model is only really usable by a small approved class of people, just say that. Don’t market it like frontier capability for builders and then have it freak out when the builder asks builder questions.

Feels like:
“You can use the powerful model, unless your work looks like it might actually need the powerful models.”

Am I the only one running into this or has anyone else hit this wall.. and maybe escalated for guidance??

The ALT Take: Instead of pursuing a Masters Degree for 2 years, use an AI tool ($200/month) to learn more intensely and in your learning style to master a specific set of future skills.

At the end of the 2 years you end up with

1. A piece of paper and a network
   Or
2. Curated intelligence in your desired field, always up-to-date and real-world experience with advanced AI Tool(s).

Which would serve you better in 2028 and beyond?