Very good move. In my experience, for system programming at least, GPT 5.4 xhigh is vastly superior to Claude Opus 4.6 max effort. I ran many brutal tests, including reconstructing for QEMU the SCSI controller (not longer accessible) of a SVSY UNIX of the early 90s used in a 386. Side by side, always re-mirroring the source trees each time one did a breakthrough in the implementation. Well, GPT 5.4 single handed did it all, while Opus continued to take wrong paths. The same for my Redis bug tracking and development. But 200$ is too much for many people (right now, at least: the reality is that if frontier LLMs are not democratized, we will end paying like a house rent to a few providers), and also while GPT 5.4 is much stronger, it is slower and less sharp when the thing to do is simple, so many people went for Claude (also because of better marketing and ethical concerns, even if my POV is different on that side: both companies sell LLM models with similar capabilities and similar internal IP protection and so forth, to me they look very similar in practical terms). This will surely change things, and many people will end with a Claude 5x account + a Codex 5x account I bet.
Asyne 19 minutes ago [-]
+1 to this, I've found GPT/Codex models consistently stronger in engineering tasks (such as debugging complex, cross-systems issues, concurrency problems, etc).
I use both OpenAI and Anthropic models, though for different purposes, what surprises me is how underrated GPT still feels (or, alternatively, how overhyped Anthropic models can be) given how capable it is in these scenarios. There also seems to be relatively little recognition of this in the broader community (like your recent YouTube video). My guess is that demand skews toward general codegen rather than the kind of deep debugging and systems work where these differences really show.
mediaman 54 seconds ago [-]
It's surprising to me how much LLM "personality" seems to matter to people, more than actual capability.
I do turn to Anthropic for ideation and non-tech things. But I find little reason to use it over codex for engineering tasks. Sometimes for planning, but even there, 5.4 is more critical of my questionable ideas, and will often come up with simpler ways to do things (especially when prompted), which I appreciate.
And I don't do hard-tech things! I've chosen a b2b field where I can provide competent products for a niche that is underserved and where long term relationships matter, simply because I'm not some brilliant engineer who can completely reinvent how something is done. I'm not writing kernels or complex ML stacks. So I don't really understand what everyone is building where they don't see the limits of Opus. Maybe small greenfield projects with few users.
Tiberium 28 minutes ago [-]
Thanks for confirming my impressions, it's been like 4 months now that I've arrived at the same conclusions. GPT models are just better at any kind of low-level work: reverse engineering including understanding what the decompiled code/assembly does, renaming that decompiled code (functions/types), any kind of C/C++, way more reliable security research (Opus will find way more, but most will turn out to be false positives). I've had GPT create non-trivial custom decompilers for me for binaries built with specific compilers (it's a much simpler task than what IDA Pro/Ghidra are doing but still complex), and modify existing Java decompilers.
Regarding speed, I don't use xhigh that often, and surprisingly for me GPT 5.4 high is faster than Claude 4.6 Opus high (unless you enable fast mode for Opus).
Of course I still use Opus for frontend, for some small scripts, and for criticizing GPT's code style, especially in Python (getattr).
antirez 25 minutes ago [-]
In the SCSI controller work I mentioned, a very big part of the work was indeed reasoning about assembly code and how IRQs and completion of DMAs worked and so forth. Opus, even if TOOLS.md had the disassembler and it was asked to use it many times, didn't even bothered much. GPT 5.4 did instead a very great reverse engineering work, also it was a lot more sensible to my high level suggestions, like: work in that way to make more isolated progresses and so forth.
amluto 9 minutes ago [-]
GPT 5.4 is remarkably good at figuring out machine code using just binutils. Amusingly, I watched it start downloading ghidra, observe that the download was taking a while, and then mostly succeed at its assignment with objdump :)
bob1029 7 minutes ago [-]
GPT5.4 with any effort level is scary when you combine it with tricks like symbolic recursion. I actually had to reduce the effort level to get the model to stop trying to one shot everything. I struggled to come up with BS test cases it couldn't dunk in some clever way. Turning down the reasoning effort made it explore the space better.
zozbot234 19 minutes ago [-]
The $100/mo giving access to GPT Pro (with reduced usage) is a nice counter to the just teased Claude Mythos. But GPT 5.4 xhigh being able to perform that kind of low-level reconstruction task is very impressive already.
aerhardt 18 minutes ago [-]
I completely agree with you on both the technical and ethical reasoning.
Thank you for speaking out. I think it's important that reputable engineers like you do so. The Claude gang gaslighting is unhinged right now. It would be none of my concern but I have to deal with it in the real world - my customers are susceptible to these memes. I'm sure others have to deal with similar IRL consequences, too.
patates 38 minutes ago [-]
5.4, in my own testing, was almost always ahead of Opus 4.6 for reviews and planning. I'm on plus plan on openai, so I couldn't test it so deeply. Anyone who had more experience on both could perhaps chime in? Pros/cons compared to Opus? I'm invested in Claude ecosystem but the recent quality and session limits decrease have me on the edge.
conradkay 4 minutes ago [-]
Yeah it's probably a bit better overall. 5.4 is a month newer than Opus 4.6
My guess is that 5.5 will come out soon and be significantly better so you'd want to be using Codex then, but then when Opus 5 comes out probably back to claude code
Also 5.4 has fast mode, and higher usage limits since it's cheaper
azuanrb 29 minutes ago [-]
Same for me. I'm on $20 plan for both and I use them both interchangeably. Similar "intelligence" imo. Just different way of doing things, that's all. But Claude is getting worse in terms of token usage so I've cancelled my plan last month.
giwook 36 minutes ago [-]
Do you mind elaborating on your experience here?
Just curious as I've often heard that Claude was superior for planning/architecture work while ChatGPT was superior for actual implementation and finding bugs.
37 minutes ago [-]
srslyTrying2hlp 18 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
2001zhaozhao 43 minutes ago [-]
The title is misleading. The only thing they seem to have done was add a $100 plan identical to Claude's, which gives 5x usage of ChatGPT Plus. There is still a $200 plan that gives 20x usage.
jstummbillig 40 minutes ago [-]
That is not the "only" thing: You get access to GPT-5.4 pro.
giwook 39 minutes ago [-]
Just to clarify, one does not get access to the pro model on the Pro plan?
carbocation 37 minutes ago [-]
The $20 Plus plan still exists, and does not give access to the pro model.
The $200 Pro plan still exists, and does give access to the pro model.
What is new is a $100 Pro plan that does give access to the pro model, with lower usage limits than the $200 Pro plan.
dimmke 29 minutes ago [-]
This is still worse than Anthropic's right? Because you get access to their top model even at the $20 price point
Tiberium 26 minutes ago [-]
It's not worse, Anthropic simply has no equivalent model (if you don't consider Mythos) of GPT 5.4 Pro. Google does though: Gemini 3.1 Deep Think.
GPT 5.4 Pro is extremely slow but thorough, so it's not meant for the usual agentic work, rather for research or solving hard bugs/math problems when you provide it all the context.
10 minutes ago [-]
irishcoffee 34 minutes ago [-]
So, reading the tea leaves, they're either losing subscribers for the $200 plan, or they're not following the same hockey stick path of growth they thought they were... maybe?
Edit: I wonder if this is actually compute-bound as the impetus
tedsanders 25 minutes ago [-]
Nope, it's just that a lot of people (especially those using Codex) asked us for a medium-sized $100 plan. $20 felt too restrictive and $200 felt like a big jump.
Pricing strategy is always a bit of an art, without a perfect optimum for everyone:
- pay-per-token makes every query feel stressful
- a single plan overcharges light users and annoyingly blocks heavy users
- a zillion plans are confusing / stressful to navigate and change
This change mostly just adds a medium-sized plan for people doing medium-sized amounts of work. People were asking for this, and we're happy to deliver.
(I work at OpenAI.)
alyxya 29 minutes ago [-]
Plenty of people wanted to spend more than $20 but less than $200 for a plan. It's long overdue IMO.
patates 37 minutes ago [-]
Plus plan doesn't get the pro model, which is (AFAICT) the same 5.4 model but thinks like a lot.
jgalt212 29 minutes ago [-]
You're trying to make words mean what we all think they mean. Stop foisting your Textualism upon us!
exitb 22 minutes ago [-]
Notably, up until now Pro had 6x usage of Plus. So the title is only slightly misleading.
On the other hand, the benchmark of Plus usage seems to be to be all over the place, so it’s difficult to say now how does the usage compare to the old Pro.
strongpigeon 36 minutes ago [-]
You’re right. I missed the “From $100”. Edited title.
selectively 43 minutes ago [-]
Oh. Yikes.
pseudosavant 38 minutes ago [-]
That has me quite tempted. In general, I stay under the Plus limits, but I do watch my consumption. I could use `/fast` mode all of the time, with extra high reasoning, and use gpt-5.4-pro for especially complex tasks. It wasn't worth 10x the price to me before, but 5x is approachable.
jstummbillig 2 minutes ago [-]
I think you currently can't use pro inside codex, or can you?
koolba 10 minutes ago [-]
Does this give you something different than the $20/mo plan when using codex?
Tiberium 8 minutes ago [-]
Yes, it's 5x more usage than Plus, and with the current promotions you actually get 10x more usage than Plus on the $100 plan until May 31st.
Same for the $200 plan, it's still 2x its normal usage until that date.
xur17 45 minutes ago [-]
Any idea way "5x or 20x more usage" means?
josh_p 42 minutes ago [-]
What’s the difference between the two Pro plans?
Both Pro plans include the same core capabilities. The main difference is usage allowance: Pro $100 unlocks 5x higher usage than Plus (and 10x Codex usage vs. Plus for a limited time), while Pro $200 unlocks 20x usage than Plus.
From their faq
rvz 6 minutes ago [-]
Suppose you enter a casino and the owner welcomes you in and sees that you are a frequent loyal s̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ customer (with the amount of tokens you are spending a month) with an existing membership.
With this new VIP membership that comes with 5x or 20x usage, if you spend $100 you get 10x. $200 you get 20x and you get to spin the wheel and use the slot machines unlimited times even at peak hours more than most without any restrictions, 24/7, no waiting for hours with priority.
So spend more to get more abundance and more simultaneous spins at the wheel.
Except if you're trying to abuse the slot machines themselves or sharing or reselling your membership to other customers who want a spin at the roulette wheel; but were previously banned. [0]
The price is $100 according to this post. Where is there an option for $200?
orphea 40 minutes ago [-]
You choose on checkout. There it says
Plan details
5x more usage than Plus 20x more usage than Plus
$120/month $200/month
recursive 33 minutes ago [-]
So curious that the cost in the comparison is just a flat $100, not "$100 or $200" and yet the usage has the "or". Surely just a lapse in copy editing.
AstroBen 24 minutes ago [-]
Surely they weren't trying to be deceptive... surely.
conradkay 1 minutes ago [-]
Anthropic is the exact same way, I think they're just trying to avoid having 5 different subscription tiers visible. Probably needing 20x is very niche
AstroBen 42 minutes ago [-]
seems like this $100 replaced the $200 plan
So.. cheaper?
readitalready 36 minutes ago [-]
No, the same $200 plan is still there. They hid it behind the $100 click-through.
This just adds a $100 plan that's 1/4 the usage of the $200 plan..
25 minutes ago [-]
gib444 40 minutes ago [-]
Exactly! :)
terramex 42 minutes ago [-]
5x more usage than in Plus is 100$
20x more usage than in Plus is 200$
I see this when I try to upgrade my Plus subscription.
recursive 44 minutes ago [-]
I assume it means 5x if they get to choose. They're the ones enforcing the limits.
This is an additional offering to the existing plan.
5x=$100
20x=$200
satvikpendem 41 minutes ago [-]
The era of subsidization is over, it seems.
For my money, on the code side at least, GitHub Copilot on VSCode is still the most cost effective option, 10 bucks for 300 requests gets me all I need, especially when I use OpenAI models which are counted as 1x vs Opus which is 3x. I've stopped using all other tools like Claude Code etc.
giwook 37 minutes ago [-]
I use both GH Copilot as well as CC extensively and it does seem more economical, though I wonder how long this will last as I imagine Github has also been subsidizing LLM usage extensively.
FWIW it feels like GH Copilot is a cheaper version of OpenRouter but with trade-offs like being locked into VSCode and the Microsoft ecosystem overall. I already use VSCode though and otherwise I don't see much downside to using GH Copilot outside of that.
treesknees 28 minutes ago [-]
You’re not locked into vscode. There are plugins for other IDEs, and a ‘copilot’ cli tool very similar to Claude Code’s cli tool.
I also wouldn’t say you’re locked into Microsoft’s ecosystem. At work we just have skills that allow for interaction with Bitbucket and other internal tooling. You’re not forced to use GitHub at all.
sassymuffinz 12 minutes ago [-]
You could use something like [https://opencode.ai](OpenCode) which supports integration with Copilot.
satvikpendem 33 minutes ago [-]
I'm hopeful because Microsoft already has a partnership and owns much of OpenAI so can get their models at cost to host on Azure with they already do, so they can pass on the savings to the user. This is why Opus is 3x as expensive in Copilot, because Microsoft needs to buy API usage from Anthropic directly.
treesknees 23 minutes ago [-]
I don’t think it’s API costs. Their Sonnet 4.6 is just 1x premium request which matches the 1x cost of the various GPT Codex models.
satvikpendem 21 minutes ago [-]
Sonnet is the worse model though, therefore it's expected that it is cheaper, the comparison would be Opus and GPT. That Anthropic's worse model is the same request cost as the best OpenAI model is what I mean when talking about Microsoft flexing their partnership.
sassymuffinz 36 minutes ago [-]
I tried Claude Code for a week straight recently to see what all the hype was about and while it pumped out a bunch of reasonable looking code and features I ended up feeling completely disconnected from my codebase and uncomfortable.
Cancelled the plan I had with them and happily went back to just coding like normal in VSCode with occasional dips into Copilot when a need arose or for rubber ducking and planning. Feels much better as I'm in full control and not trusting the magic black box to get it right or getting fatigue from reading thousands of lines of generated code.
Anyone who says they're able to review thousands of lines effectively that Claude might slop out in a day are lying to themselves.
torben-friis 29 minutes ago [-]
>Anyone who says they're able to review thousands of lines effectively that Claude might slop out in a day are lying to themselves.
The amount you can review before burning out is now the reasonable limit, for the same reason that a car is supposed to stay at the speed you can handle and not the max speed of the engine.
Of course, many people are secretly skipping reviews and some dare to publicly advocate for getting rid of them entirely.
sassymuffinz 14 minutes ago [-]
> For the same reason that a car is supposed to stay at the speed you can handle and not the max speed of the engine.
As we know with driving, sensible drivers stick to the speed limit most of the time, but there's a good percentage of knuckle draggers who just love speeding, some people get drunk, some they just drive the wrong way down the highway entirely. Either way it's usually the sensible people who end up suffering.
coreyburnsdev 26 minutes ago [-]
why not just use it to review your codebase/commits/prs? you don't have to let it write a bunch of code for you neccessarily.
sassymuffinz 22 minutes ago [-]
That's my point - it's great as a tool to talk something through or rubber duck it, but as soon as you just let it loose to slop out thousands of lines a day and never read them all you're really doing is filling your base with thousands of lines of technical debt.
dismalaf 32 minutes ago [-]
> The era of subsidization is over
Of course it is. Returns are diminishing, AGI isn't happening with current techniques but it is good enough to sell, so it's time to monetize. I just got an email from OpenAI as well about ads in their free tier (I signed up once out of curiosity).
rvz 27 minutes ago [-]
> AGI isn't happening with current techniques but it is good enough to sell, so it's time to monetize.
Or perhaps it was a scam in the first place for an IPO.
deadbabe 34 minutes ago [-]
Not over yet. More hikes will come. It will reach $1000.
satvikpendem 32 minutes ago [-]
That's what I said by subsidization being over.
zamadatix 21 minutes ago [-]
Can you expand what you mean by "subsidization being over" in terms of the plan prices?
They're trying to slowly move up market. I assume soon the $20 will get its own restrictions in the future (and/or ads) to get people to pay $100.
zamadatix 15 minutes ago [-]
The same could have been claimed in 2024 when they introduced the $200 Pro plan. Nothing is over yet just because of what could possibly happen next.
satvikpendem 13 minutes ago [-]
Yes, and now they (will) have ads in the lower tiers and eventually will add them in higher tiers as well. It's no different to Netflix's methods. Therefore the statement would have been proven right if it were claimed back then.
zamadatix 10 minutes ago [-]
But these are, again, additional tiers.
You can't just say because they've added more things the old things are over - the old things actually have to go away first. Eventually they may get there (or not). It may be another few years (or not). Nothing is actually now over though any more than it was now over in 2024.
operatingthetan 28 minutes ago [-]
The subsidization being "over" would mean we are paying their actual cost or more.
satvikpendem 25 minutes ago [-]
I see what you mean, I misread your initial reply.
creddit 30 minutes ago [-]
Pro used to be $200.
bossyTeacher 5 minutes ago [-]
It really feels like LLMs will mostly become tools for tech workers rather than the kind of civilization-level transformation sama has been peddling. Every single comment here seems to confirm the above.
laacz 35 minutes ago [-]
They are actively exploiting the compute shortages of Anthropic. In our team we're pushing for more or less vanilla and portability, since the best harness today might not be the best one in 6 months.
>Our existing $200 Pro tier still remains our highest usage option.
hackable_sand 31 minutes ago [-]
Can you guys remind me again why you're doing this?
righthand 37 minutes ago [-]
This is like the 2010s hosting price wars.
varispeed 41 minutes ago [-]
What is the difference between Pro and normal mode apart from the fact the Pro takes ages to finish? I see not much difference in output quality.
flextheruler 39 minutes ago [-]
Tell me you're losing market share to competitors without telling me you're losing market share to competitors
azuanrb 38 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Archerlm 45 minutes ago [-]
just a rumor, but i heard altman was adding a timer which required the R&D dept. to triple
throwatdem12311 39 minutes ago [-]
I heard it’ll take about a year. Timers are a hard problem to solve.
sassymuffinz 9 minutes ago [-]
While they work on getting it to tell the time they'll just be over there listing targets for military strikes.
selectively 45 minutes ago [-]
Price drops are nice. Unfortunately, the quality differential versus the competitor is night and day.
And everyone serious uses the API rate billing anyway.
aerhardt 28 minutes ago [-]
> the quality differential versus the competitor is night and day.
This myth about the inferiority of ChatGPT and Codex is becoming a meme.
I have active subscriptions to both. I am throwing at Codex all kinds of data engineering, web development and machine learning problems, have been working on non-tech tasks in the "Karpathy Obsidian Wiki" [1] style before he posted about it.
Not only does Codex crush Claude on cost, it's also significantly better at adherence and overall quality. Claude is there on my Mac, gathering dust, to the point I am thinking of not renewing the sub.
There are plenty of fellow HNers here who feel the same from what I read in the flamewars. I suspect none of us really has a horse in this race and many are half-competent (in other threads, they mention they do things like embedded programming, distributed DL systems, etc.)
I'm starting to suspect a vast majority of people pushing the narrative that Claude is vastly better haven't even tried the 5.3 / 5.4 models and are doing it out of sheer tribalism.
I have access to effectively infinite API tokens for all models from Anthropic as well as OpenAI. The differential in performance in complex tasks is vast and strongly in favor of Opus, in my experience. I do not use the official harnesses for either model, though - as they are not my taste.
Codex is closer to my taste, as it is at least a native app and not typescript slop. But the model is just not up to snuff.
hyperionultra 41 minutes ago [-]
Disagree. I use codex extensively. It just works so well with vscode and python. Claude with ridiculous limits - thanks no. For some even xAI is good fit.
nilkn 37 minutes ago [-]
This take is out-of-date by months (which is an eternity in this space). Codex today has caught up and is very much on par with CC.
satvikpendem 40 minutes ago [-]
I prefer and use 5.4 over Opus, it's simply better, faster, and doesn't glaze me like Claude models want to do for some reason.
I_am_tiberius 27 minutes ago [-]
For me it's not the price. It's the fact that they obviously read my prompts and may even use a derived version of my data for training. As it's very clear in the meantime that SAMA lies most of the time, there's just no way I can trust this company in any way.
asadm 26 minutes ago [-]
are your prompts that important that you would not use SOTA models just to protect them?
For me, they are just a means to an end and disposable.
Toutouxc 23 minutes ago [-]
So.. would you mind releasing all your code on GitHub?
Rendered at 19:00:14 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I use both OpenAI and Anthropic models, though for different purposes, what surprises me is how underrated GPT still feels (or, alternatively, how overhyped Anthropic models can be) given how capable it is in these scenarios. There also seems to be relatively little recognition of this in the broader community (like your recent YouTube video). My guess is that demand skews toward general codegen rather than the kind of deep debugging and systems work where these differences really show.
I do turn to Anthropic for ideation and non-tech things. But I find little reason to use it over codex for engineering tasks. Sometimes for planning, but even there, 5.4 is more critical of my questionable ideas, and will often come up with simpler ways to do things (especially when prompted), which I appreciate.
And I don't do hard-tech things! I've chosen a b2b field where I can provide competent products for a niche that is underserved and where long term relationships matter, simply because I'm not some brilliant engineer who can completely reinvent how something is done. I'm not writing kernels or complex ML stacks. So I don't really understand what everyone is building where they don't see the limits of Opus. Maybe small greenfield projects with few users.
Regarding speed, I don't use xhigh that often, and surprisingly for me GPT 5.4 high is faster than Claude 4.6 Opus high (unless you enable fast mode for Opus).
Of course I still use Opus for frontend, for some small scripts, and for criticizing GPT's code style, especially in Python (getattr).
Thank you for speaking out. I think it's important that reputable engineers like you do so. The Claude gang gaslighting is unhinged right now. It would be none of my concern but I have to deal with it in the real world - my customers are susceptible to these memes. I'm sure others have to deal with similar IRL consequences, too.
My guess is that 5.5 will come out soon and be significantly better so you'd want to be using Codex then, but then when Opus 5 comes out probably back to claude code
Also 5.4 has fast mode, and higher usage limits since it's cheaper
Just curious as I've often heard that Claude was superior for planning/architecture work while ChatGPT was superior for actual implementation and finding bugs.
The $200 Pro plan still exists, and does give access to the pro model.
What is new is a $100 Pro plan that does give access to the pro model, with lower usage limits than the $200 Pro plan.
GPT 5.4 Pro is extremely slow but thorough, so it's not meant for the usual agentic work, rather for research or solving hard bugs/math problems when you provide it all the context.
Edit: I wonder if this is actually compute-bound as the impetus
Pricing strategy is always a bit of an art, without a perfect optimum for everyone:
- pay-per-token makes every query feel stressful
- a single plan overcharges light users and annoyingly blocks heavy users
- a zillion plans are confusing / stressful to navigate and change
This change mostly just adds a medium-sized plan for people doing medium-sized amounts of work. People were asking for this, and we're happy to deliver.
(I work at OpenAI.)
On the other hand, the benchmark of Plus usage seems to be to be all over the place, so it’s difficult to say now how does the usage compare to the old Pro.
Same for the $200 plan, it's still 2x its normal usage until that date.
Both Pro plans include the same core capabilities. The main difference is usage allowance: Pro $100 unlocks 5x higher usage than Plus (and 10x Codex usage vs. Plus for a limited time), while Pro $200 unlocks 20x usage than Plus.
From their faq
With this new VIP membership that comes with 5x or 20x usage, if you spend $100 you get 10x. $200 you get 20x and you get to spin the wheel and use the slot machines unlimited times even at peak hours more than most without any restrictions, 24/7, no waiting for hours with priority.
So spend more to get more abundance and more simultaneous spins at the wheel.
Except if you're trying to abuse the slot machines themselves or sharing or reselling your membership to other customers who want a spin at the roulette wheel; but were previously banned. [0]
[0] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-about-chatgpt-pr...
So.. cheaper?
This just adds a $100 plan that's 1/4 the usage of the $200 plan..
20x more usage than in Plus is 200$
I see this when I try to upgrade my Plus subscription.
https://snipboard.io/jmGKfM.jpg
5x=$100 20x=$200
For my money, on the code side at least, GitHub Copilot on VSCode is still the most cost effective option, 10 bucks for 300 requests gets me all I need, especially when I use OpenAI models which are counted as 1x vs Opus which is 3x. I've stopped using all other tools like Claude Code etc.
FWIW it feels like GH Copilot is a cheaper version of OpenRouter but with trade-offs like being locked into VSCode and the Microsoft ecosystem overall. I already use VSCode though and otherwise I don't see much downside to using GH Copilot outside of that.
I also wouldn’t say you’re locked into Microsoft’s ecosystem. At work we just have skills that allow for interaction with Bitbucket and other internal tooling. You’re not forced to use GitHub at all.
Cancelled the plan I had with them and happily went back to just coding like normal in VSCode with occasional dips into Copilot when a need arose or for rubber ducking and planning. Feels much better as I'm in full control and not trusting the magic black box to get it right or getting fatigue from reading thousands of lines of generated code.
Anyone who says they're able to review thousands of lines effectively that Claude might slop out in a day are lying to themselves.
The amount you can review before burning out is now the reasonable limit, for the same reason that a car is supposed to stay at the speed you can handle and not the max speed of the engine.
Of course, many people are secretly skipping reviews and some dare to publicly advocate for getting rid of them entirely.
As we know with driving, sensible drivers stick to the speed limit most of the time, but there's a good percentage of knuckle draggers who just love speeding, some people get drunk, some they just drive the wrong way down the highway entirely. Either way it's usually the sensible people who end up suffering.
Of course it is. Returns are diminishing, AGI isn't happening with current techniques but it is good enough to sell, so it's time to monetize. I just got an email from OpenAI as well about ads in their free tier (I signed up once out of curiosity).
Or perhaps it was a scam in the first place for an IPO.
- Plus is still the same $20
- 20x Pro is still the same $200
- This is a new 5x tier is $100
https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-what-is-chatgpt-... is probably a better direct comparison of the 3
You can't just say because they've added more things the old things are over - the old things actually have to go away first. Eventually they may get there (or not). It may be another few years (or not). Nothing is actually now over though any more than it was now over in 2024.
>Our existing $200 Pro tier still remains our highest usage option.
And everyone serious uses the API rate billing anyway.
This myth about the inferiority of ChatGPT and Codex is becoming a meme.
I have active subscriptions to both. I am throwing at Codex all kinds of data engineering, web development and machine learning problems, have been working on non-tech tasks in the "Karpathy Obsidian Wiki" [1] style before he posted about it.
Not only does Codex crush Claude on cost, it's also significantly better at adherence and overall quality. Claude is there on my Mac, gathering dust, to the point I am thinking of not renewing the sub.
There are plenty of fellow HNers here who feel the same from what I read in the flamewars. I suspect none of us really has a horse in this race and many are half-competent (in other threads, they mention they do things like embedded programming, distributed DL systems, etc.)
I'm starting to suspect a vast majority of people pushing the narrative that Claude is vastly better haven't even tried the 5.3 / 5.4 models and are doing it out of sheer tribalism.
[1] https://gist.github.com/karpathy/442a6bf555914893e9891c11519...
Codex is closer to my taste, as it is at least a native app and not typescript slop. But the model is just not up to snuff.
For me, they are just a means to an end and disposable.