Rendered at 02:24:17 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
azuanrb 4 hours ago [-]
So many negative comments here. Among my circle, it’s not uncommon for people to have multiple $200 accounts. This seems like it would make things easier for them by letting them use one account instead of juggling two or more.
What they’re doing with billions of tokens every week, beats me. But these users absolutely do exist.
alasano 4 hours ago [-]
What do you mean? It's the fact that previously the 20x plan cost $200 (and is 10x now) and now 25x is $500.
If it was a 50x $500 plan it would be a different story.
bezier-curve 4 hours ago [-]
For less than the cost of this plan, you can get ChatGPT Pro 200, Claude Max 5x, and Kimi Code. At least that's what I'm doing, and the model diversity does help with adversarial code review loops.
alasano 3 hours ago [-]
Agreed. In my testing yesterday GPT 6 Sol still beat Opus 5.5 on code review (of GPT written code in this case)
6.1 will probably perform even better.
Opus 5.5 is better in that regard than Fable 5.1 except for some bugs with more complexity which it was uniquely suited to.
purrry 3 hours ago [-]
At this point, why even bother with subscriptions and other packaged products of these model providers anyways. It’s just an extra hassle of juggling between them plus it introduces additional data privacy concerns.
Do things in a sustainable fashion and treat these models like the swappable commodity that they are by using them via abstraction layers. Bonus point is that you might be surprised how much more you can get for your money by intelligently optimizing specific model usage.
satvikpendem 2 hours ago [-]
Subscriptions are still subsidized over API, so just like Uber I'll continue to milk them until I can't anymore (Uber back in the 2010s was incredible, you could get damn near anywhere for less than 5 bucks or so).
timcobb 2 hours ago [-]
This approach is fun and rewarding but I think it makes sense to do this if/when models really stall out. Right now opus 5.5 is... amazing. I wouldn't use anything else.
UltraSane 59 minutes ago [-]
If you actually consume all quota for every session subscriptions are VASTLY cheaper per token than API.
chaostheory 2 hours ago [-]
That’s the point from Tibo’s tweet:
“Over time, we see prices go low enough that it makes sense for most to buy usage as needed without there being a significant gap between what you get in a subscription and what you get in the API for a dollar spent.”
kittoes 4 hours ago [-]
Can you please explain to me how the announcement is anything but a negative? Especially for such power users. That same 200$ plan now allows for half the usage it did when I subscribed a couple weeks ago. Tibo and co can dress this pig up however they want, it's still less usage than I bargained for.
Keyframe 3 hours ago [-]
Seems like can still do the same, but for multiple $500 because it awfully smells like ye olde $200 one.
CamperBob2 3 hours ago [-]
No, now they need multiple $500 accounts. The usage allowance didn't go up significantly, just the price.
roncesvalles 4 hours ago [-]
>What they’re doing with billions of tokens every week, beats me.
What intrigues me more is how are they not done building whatever they were building? LLMs have been jaw-droppingly good for a good 6 months now.
The people spending thousands on LLM bills a month should've been done building significant chunks of Microsoft's or Google's software portfolio by now.
I guess what I mean is how is producing code still the limiting factor in whatever they're doing?
I produce a firehose of personal software and I still cannot max out a $20 plan.
Scope creep? When you give a mouse a cookie and all that...
satvikpendem 2 hours ago [-]
Jevon's Paradox.
mapontosevenths 3 hours ago [-]
For me it's an autonomous research loop that runs 24/7.
nujabe 4 hours ago [-]
Because you would still need to output Google scale software every time you need to make meaningful changes.
chaostheory 2 hours ago [-]
What are you building with your $20 plan? Small scripts?
solfox 8 hours ago [-]
It's actually insane how often I switch between Anthropic and Codex subscriptions. The experience on these platforms is a bit like riding a roller coaster.
shepherdjerred 5 hours ago [-]
ChatGPT Plus: 1x usage, $20
Pro 100: 5x usage, $100
Pro 200: 10x usage, $200 (previously was 20x usage, $200)
Pro 500: 25x usage, $500
So, essentially scaling is equal. You get the same amount of usage from 25 ChatGPT Pro accounts as you do from one Pro 500 account.
It's fair, but a big of a rug pull considering how good of a deal Pro 200 was.
qingcharles 5 hours ago [-]
I think the bottom one is called "Plus", right? I get that confused too.
shepherdjerred 5 hours ago [-]
I think you're right
bhelkey 9 hours ago [-]
> See the pricing page for a comparison of the features and usage included in each plan.
Does anyone see the usage limits? I don't see anything indicating how much usage is in each tier.
These days it's all like "$200 plan has more usage than $100 plan" and "$500 plan has even more usage".
thimabi 8 hours ago [-]
It’s about time for some laws against unpredictable pricing like that.
octoberfranklin 4 hours ago [-]
Just pay the token rate for Kimi-K3 or GLM 5.3.
Scene_Cast2 4 hours ago [-]
I ended up going with a Synthetic subscription (they host some open-weight models including K3 and GLM 5.3). They're the only subscription that I found that's simultaneously cheaper than token rates, and is extremely transparent about usage and pricing.
johnnyApplePRNG 3 hours ago [-]
What a terrible name...
I tried searching for "Synthetic AI Subscription" and "Synthetic Data" is such a massive keyword in AI pre-training circles it's impossible to find the company.
Those are not mutually exclusive things. I actually sympathize with voting with your wallet.
Aeolun 4 hours ago [-]
GLM has actual usage indicated on their website. From what I can see it is accurate.
93po 6 hours ago [-]
It took me a while to figure this out too and only did in the last couple days: a 10x, 20x, or 25x plan is the cost of your monthly sub times that multiplier in terms of API costs.
So a 20x plan, that was formerly $200, would have been $4000 in API credits. Which sounds like a lot but the API is absolutely horrendously expensive - like you'll burn through $100 in 45 minutes of 5.6 Sol on High reasoning. I know this because I did this once.
bhelkey 5 hours ago [-]
Do you see the terms, "10x", "20x", or "25x"? If so, where?
I don't see any of those terms. Not even on the signed in page to upgrade to to a different Pro plan.
The plans I see are labeled, "Pro 100", "Pro 200", and "Pro 500" with the number corresponding to the price in USD.
4 hours ago [-]
notfried 3 hours ago [-]
They also said this in the email announcement I got:
> As a thank you for being an existing subscriber and to help you continue to build your most ambitious ideas and transition, we’re also giving you a one-time grant of 62,500 usage credits (a $2,500 USD value). You’ll see these appear in Settings > Usage. They will expire on December 31, 2026, and use of the credits is governed by the Service Credit Terms.
I have no idea how much 62,500 usage credits are. Given the value they suggest I feel it's like one extra week of usage.
watusername 2 hours ago [-]
> Given the value they suggest I feel it's like one extra week of usage.
With how many resets they've been giving out lately, if you consistently max things out I would say this is a reasonable guess. You can ask your clanker via your favorite harness (the usage credits are equivalent to API pricing):
> Based on my session files and official OpenAI API pricing, check how much I would have spent in the past few months if I switched to the OpenAI API.
This is just the beginning. Migrate to open models ASAP.
kristofferR 7 hours ago [-]
Migrating takes minutes, no need to do the changeover to worse local models until the situation is truly dire.
drewnick 4 hours ago [-]
Agree but if you don't want to then be at the mercy of the cloud providers when everyone is rushing for the exits, you need to start thinking about securing hardware now.
pixl97 1 hours ago [-]
Heh, good luck with hardware. Will bankrupt you at current prices.
ferrouswheel 7 hours ago [-]
They are desparate to ban open models.
bethekidyouwant 4 hours ago [-]
lol how
vuurmot 2 hours ago [-]
just make it illegal?
"open models are as bad as CSAM"
damsta 9 hours ago [-]
People complained about burning their weekly usage in a day on Pro 200, so OpenAI's response to that is an even more expensive plan?
chaostheory 8 hours ago [-]
Way easier to do with Anthropic plans, but I guess subsidized AI is over? Didn’t think it was happening this soon.
InsideOutSanta 7 hours ago [-]
...while halving the limits on the $200 plan.
2 hours ago [-]
therepanic 9 hours ago [-]
It's funny how, just before that, they tactfully cut the limits on the $200 subscription.
rfgplk 9 hours ago [-]
Been doing it slowly for months week over week allowances have been getting cut by 5-10% consistently
buckleyourshoe 9 hours ago [-]
I wonder how this will go with the new releases like MiMo-v2.6-Pro or future GLM, DeepSeek, and Kimi releases around the corner. Once planned with Fable or Astra, the build process isn't much different with the open weight models from my usage.
paimapi 8 hours ago [-]
you can pretty much run frontier-level models locally now with GLM 5.3 Flash and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next so this pricing feels very geared towards squeezing people who are still dependent on cloud subscription models only and don't know how to divert grunt work to cheaper models automatically with the 'smarter' frontier models acting as orchestrators and refinement
New $500 tier: 25x, plus ultrafast mode but it drains 6x the cost (!!)
WinstonSmith84 9 hours ago [-]
Where do you see that? I can't even see the $500 plan on their pricing page.
x313 8 hours ago [-]
The $500 25x was mentioned by Altman on the livestream
The $200 cut to 10x was announced only formally on Twitter
However none of their product pages mention concrete #s, so I guess value will only degrade more over time.
WinstonSmith84 8 hours ago [-]
Thanks...
It's strange if that ends up to be this way. It's hard to see why would anybody subscribe to the $200 - or even the $500 for the sole benefit of using ultrafast (depleted probably within hours).
NewJazz 7 hours ago [-]
Because it is still cheaper than API usage, and more convenient than multiple subscriptions.
minimaxir 9 hours ago [-]
The pricing is on the linked page but does not appear to be selectable in ChatGPT UI yet.
jcomp 5 hours ago [-]
I can't believe I am defending these people and am not arguing this is the case, but a change in the multiplier isn't necessarily a downgrade if the value of X has increased. Yes, relative to Pro the new tier isn't as valuable, but it could still be more valuable relative to the old tier for the same price.
trashface 5 hours ago [-]
Usage limit is - limiting. I may not notice the increased value of a more advanced model, but I will notice when I can't even use the service.
jcomp 5 hours ago [-]
I'm saying we don't know what x is for Pro usage. If Pro's newX is 3 times oldX, new10x > old20x.
That aside, all of the ambiguity around usage is killing their credibility (among other things). Usage limits feel like they swing wildly day to day and week to week, and it's hard to trust any of the other claims they make when that's the case.
paulddraper 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
"Yesterday you gave me 10 Frooby Bucks and charged 2 Frooby Bucks per banana. Now you gave me 5 Frooby Bucks and charge me 1 per banana!"
qwe----3 5 hours ago [-]
To be fair the new models are likely 2x as expensive as before
nostrebored 4 hours ago [-]
Supposedly much less expensive per task (more token efficient and cheaper)
matheusmoreira 5 hours ago [-]
Their audacity is shocking. Tibo posted a wall of text on X rationalizing this nonsense and I couldn't bring myself to read a single word.
Half the usage for the same price.
This is the same nonsense Anthropic got burned for. I think I'm gonna bite the bullet and find a GLM or Kimi provider already.
petesergeant 8 hours ago [-]
Literally just downgraded to the $20 a month one, as they're not grandfathering in the old plans. I don't think this is going to work the way they thought.
matheusmoreira 5 hours ago [-]
They did grandfather the usage of the $200 plans for now. Only reason I haven't cancelled yet.
sscaryterry 4 hours ago [-]
This is temporary.
matheusmoreira 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah, until the end of October. Kinda hoping they'll pull an Anthropic and keep extending it.
chaostheory 8 hours ago [-]
I’ll be doing the same as you 10/26 when our grandfather limits end, in addition to downgrading my Anthropic sub. I guess I’m shopping for hardware and open weight AIs now.
gessha 4 hours ago [-]
There’s Discords dedicated to local hosting or check out level1tech forums. Anyone there will gladly help you with your budget and use cases.
htrp 7 hours ago [-]
You and everyone else
johnsmith1840 8 hours ago [-]
What? So I have 2 200$ openai plans this is saying the 500$ is almost equivalent to a SINGLE 200$ plan?
Or it's saying it's always on fast mode therefore it's like running a 20x on fast all the time?
Super confused.
500$ is a old 200$ plan plus an option to drain it absurdly fast?
What is the value here of a 500$ plan I can't figure it out.
ModernMech 7 hours ago [-]
> 500$ is a old 200$ plan plus an option to drain it absurdly fast?
Yes.
> What is the value here of a 500$ plan I can't figure it out.
If you have unlimited money, it lets you give it to OpenAI to get faster results, presumably because you don't have unlimited time.
linuxftw 8 hours ago [-]
The plan page just says "More usage" it doesn't say any 10x multiplier. Literally just says "More" than plus.
cyral 8 hours ago [-]
Seriously, even the "Learn more about limits" link just takes you to the posted page where it literally says nothing about limits or usage. Not even x20 or x10 or whatever, just zero information on what "more usage" actually means. I don't understand why they can't provide how much token usage you get.
theturtletalks 8 hours ago [-]
Yes they used to show an estimate of how many messages you can send in each tier and for each model.
But past few weeks, I don’t think it was accurate since my usage was going down faster. They nerfed the usage and now aren’t even giving estimates.
2001zhaozhao 4 hours ago [-]
Afaik the usage quota nerf to $200 Pro is true. Twitter is all over them right now. (Also you haven't been able to buy the $200 Pro plan for the last two weeks or so)
rfgplk 9 hours ago [-]
I checked it's actually awful lol
tonyedgecombe 9 hours ago [-]
What a strange idea to name your product after it's price.
rationalist 7 hours ago [-]
It makes it easier to change the plan features if the name is tied to the price and not the features.
So expect further downgrades in the plan features for the same price.
Topfi 7 hours ago [-]
It's even stranger here in the EU.
100 = € 103,-
200 = € 229,-
500 = € 509.99,-
Besides the naming being insane, the pricing strategy for each seems to have been made by a different team.
rpozarickij 8 hours ago [-]
On the plus side, it'll be easier to compare these new plans than what we have with all the models.
It looks like they have literally chosen the most straightforward sounding plan names they could think of.
TomGarden 9 hours ago [-]
Venture capital doesn't want to pay for our tokens anymore, it seems
scottyah 8 hours ago [-]
dangit, I've been loving the subsidies.
Lalabadie 9 hours ago [-]
Am I just out of touch with our times if I think hand-wavey usage limits on a 500$ subscription is crazy?
rafram 9 hours ago [-]
It filter to people/organizations who have a hand-wavey relationship with $500.
Xcelerate 8 hours ago [-]
I use a small percentage of my Pro token quota to find better deals on hotels, rental cars, discount codes for large purchases, etc. Have it automatically scanning credit card points promos and flight deals via various APIs too. Easily pays for itself in that regard. Over $1k, I'm not sure it would break even anymore.
datsci_est_2015 7 hours ago [-]
What’s a typical concrete outcome from this workflow? Is it saving you time, or money? Because if you buy the $2500 flight when a $2000 flight is available and you just have to scroll down the page, that’s not $500 that you’ve saved…
For example, I needed two rental cars that could each carry seven people for a trip to Maine. There's so many different combinations of ways to search for this that it would take forever to do manually. I have membership in Avis, Hertz, Costco + Chase Reserve Travel, etc. Codex with direct browser usage bypasses most of the web fetch restrictions you get when trying to use the ChatGPT web UI on Pro mode.
I had Codex queue any CAPTCHAs for me to solve. Also set up one sub-agent to search Reddit for other people's clever approaches to getting good rental car deals. Ultimately, it found a third party reseller for Avis that had a price of $600 using a discount code for both cars vs $1,100 cheapest from Avis directly. I would not have discovered that on my own, at least not without like a week's worth of manual searching. So right there that was a $1,000 saving for both cars in exchange for 20 minutes of writing a decent Codex prompt.
rafram 6 hours ago [-]
Do you know about AutoSlash?
CamperBob2 3 hours ago [-]
I had Codex queue any CAPTCHAs for me to solve
Interesting, you don't find that the model is perfectly capable of solving those on its own?
Or does it just refuse to try?
jkingsman 7 hours ago [-]
Can even have it look for (and enter) sweepstakes within your interests, autonomously, if you give it access to its own email that you don't mind getting blasted with spam.
qingcharles 5 hours ago [-]
That's actually intriguing.
I have a Grok Bot that just looks for glitched pricing and crazy deals on a list of items I need and it reports in a couple of times a day.
How else can we get these things to make us/save us money?
deno 7 hours ago [-]
If it’s small percentage then you could spend just that few dollars in API costs or lower subscription and the rest is profit. So you're not saving anything, just reclassifying that opportunity cost to feel better about your subscription’s value. I know it's pedantic but it's useful to be aware of opportunity cost trying to trick us.
lavezzi 5 hours ago [-]
all of this exists for cheap without AI
FrinkleFrankle 8 hours ago [-]
Fuck, that's smart. Thank you for the idea.
tevon 7 hours ago [-]
What APIs do you use for this?
Xcelerate 7 hours ago [-]
For flights, SerpApi (to get Google Flights data) in combination with seats.aero pro. I use data from those services with a MILP library where I provide various travel and cost constraints. Runs periodically and notifies me of any good deals. I don't know if my setup actually does much more than the more expensive paid services already out there, but I can at least customize it a lot more to my liking to avoid a lot of manual search effort.
sillyfluke 7 hours ago [-]
Well, that was fun while it lasted:)
ValentineC 6 hours ago [-]
Does ChatGPT have the same large enterprise restrictions as Claude, where teams above a certain size are required to use API billing?
That would limit the $500 plan to smaller businesses.
dpweb 8 hours ago [-]
Usage is sus but 500 minus tax write off to even a one person business that makes 100-500k yr. not crazy at all - kinda expected.
Worth it? Huge YMMV. I'd expect a $1000 sub next.
kgwgk 8 hours ago [-]
Cosmo Kramer: It's a write-off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write-off?
Cosmo Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Cosmo Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is.
Cosmo Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No, I don't.
Cosmo Kramer: But they do, and they're the ones writing it off.
Edit to be fair: the "500 minus tax write off" comment does make sense but often people overstates the benefits of writing things off.
Lol, I could hear this vividly in Kramer's voice in my mind. Not everything in the show aged well, but it's still a fun watch.
sheepscreek 7 hours ago [-]
Hah we both thought of dialogue play - figured it would make for an interesting conversation.
sheepscreek 7 hours ago [-]
My take - the $500/month is likely similar to the $200/month plan (albeit with Astra Ultrafast that consumes tokens ultrafast).
Or maybe it gives you just a little bit more tokens than older $200/month plan for plausible deniability:
Maybe me: “you’re charging $500/month for what was $200/month earlier”
Maybe OAI: “no we’re not!! You get *more* tokens than the older $200/month plan and did you hear, you get Astra Ultrafast access!”
Maybe me: “oh really? How many more tokens??”
Maybe OAI: “I’m sorry we can no longer share that information, it’s confidential. National security and all…”
avgDev 8 hours ago [-]
I've talked to VP at my company and we both agreed $1000 for the time saved, is still 'worth it'.
Dev salaries are high and devs often have to realign buttons or change colors. We are not always working on complex ideas.
I rewrote a big piece of software from scratch....it had 0 docs. Documenting of classes and flow took me weeks. Complete rewrite took almost 2 years. I am confident that with AI I would be able to get this done in a few months.
bobocop 7 hours ago [-]
I bet it's worth it, for him.
Gets to put you under pressure to deliver more while paying you less. A few months you say, why not weeks? I'm sure the latest model can do it.
Also, forget about those "easy" ideas, if you are not on the verge of burnout every day you might as well not be working.
zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago [-]
Half (or more?) of the point of writing docs is for you to understand the system better.
chaostheory 8 hours ago [-]
You can also right off actual $6000 hardware
FrinkleFrankle 8 hours ago [-]
I'd rather use the fancy models while absurd valuations are subsidising them and then pick up a couple grand worth of their old hardware in a few years when they're eol.
vcf 8 hours ago [-]
Not 100% in the first year (where I live). By the time it’s depreciated, it’s time to replace. Subscriptions are 100% deductible in the year you pay them.
Maxatar 7 hours ago [-]
Since 2025 in the U.S. computer hardware qualifies for 100% depreciation in its first year of service.
chaostheory 8 hours ago [-]
You might be able to use the accelerated depreciation schedule which is 100% first year
boredatoms 9 hours ago [-]
Im surprised some countries dont have consumer protection laws that would force them to be more explicit/accurate
schaefer 9 hours ago [-]
but to do accurate billing, they would have to tell us when our usage triggers a guard rail and causes our query to be rerouted or denied.
And if they do that accurately, there's no stopping someone from mapping the guard rails.
Clearly that outcome is more uncomfortable than what we have now, which is enough people seem to be okay with vague billing.
ASalazarMX 8 hours ago [-]
First, I wouldn't put it past OpenAI to charge even if your prompt triggered the guardrails, transferring responsibility is their style.
Second, how does vague billing prevent someone from mapping the "I'm sorry, I can't help you with that" style of responses to map the guardrails?
cousinbryce 8 hours ago [-]
Move fast and bill things
RandomGerm4n 8 hours ago [-]
or they could simply remove the annoying guardrails
jstummbillig 9 hours ago [-]
How would that work? It's not simple to set a price, when you have a fixed asset. Seems more complicated to set price on a product (ChatGPT), where the product is just a shell for something else entirely (the model), that changes by the month.
MisterMunchkin 8 hours ago [-]
Very easily, they do it for their API. You just set a limit in tokens.
jstummbillig 8 hours ago [-]
On what tokens? The ones of today's model, or tomorrow's?
The API makes it simple, yes. They make you pay per token per model. A new model has different prices. Not being able to do that is what makes it not so very simple.
7 hours ago [-]
charcircuit 7 hours ago [-]
Just say you get $100 of credit and different models cost different rates.
rebolek 7 hours ago [-]
Are you serious? If you used 10$ of your subscription until 10th of month and then prices changed, well, the rest of your subscription uses new prices, that's basic math.
jstummbillig 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
seshagiric 6 hours ago [-]
Typically when a product is named x500 then one could assume its at 500 level or you are getting 500 of something.
I think this is the first instance where it means you are actually paying 500$
8 hours ago [-]
rebolek 8 hours ago [-]
I think that 100$ subscription is expensive but I'm just European peasant developer, not SF area oligarch.
CSMastermind 9 hours ago [-]
Yeah it's wild that they don't outright state the specific usage limits.
Just trust me bro accounting.
a851c8a96264c 9 hours ago [-]
Yes, you are. All of this was obvious from the start. The prices will go up way more soon (tm)
Razengan 8 hours ago [-]
Maybe they're trying to milk as much as they can before open-weight models cause the prices to come crashing down?
chrsw 6 hours ago [-]
You can use open weights models right now and ignore all this fuss. And by the time open weights models are objectively and subjectively on par with what Fable/Astra are today, the frontier labs will probably offer something newer, more capable and more expensive. The models OpenAI and Anthropic roll out clearly aren’t for people on a strict budget.
Maybe one day open weights and closed models will hit the same wall?
paul7986 8 hours ago [-]
As a consumer paying $20 now to chatGPT where i hit those gauntlet usage messages then using Muse a lot and not receiving any such messages. Im questioning my $20 a month GPT subscription and my $5 a month Gemini (Google has enough money as Meta to make it free) subscription.
Overall Ai is doing all the software development now and we the consumers are paying for this while many are out of work and if you are out of work the US tech job market is brutal!
Ai needs to be free to use without limits and in time Im guessing it will be. That could be Meta and or another who accomplishes this. Whoever does wins this race.
abirch 7 hours ago [-]
If you don't pay for the product, you are the product. It's like gmail is free, but Google is harvesting all of my data to sell me ads. Meta is doing the same with Muse.
cyanydeez 9 hours ago [-]
Remember when people talked abouthow these models are similar to gambling. Well, might be preetty much loot box logix crossed with DLC
xaksnTMu2 9 hours ago [-]
For a second I was worried I somehow missed 490 versions.
seshagiric 6 hours ago [-]
exactly
kube-system 8 hours ago [-]
To those balking at the price: this is just the beginning.
Subscription pricing will eventually compete with labor costs
Keyframe 6 hours ago [-]
It was clear from day one. This will end up at ~junior developer CTE / month. 2-3k/month incoming.
kube-system 5 hours ago [-]
Honestly I think the amount of value from today's frontier models is already easily at that level. And really, these models have enough knowledge and accuracy to rival the output of even very experienced engineers -- once we have better harnesses that can keep them from going off the rails without babysitting, they're coming for the $300K salaries.
yzydserd 9 hours ago [-]
Great naming scheme that doesn’t even survive exchange rates, or future price changes.
ModernMech 7 hours ago [-]
The idea is you'll always be paying that price, they'll just shrinkflate what you get and not tell you by how much. This has already been happening, now they're being a little more explicit about it.
alasano 4 hours ago [-]
Just keep cutting existing plans and introducing more expensive ones that give you the same thing the cheaper ones did.
Makes perfect sense.
(If you're an idiot)
aetherspawn 4 hours ago [-]
Where’s the Pro 200 for business tier?
The highest is Pro 100 and it’s useless for codex.
nunez 2 hours ago [-]
never did i think SWE would adopt MLM pay-to-play tactics, but here we are in 2026 with companies asking people to pay them $500/mo to rent their brains back to them!
1970-01-01 9 hours ago [-]
At this rate I expect end-to-end work getting done, no babysitting whatsoever. The agents should literally be calling me and talking about their problem if something needs my input.
fragmede 8 hours ago [-]
Notifications from both the ChatGPT and Claude app hit my phone when they finish a turn writing code.
AndrewKemendo 9 hours ago [-]
We’re getting pretty close to that being the normal process at this point
I know people who have been at this as stage since around 4o with their own custom systems
jdkdkfkffk 8 hours ago [-]
Me too, I'd say we are about two weeks away
Jayakumark 8 hours ago [-]
Could hire real people in India for this cost - Fresh college under grads are paid like $250 per month or less for a month working 9hours x 5.5 to 6 days.
Edit: I meant its not worth it just for Dots Personal assistant ,also comparing to previous pricing of $200 - For $500 you got previously 5x more than previous $200 Pro pricing (which was 20x now is 10x). I can have real people who can drive or do physical deliveries etc, just on the delta.
scottyah 8 hours ago [-]
Hmm, a super-programmer familiar with almost every framework in existence that can ship entire new apps in a day and collaborate with you realtime, or paying to train someone in a different time zone for some likely subpar work?
avgDev 8 hours ago [-]
I would rather use a skilled dev + AI. As dev I am more likely to learn from AI, as it is better at explaining concepts than devs fresh out of school.
kube-system 8 hours ago [-]
But they're slower and don't work in my timezone. The value to something like this isn't the ability to do work, but the ability to quickly iterate.
squidbeak 8 hours ago [-]
Could you hire hundreds of them over long running tasks for that fixed price to work every day and night for a month?
volkk 7 hours ago [-]
and they would be 50x worse
5555watch 8 hours ago [-]
My favorite comparison was that we're basically buying a GTX 1070 Ti every month, except instead of a GPU we get some extra productivity.
glub 9 hours ago [-]
This day may go down in history as one of the worst in OpenAI's history. It's so bad it's funny.
OpenAI announced they built clones of apps that already exist, codex for normal people, and 2.5x price increase for the product that is already getting decimated by competition.
What is happening at OpenAI?
I can't imagine OpenAI not backtracking this unless Anthropic does the price hike too.
samuelknight 7 hours ago [-]
It's not clear that they are hiking the price on Pro 200. Cache reads are down 75% from GPT 5.6 to GPT 6.1. So it looks like they are slashing the margin on their API and reducing the gap between subscription and API. 2x off API in exchange for committed spend is still a good deal for lots of people.
bhu8 8 hours ago [-]
> I can't imagine OpenAI not backtracking this unless Anthropic does the price hike too.
Same here, but I’m worried it’s the latter. We’ll probably see an Anthropic price hike in a couple of weeks.
glub 8 hours ago [-]
Interesting thing is that I would have expected Anthropic to do the price hike on the basis that their models are so much better right now. But it's more likely that OAI will have to backtrack regardless of what ANT does. Interesting times ahead.
If ANT does the price hike, OAI will be forced to backtrack because they're just not equal, OAI is behind. ANT would still be a much better value overall, and people will remember that it was OAI that made their ANT subscription more expensive. So the hiatus will happen. There's a lot of users that have $200 plans on both ANT and OAI. $500 leaves the slot for just 1 sub for them.
But I think the price hike is not going to happen. $500 is much, much harder to justify than $200 for the same usage. This is a horrible business decision, so Anthropic may just watch OAI bleed customers.
johnsmith1840 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah I think you're right I have around 500$ a mo budget for AI.
Had both a anthropic and openai then switched to 2 openai for astra. They want to capture the straddlers between both.
But this is a horrible decision. They could have eased customers into this instead of massive change. The are literally more than doubling the cost for no value add.
A smart company would have done this when they released astra or only allowed astra on 500$ plan. Or made it more sutble. I would likely have ate a 20% increase but this is over double.
skybrian 9 hours ago [-]
The $20/month subscription is an excellent deal. I wonder what these whales are doing with all those tokens?
I mean, other than Yegge. He seems like a pretty extreme outlier?
I guess they got tired of people saying Codex plans were a better value than Claude Code.
cousinbryce 8 hours ago [-]
Tired of their investors saying that
Galilyou 9 hours ago [-]
they were! now they are not
ferrouswheel 8 hours ago [-]
Conveniently Opus 5.5 is actually usable vs 5.
But I'm still for investing in local models.
InsideOutSanta 8 hours ago [-]
Yeah, with Opus 5.5, my impression is that the OpenAI $200 plan was already worse than the Anthropic $200 plan. Sol 6.1 might have tilted the balance in OpenAI's favor again, but these changes more than negate that.
I'll cancel my OpenAI plan after this billing cycle. Let's see how this plays out.
5 hours ago [-]
Aeolun 4 hours ago [-]
So Anthropic releases the best model since sliced bread, and in response OpenAI cuts their usage limits in half after releasing an absolutely atrocious sol-6 version? They seem to have lost the plot entirely.
timcobb 4 hours ago [-]
They probably had this all planned out before Opus 5.5 dropped and are staying the course. Or have something really good up their sleeves.
jletts 7 hours ago [-]
$6k a year on the top monthly rolling subscription vs buying a Mac…
There’s an extra 20% of sales tax on that subscription cost in the U.K., but that’s a different matter entirely
CuriouslyC 4 hours ago [-]
I've been an OpenAI booster since for a while they've been less user/community hostile and culty than Anthropic, and their models have been competitive and more pleasant/honest to work with while being much more efficient, but between this and the edge Opus 5.5 has I'm switching, sadly.
stldev 7 hours ago [-]
> If your Pro 200 subscription was active at the eligibility cutoff or during the seven days before it, you’re eligible to keep your previous included usage allowance through Oct 29, 2026 while you have an active Pro 200 subscription.
Got it, calendar updated: switch back to Claude on the 29th.
I realize this may be an unpopular opinion, but I feel the FTC should start looking at things like this. If a well funded company can bait the market long enough to drown most everyone else out then double their price overnight (ok, 30 days..) doesn't competition just become a matter of who has the deepest pockets?
joquarky 3 hours ago [-]
Are you sure that the FTC is working for our interests lately?
stldev 2 hours ago [-]
Fair point, I'm quite sure it is the opposite.
Tomorrow's FTC perhaps.
derfurth 9 hours ago [-]
Given that I burn through 2 x $200 subscriptions, I really hope Sol 6.1 is indeed as good as Astra (￣ー￣；
minimaxir 9 hours ago [-]
> New subscriptions that aren’t eligible for grandfathering include a lower usage allowance than previously offered with Pro 200 to reflect our increasingly efficient models.
actual lol
heywoods 9 hours ago [-]
> New rider trips include a higher base fare than previously offered with Uber to reflect our increasingly efficient trip routing.
- Travis K.
Enjoy the Lyft v Uber era while it lasts!
ModernMech 9 hours ago [-]
lol yeah, I opened the Uber app the other day to $100 fares, remembered a time when I could get anywhere in SF at any time for like $5.
thallium205 9 hours ago [-]
$5 flat group rides, $8 flat single rides anywhere in the city. The glory days.
wartywhoa23 8 hours ago [-]
Everyone happily paid the way for the behemoth that squeezed everyone out of competition and then started recoup the ROI aggressively, and no one recognizes oneself as a part of the problem, just like in the current AI pandemonium.
scottyah 8 hours ago [-]
I was happy to take VC money to uber to parts of town I wouldn't have otherwise for that period of time. Only my local bar lost out on selling me like maybe 20 drinks over the year or so.
xyzzy_plugh 8 hours ago [-]
I'll be the first to bemoan these companies but there are many, many locations where even with today's higher prices and level of service they come out way cheaper and way more reliable than incumbents.
It's getting shitty, I agree, but still feels like a net improvement to where we were over a decade ago.
WarmWash 7 hours ago [-]
It's almost like consumers are just as greedy as the very corps they revile...
zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago [-]
Corps don’t act on their own. The same people that work in corps are consumers
wyre 8 hours ago [-]
When I first learned about Uber ~14 years ago they were offering free rides in my city.
rtaylorgarlock 9 hours ago [-]
Oh don't worry, you get to keep your higher usage allowance for one month. hahahaha
mococa 6 hours ago [-]
Sure, then the AI will poke more tokens, more unreadeable code
LarsDu88 9 hours ago [-]
Is this Astra running on Cerebras?
mixel 9 hours ago [-]
No this is just the 500$ plan. They offer "ultrafast" now which is ~300tps which is 8x the speed for 6x the price.
LarsDu88 8 hours ago [-]
I think 300 tps might be roughly what an astra sized model would be at if running on Cerebras hardware no?
Or are they simply lower the batch sizes on whatever hardware they are currently running?
mixel 8 hours ago [-]
Yeah sorry I misunderstood you.
And yeah I bet that it is the cerebras collaboration although they didn't explicitly say this, maybe their own chip is fast enough for this inference speed? But I could only take a guess if its this or that
LarsDu88 7 hours ago [-]
I doubt Jalepeno is in production at this scale yet. Cerebras has been touting their datacenter buildout for the past 9 months.
sprice 8 hours ago [-]
Almost certainly yes. The value prop here is the 8x speed. This is incredibly valuable to many many builders.
babelfish 8 hours ago [-]
Yes that's their new ultrafast tier which is only available on this plan
KronisLV 8 hours ago [-]
I had the 200 USD subscription for a bit, with the change to it I'm downgrading to 100 USD and might move back to Anthropic in entirety since they fixed the Opus 5 slop writing issue with Opus 5.5 (though their 200 USD plan is also a lie with bad marketing, around 1.7x weekly tokens). Or maybe just keep two 100 USD subscriptions and see how they compare.
It's crazy that people will have to pay 500 USD for only slightly more (and faster) usage of basically what I already enjoyed for the past few weeks. And even I got close to hitting weekly limits doing regular development across a bunch of codebases (admittedly it was on Astra High).
I feel like even the 500 USD subscriptions are not "get out of my face with those limits for all single developer use cases" (not even that many overnight tasks, I might have run a few here and there, and not even full 8 hours of work a day), but soon you'll have people needing multiple of those 500 USD subscriptions, unless they pull off crazy token efficiency gains for how the models work.
Guess the economics are catching up to AI companies, sucks that I don't have a bunch of money to burn every month.
leftouterjoins 8 hours ago [-]
DeepSeek 4.1 Flash is good enough for me thanks.
VCFundedGenYer 8 hours ago [-]
Pure scam pricing.
Robdel12 9 hours ago [-]
Yeah no. $200 was the top for me. Which doesn't super matter to me, I pretty much only use luna. I can't tell the difference between luna vs sol/astra other than those larger models do more ambitious things that I don't ask for.
sdcfgy 7 hours ago [-]
I'm tired of this.
isoprophlex 9 hours ago [-]
> If your Pro 200 subscription was active at the eligibility cutoff or during the seven days before it, you’re eligible to keep your previous included usage allowance through Oct 29, 2026 while you have an active Pro 200 subscription.
> After that date, your subscription will move to the lower included usage allowance. Your subscription price stays at $200/month.
Imagine buying this shit for a year, upfront, and then having to deal with this. Nice.
DominikPeters 8 hours ago [-]
You can't, Pro is only available with monthly payment.
linuxftw 8 hours ago [-]
No actual mention of the actual 'cutoff date' anywhere to be seen. Was it today? Yesterday? 6 months ago?
Hawkenfall 9 hours ago [-]
Why would I pay $500 now when the $200 features were just rug-pulled? I mean, Pro 1000 is on the horizon at this point, no?
sixdimensional 8 hours ago [-]
Price escalation and reduction in features just leaves a horrible taste in my mouth as a consumer, and moreso, a human.
I want them to succeed as a business so I can use their products, but trust does erode over time. I wish they would realize this and value their customer more.
rfgplk 9 hours ago [-]
Yea, the $500 package is likely a rebranded $200 from a few months ago. Keep in mind all providers have been cutting token allowances for their subs for a few months now
apricot 3 hours ago [-]
"We have altered the deal..."
chaostheory 8 hours ago [-]
At this price points (including the reduction of usage on the Pro 200 and Pro 100 subscriptions), more people will be looking buying their own hardware and running with open weight AIs. $6000 per year is the threshold
scottyah 8 hours ago [-]
It's a bit more complicated than that though. Dollars per token is not the right metric to track.
bottlepalm 7 hours ago [-]
Local models don't hold a candle to SOTA models unfortunately.
chaostheory 4 hours ago [-]
Does it matter when I burn through all my Fable subscription usage in about a day? Astra is much better on efficiency, but doesn’t last a week either. With the new subscription limits, it’ll end up being like Fable.
bottlepalm 2 hours ago [-]
You should be using Opus 5.5, it's just as good if not better than Fable, and it sips tokens.
rfgplk 9 hours ago [-]
Decent(-ish), but doesn't provide good value for the money, sadly. They still refuse to tell you exactly how much usage you're paying for. My original suggestion a few months ago was to provide a $500/$1000 tier but make it _unlimited_, which this doesn't appear to be.
ChrisArchitect 9 hours ago [-]
Related:
Tomorrow we are re-opening the Pro $200 subscription
Great, now they told us what the lowest price will be per month, after their IPO
dawarwani03 5 hours ago [-]
Interesting
jdw64 9 hours ago [-]
Is AI development hitting its limits?
The performance changes between models are almost static. Recently, GPT has shifted almost entirely toward token efficiency.
Astra is good at making 3D assets, but realistically its coding was not as good as GPT 5.6 Sol.
Have we reached a point where getting better at one thing means starting to get worse at another?
This announcement is the worst one yet.
Nerfing existing usage
A more expensive top-tier plan
Showing off how slow Dots is right in the demo video
And GPT Space—are they telling us to use it instead of Notion or what...
Overall, throughout the entire announcement, everything OpenAI wants me to look forward to just leaves me, as a developer, disappointed.
rfgplk 8 hours ago [-]
Yep. It's hitting limits because models have effectively reached the logical endpoint of how "precise" their outputs can become. In order to overcome this they need to either a) get excellent at outputting and working with massive codebases (10+ million loc) since a singificant % of systems simply cannot be done in less than that (the language itself isn't expressive enough) or b) reach the next stage of intelligence where the models are somehow able to output sequences that can solve vast complex problems with a very narrow output. Option b isn't really possible (various statistical/computational fundamental limitations forbid it) and option A is _insanely_ expensive. Which is why all of the demos the frontier labs have been pushing out are either really impressive one shot demos where the model is able to take a concise input and produce something great on its own, or very long running internal sessions where they claim to do something vast with minimal oversight (NavierStokes, C compiler, Bun rewrite).
BenzeneDream 7 hours ago [-]
Totally disagree. Newer models are doing much more advanced things in domains like math, programming, and cybersecurity.
I don't see why a company charging more for less is a surprise or would lead to thinking that AI models have reached their limits. Thats an incredible claim and it would need incredible evidence. Astra is much more capable than Luna. Luna being 'good enough' for most of my daily work just shows how strong Luna is, not that Astra isn't much more capable.
As models get more and more capable, they will only appear to be at the extremes. You'll need to see them solving more Millenium problems to notice a difference as the tide is continuously raised for all models as well.
adamrezich 9 hours ago [-]
Very cool how I'm supposed to feel good about paying $200/mo (a VERY expensive subscription!) for months, just to be told that in the near (but not immediate) future this subscription will lose half of its value and then I'll have to pay 2.5x as much to get 1.25x the value I used to get.
What they’re doing with billions of tokens every week, beats me. But these users absolutely do exist.
If it was a 50x $500 plan it would be a different story.
6.1 will probably perform even better.
Opus 5.5 is better in that regard than Fable 5.1 except for some bugs with more complexity which it was uniquely suited to.
Do things in a sustainable fashion and treat these models like the swappable commodity that they are by using them via abstraction layers. Bonus point is that you might be surprised how much more you can get for your money by intelligently optimizing specific model usage.
“Over time, we see prices go low enough that it makes sense for most to buy usage as needed without there being a significant gap between what you get in a subscription and what you get in the API for a dollar spent.”
What intrigues me more is how are they not done building whatever they were building? LLMs have been jaw-droppingly good for a good 6 months now.
The people spending thousands on LLM bills a month should've been done building significant chunks of Microsoft's or Google's software portfolio by now.
I guess what I mean is how is producing code still the limiting factor in whatever they're doing?
I produce a firehose of personal software and I still cannot max out a $20 plan.
Scope creep? When you give a mouse a cookie and all that...
Pro 100: 5x usage, $100
Pro 200: 10x usage, $200 (previously was 20x usage, $200)
Pro 500: 25x usage, $500
So, essentially scaling is equal. You get the same amount of usage from 25 ChatGPT Pro accounts as you do from one Pro 500 account.
It's fair, but a big of a rug pull considering how good of a deal Pro 200 was.
Does anyone see the usage limits? I don't see anything indicating how much usage is in each tier.
I checked:
* https://chatgpt.com/pricing/
* https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-about-chatgpt-pr...
* https://chatgpt.com/#pricing (signed in plan upgrade page)
I tried searching for "Synthetic AI Subscription" and "Synthetic Data" is such a massive keyword in AI pre-training circles it's impossible to find the company.
/rant
What is the companys URL?
So a 20x plan, that was formerly $200, would have been $4000 in API credits. Which sounds like a lot but the API is absolutely horrendously expensive - like you'll burn through $100 in 45 minutes of 5.6 Sol on High reasoning. I know this because I did this once.
I don't see any of those terms. Not even on the signed in page to upgrade to to a different Pro plan.
The plans I see are labeled, "Pro 100", "Pro 200", and "Pro 500" with the number corresponding to the price in USD.
> As a thank you for being an existing subscriber and to help you continue to build your most ambitious ideas and transition, we’re also giving you a one-time grant of 62,500 usage credits (a $2,500 USD value). You’ll see these appear in Settings > Usage. They will expire on December 31, 2026, and use of the credits is governed by the Service Credit Terms.
I have no idea how much 62,500 usage credits are. Given the value they suggest I feel it's like one extra week of usage.
With how many resets they've been giving out lately, if you consistently max things out I would say this is a reasonable guess. You can ask your clanker via your favorite harness (the usage credits are equivalent to API pricing):
> Based on my session files and official OpenAI API pricing, check how much I would have spent in the past few months if I switched to the OpenAI API.
This is just the beginning. Migrate to open models ASAP.
https://this.os.isfine.org/blog/posts/chinese-flash-models-a...
Previous $200 tier: 20x pro value
New $200 tier: 10x
New $500 tier: 25x, plus ultrafast mode but it drains 6x the cost (!!)
The $200 cut to 10x was announced only formally on Twitter
However none of their product pages mention concrete #s, so I guess value will only degrade more over time.
It's strange if that ends up to be this way. It's hard to see why would anybody subscribe to the $200 - or even the $500 for the sole benefit of using ultrafast (depleted probably within hours).
That aside, all of the ambiguity around usage is killing their credibility (among other things). Usage limits feel like they swing wildly day to day and week to week, and it's hard to trust any of the other claims they make when that's the case.
"Yesterday you gave me 10 Frooby Bucks and charged 2 Frooby Bucks per banana. Now you gave me 5 Frooby Bucks and charge me 1 per banana!"
Half the usage for the same price.
This is the same nonsense Anthropic got burned for. I think I'm gonna bite the bullet and find a GLM or Kimi provider already.
Or it's saying it's always on fast mode therefore it's like running a 20x on fast all the time?
Super confused.
500$ is a old 200$ plan plus an option to drain it absurdly fast?
What is the value here of a 500$ plan I can't figure it out.
Yes.
> What is the value here of a 500$ plan I can't figure it out.
If you have unlimited money, it lets you give it to OpenAI to get faster results, presumably because you don't have unlimited time.
But past few weeks, I don’t think it was accurate since my usage was going down faster. They nerfed the usage and now aren’t even giving estimates.
So expect further downgrades in the plan features for the same price.
100 = € 103,-
200 = € 229,-
500 = € 509.99,-
Besides the naming being insane, the pricing strategy for each seems to have been made by a different team.
It looks like they have literally chosen the most straightforward sounding plan names they could think of.
Reminds of the “girl math” meme that’s trending amongst millennials and younger: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/boy-math-girl-math
I had Codex queue any CAPTCHAs for me to solve. Also set up one sub-agent to search Reddit for other people's clever approaches to getting good rental car deals. Ultimately, it found a third party reseller for Avis that had a price of $600 using a discount code for both cars vs $1,100 cheapest from Avis directly. I would not have discovered that on my own, at least not without like a week's worth of manual searching. So right there that was a $1,000 saving for both cars in exchange for 20 minutes of writing a decent Codex prompt.
Interesting, you don't find that the model is perfectly capable of solving those on its own?
Or does it just refuse to try?
I have a Grok Bot that just looks for glitched pricing and crazy deals on a list of items I need and it reports in a couple of times a day.
How else can we get these things to make us/save us money?
That would limit the $500 plan to smaller businesses.
Worth it? Huge YMMV. I'd expect a $1000 sub next.
Or maybe it gives you just a little bit more tokens than older $200/month plan for plausible deniability:
Dev salaries are high and devs often have to realign buttons or change colors. We are not always working on complex ideas.
I rewrote a big piece of software from scratch....it had 0 docs. Documenting of classes and flow took me weeks. Complete rewrite took almost 2 years. I am confident that with AI I would be able to get this done in a few months.
Gets to put you under pressure to deliver more while paying you less. A few months you say, why not weeks? I'm sure the latest model can do it.
Also, forget about those "easy" ideas, if you are not on the verge of burnout every day you might as well not be working.
And if they do that accurately, there's no stopping someone from mapping the guard rails.
Clearly that outcome is more uncomfortable than what we have now, which is enough people seem to be okay with vague billing.
Second, how does vague billing prevent someone from mapping the "I'm sorry, I can't help you with that" style of responses to map the guardrails?
The API makes it simple, yes. They make you pay per token per model. A new model has different prices. Not being able to do that is what makes it not so very simple.
I think this is the first instance where it means you are actually paying 500$
Just trust me bro accounting.
Maybe one day open weights and closed models will hit the same wall?
Overall Ai is doing all the software development now and we the consumers are paying for this while many are out of work and if you are out of work the US tech job market is brutal!
Ai needs to be free to use without limits and in time Im guessing it will be. That could be Meta and or another who accomplishes this. Whoever does wins this race.
Subscription pricing will eventually compete with labor costs
Makes perfect sense.
(If you're an idiot)
The highest is Pro 100 and it’s useless for codex.
I know people who have been at this as stage since around 4o with their own custom systems
Edit: I meant its not worth it just for Dots Personal assistant ,also comparing to previous pricing of $200 - For $500 you got previously 5x more than previous $200 Pro pricing (which was 20x now is 10x). I can have real people who can drive or do physical deliveries etc, just on the delta.
OpenAI announced they built clones of apps that already exist, codex for normal people, and 2.5x price increase for the product that is already getting decimated by competition.
What is happening at OpenAI?
I can't imagine OpenAI not backtracking this unless Anthropic does the price hike too.
Same here, but I’m worried it’s the latter. We’ll probably see an Anthropic price hike in a couple of weeks.
If ANT does the price hike, OAI will be forced to backtrack because they're just not equal, OAI is behind. ANT would still be a much better value overall, and people will remember that it was OAI that made their ANT subscription more expensive. So the hiatus will happen. There's a lot of users that have $200 plans on both ANT and OAI. $500 leaves the slot for just 1 sub for them.
But I think the price hike is not going to happen. $500 is much, much harder to justify than $200 for the same usage. This is a horrible business decision, so Anthropic may just watch OAI bleed customers.
Had both a anthropic and openai then switched to 2 openai for astra. They want to capture the straddlers between both.
But this is a horrible decision. They could have eased customers into this instead of massive change. The are literally more than doubling the cost for no value add.
A smart company would have done this when they released astra or only allowed astra on 500$ plan. Or made it more sutble. I would likely have ate a 20% increase but this is over double.
I mean, other than Yegge. He seems like a pretty extreme outlier?
But I'm still for investing in local models.
I'll cancel my OpenAI plan after this billing cycle. Let's see how this plays out.
Got it, calendar updated: switch back to Claude on the 29th.
I realize this may be an unpopular opinion, but I feel the FTC should start looking at things like this. If a well funded company can bait the market long enough to drown most everyone else out then double their price overnight (ok, 30 days..) doesn't competition just become a matter of who has the deepest pockets?
Tomorrow's FTC perhaps.
actual lol
Enjoy the Lyft v Uber era while it lasts!
It's getting shitty, I agree, but still feels like a net improvement to where we were over a decade ago.
Or are they simply lower the batch sizes on whatever hardware they are currently running?
It's crazy that people will have to pay 500 USD for only slightly more (and faster) usage of basically what I already enjoyed for the past few weeks. And even I got close to hitting weekly limits doing regular development across a bunch of codebases (admittedly it was on Astra High).
I feel like even the 500 USD subscriptions are not "get out of my face with those limits for all single developer use cases" (not even that many overnight tasks, I might have run a few here and there, and not even full 8 hours of work a day), but soon you'll have people needing multiple of those 500 USD subscriptions, unless they pull off crazy token efficiency gains for how the models work.
Guess the economics are catching up to AI companies, sucks that I don't have a bunch of money to burn every month.
> After that date, your subscription will move to the lower included usage allowance. Your subscription price stays at $200/month.
Imagine buying this shit for a year, upfront, and then having to deal with this. Nice.
I want them to succeed as a business so I can use their products, but trust does erode over time. I wish they would realize this and value their customer more.
Tomorrow we are re-opening the Pro $200 subscription
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49889306
The performance changes between models are almost static. Recently, GPT has shifted almost entirely toward token efficiency.
Astra is good at making 3D assets, but realistically its coding was not as good as GPT 5.6 Sol.
Have we reached a point where getting better at one thing means starting to get worse at another?
This announcement is the worst one yet.
Nerfing existing usage A more expensive top-tier plan Showing off how slow Dots is right in the demo video And GPT Space—are they telling us to use it instead of Notion or what...
Overall, throughout the entire announcement, everything OpenAI wants me to look forward to just leaves me, as a developer, disappointed.
I don't see why a company charging more for less is a surprise or would lead to thinking that AI models have reached their limits. Thats an incredible claim and it would need incredible evidence. Astra is much more capable than Luna. Luna being 'good enough' for most of my daily work just shows how strong Luna is, not that Astra isn't much more capable.
As models get more and more capable, they will only appear to be at the extremes. You'll need to see them solving more Millenium problems to notice a difference as the tide is continuously raised for all models as well.
Fuck that shit!