The Cost of Broken Code: How Claude.ai Wastes Your Time and Credits

I’m honestly at the end of my rope with Claude.ai when it comes to coding tasks. It’s almost comical how consistently it manages to get things wrong, except it’s not funny when you’re actually trying to get work done.

You go in expecting an assistant that will help streamline your workflow, save time, maybe even spark some creativity — but instead, you’re met with constant frustration because Claude seems incapable of delivering a correct solution on the first go.

And the worst part? Every single wrong attempt eats up your credits. You end up spending more and more of your allowance just trying to get a “working” output that should have been right the first time.

It’s like paying for an app that gives you broken tools and then charging you again for each fix attempt. Imagine going to a mechanic, and instead of repairing your car, they break something else each time and bill you again for the privilege. That’s the Claude experience in a nutshell.

What makes it maddening is that the mistakes aren’t subtle or niche edge cases. These are basic, obvious, glaring errors — bad syntax, undefined variables, broken imports, misapplied libraries, and sometimes just completely ignoring the language or framework you specified in the prompt.

I’ve asked it to write Python and gotten JavaScript sprinkled in. I’ve asked for small bug fixes, and it’s rewritten my entire codebase while introducing ten new problems. And don’t get me started on when it just hallucinates functions that don’t even exist.

You correct it, thinking maybe it just misunderstood once — fine, give it another chance. But then it spits out another wrong answer, and another.

Before you know it, you’ve wasted half an hour and blown through a bunch of credits just trying to guide Claude step by step to the thing you originally asked for. Why am I babysitting an AI? Isn’t the whole point of these tools to save time, not to create more work?

It honestly feels like Claude isn’t designed to respect the user’s time or money. Instead, it strings you along with guesswork responses, like an overeager but incompetent intern.

The kind of intern who insists they know what they’re doing, hands you a pile of garbage, and then expects you to praise them for the “effort” while you go back and fix everything yourself. Except here, instead of effort, it’s costing you credits — credits you’re paying actual money for.

And don’t even try asking for more complex requests. If it can’t handle simple coding queries reliably, what hope is there for nuanced, multi-step logic? It’ll happily pump out a bunch of boilerplate, padded explanations, or flat-out nonsense just to look “helpful.”

Meanwhile, you’re stuck combing through broken code, wasting more of your valuable time to debug its mistakes, when you could’ve just written the thing yourself from scratch in less time.

I get it, no AI is perfect. But there’s a huge difference between “occasionally makes a mistake” and “consistently produces unusable output while burning your credits.”

At least with other models, you can usually get something usable on the first or second try. With Claude, it’s a roulette wheel of disappointment — and every spin costs you.

I’ve Got Broken HTML, Zero Credits Left - The Free Version

Using the free version of Claude.ai is honestly a joke. I asked it for one simple piece of HTML code, nothing crazy, nothing out of the ordinary — and somehow that one request chewed through my entire daily credit allowance. One answer. That’s it. Gone.

And of course, the kicker is that the answer wasn’t even correct. So now I’ve got broken HTML, zero credits left, and the only option they give me is to either wait for the next day’s free reset or start paying.

What kind of setup is that? If the AI gave me something useful the first time, maybe I’d chalk it up to a fair trade. But wasting all my credits on one bad attempt feels like a scam baked into the system.

It’s not like I was pushing it with some 5,000-word essay or asking it to generate a full-stack app — it was HTML. Lightweight, straightforward, and supposed to be one of the easiest things for an AI to handle.

Instead, I’m stuck staring at an unusable output while Claude smiles and tells me, “Sorry, you’re out of credits, come back tomorrow.”

The whole “daily credit” model wouldn’t even sting if the tool actually worked. But what’s the point of rationing access when the responses are so inconsistent and often wrong?

It feels like they’re deliberately throttling users, nudging them toward the paid version, without fixing the core problem: the model can’t reliably deliver correct code in the first place.

So yeah, using Claude.ai’s free version basically means you get one roll of the dice per day. If you’re lucky, you’ll get a decent answer. If not, congrats — you just wasted all your credits for 24 hours.

Frankly, it feels like Anthropic has built a machine that’s less about helping users and more about draining them. Because let’s be real: if the model keeps getting things wrong and you’re forced to retry over and over, who benefits?

Not the user. The only ones winning here are the ones selling the credits. It’s a rigged system — inefficiency baked into the business model.

So yeah, if you’re considering using Claude for coding, prepare yourself for frustration. Prepare to burn through credits correcting errors that should’ve never been made.

Prepare to lose time, patience, and trust in a product that sells itself as a cutting-edge assistant but performs like a first-year student winging it during finals.

Claude isn’t a coding partner. It’s a liability masquerading as an assistant. And the sad part is, we’re the ones paying for its mistakes.

:::warning Editor's note: This story represents the views of the author of the story. The author is not affiliated with HackerNoon staff and wrote this story on their own. The HackerNoon editorial team has only verified the story for grammatical accuracy and does not condone/condemn any of the claims contained herein. #DYOR

:::

\