Just look at this announcement: "your usage will be measured in tokens, which we do not define, nor give you a way to measure them. The amount of tokens you consume will depend on things you can't control". What is left unsaid is that your subscription will contain an unknown number of those tokens you can't measure anyway, and that they will change the number whenever they feel like it.

You pay for… what, exactly?

I have no idea how this kind of sale is legal, especially in jurisdictions with consumer rights protection (EU).

I also recall reading the following: https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/anthropic-subscription...

I will see once this transition actually happens but if another provider offers more for less and a cost of switching is inherently low as most of project lives on the disk and not in cloud, then why not move? For my workflow pro astra has been very helpful, likely will be less so if it becomes far too expensive.

Those were 2 flagship projects that will now make ChatGPT a lot less useful to people who pay.

We're in trouble. OAI wanted to raise $30B and raise $11B they are cutting costs.

I've been using Chat for all my Codex/Work tasks precisely because of the fact it didn't affect usage. Slightly less convenient and smooth but still directly against GitHub repos and other connectors so fantastic value in my Plus plan.

Another reason after the recent Pro 200/500 shenanigans to reevaluate my sub.

All good things and token-burning workarounds come to an end...

So happy to have the open models!

Personally, I didn't have any reason to look elsewhere because a couple of Pro accounts ensured I always had access without worrying about limits (the reason I never kept an Anthropic account active for more than a month).

I'm sure we'll quickly start seeing how the frontier models aren't all that necessary.

Combine this with the fact that you can't trust OpenAI with your data, I think they are blowing up the tiny moat they might have had.

It's also worth mentioning that their Dot product got nerfed in under two weeks. I went from rethinking my workflows to dropping the product completely overnight between the data loss and network firewall "issues".

It's too bad because I've been fine with using just ChatGPT since the beginning, simply because they were most generous with limits.

All good things come to an end I guess.

At the least, it deters people from spinning up Astra Pro requests via the ChatGPT interface willy-nilly.

There are plenty of coding agents, but I thought ChatGPT is the only one frontier model for any conversations..

I say this working in an LLM startup where we serve literally unlimited usage (with the only caveat being that usage is serialized) via subscription and, unlike OpenAI, are actually profitable. I guess when you're hundreds of billions in the hole you're desperate to try anything to save the sinking ship, even if it clearly won't work.

The truly good news is they aren't reducing the $200 plan usage. I was going to downgrade my plan after this month, now I won't.

Hoping not

A Dot consuming credits passively with Astra just to deliver some low value “email says a package will be delivered” message.

Scheduled tasks have more control and focus.

Might affect go and Plus users.

I consider myself a Heavy cgpt user since 2022. To the extent where I’ve made over 30k ish in solo dev side-projects since 2024 that wouldn’t have been possible without hiring a team.

I have not once gotten a over limit notice from openai.

Alternatively, I used to max out my claude tokens very quickly even on fairly small projects.

The only difference I can tell from how I see other people utilizing these tools is that I never once “fire and forget.”

My project flow is: 1000 rounds of text back-and-forth on architecture, data structures, competitive analysis, tool use and calling, etc… and then the last 10% is code writing test development and then usually about five rounds of CI/CD iteration until I get to a MVP or something shippable.

Are the majority of people attempting to one shot and then when they fail they just keep trying to one shot?

In my experience, you can get 90% of the way to the technical solution before generating any code whatsoever.

That’s been true before LLM’s continues to be true now.

And then giving a bunch of bullshit reasons that make no sense.

I think everyone should start thinking about how these AI companies that have absorbed huge amounts of money are becoming more and more evil, and develop the ability to say "We have choices."

I think it's time to make these AI companies return the resources they have occupied, and seriously reflect on themselves.

I think we should make these companies' stock prices crash, demand a pause on unreasonable AI construction, and cancel subscriptions to those AI services that are expensive as hell and control your entire system.

Embrace open source, LLMs that you can privately deploy yourself, and keep your data in your own hands.

I think China is really doing well right now, open sourcing useful models, not letting hardware prices rise crazily, and even pushing down Token prices.

As for security issues, since they're already open source, we can do Fine Tune afterward to solve these problems.

And 4, someone has done experiments showing that 4 small models can reach the level of claude fable.

I really hate those arrogant AI giant companies. They act so calm and unbothered, wanting to own everything and control everything. It's disgusting.

I'm really looking forward to China developing a cheap, non-CUDA AI machine, keeping the price around 1000 USD, a machine that can run deepseek flash level models, becoming a dedicated AI machine rather than a training machine.

Then there will no longer be Token anxiety, no need to react to all kinds of decisions made by those AI companies, and no problem of giving your data to others.

It's time, brothers.

With this change even non-coders will jump ship. Not sure why OpenAI is doing this now. They should improve their models now to match the competition.