Can you talk more about what changed in the last two months? I use open router for when I run out of limits, and I’ve done better than buying an additional sub for my uses. I thought about looking at a more niche player, but it’s not a priority for me yet.
First of all, it still has the 5 hour limits, which is what this thread is about and what I think what most in this thread want to avoid.
Second, the offerings are subject to change at random. They advertised $60 of usage for $10/month (knowing most users wouldn't reach that). This was consistently the case up until early August, when the per-model "usage multipliers" started taking over. Some models give $15 of usage per month, others $30, still others remain at $60, and apparently one at $100 now?[0] Either way, I don't want to expend the mental effort to track which model is the best deal for capability and usage.
Right now I use Hyper[1] for $20/month and give $100/month to OpenAI. Not OpenAI's biggest fan, but the value is good right now, and that's what matters.
What does Hyper give you that OpenCode doesn’t? Is it just the removal of the 5 hour limit? I looked at Hyper’s docs but it wasn’t clear exactly how the fine points work. Is it $20 for as much as you want of any model they support? They don’t say that but they don’t say no limits anywhere that I could find. Been using OpenRouter with API prices and choosing cheap models to get work done. It works but a $20 all you can eat provider with access to good models like Kimi 3 and GLM 5.3 who is not in china and doesn’t retain or train on data would be perfect for me.
Hyper gives $12.50 worth of usage every 24 hours, totaling $375 per month. It resets at the same time regardless of when you start, unlike the 5 hour limits on other providers. Yes, it's only $20/month. It's also insanely fast; I've never gotten 75+ tokens/sec on K3 from any other provider.
Okay, thanks. Yea, that’s a good deal as long as you’re satisfied with the models they offer. I didn’t see a listing of all the models but there was one screenshot that implied various open models (showed downrev versions of GLM, Kimi, etc., so I figured they supported the latest.
Session limits are obnoxious and make Codex much less useful for me. I tend to code in spurts when I find some time and the $20 weekly limit was reasonable for my side projects.
I'm now hitting the session limits which means I can either purchase another plan, upgrade, or move off of Codex.
The equivalent alternative is not "no hourly limits", it's simply less overall weekly allowance for Plus users, or higher prices overall. It's a way to balance a scarce resource, and maybe the least frustrating one?
People have a fair chance to learn resource management in 5 hour chunks, while not being limited to silly models, and burning through all tokens in the first hour of the week. Seems mostly good.
I combine it with OpenCode + a small OpenRouter budget. GlM 5.3 Flash, Luna, Gemini 3.7 Flash and a couple of other very cheap models are sufficient for a lot of tasks if put on the right road. Telling Astra to debug an issue should be a last resort, it would blow through 10% of the session limit, but cost like 10c on one of the open models. Same goes for exploration, documentation, configuration and smaller features. These models are generally good enough, and you can still do a review with a strong model for a fraction of the cost.
Clearly, the prices and limitations will increase with time if they don't find an efficient way to perform training and inference of LLMs. It would be great to see those issues being seriously addressed and, eventually, being fixed for good. THAT would definitely make an important and practical difference. Not only economically but also scientifically.
I’ve not heard anyone say that the whole thing is profitable. Companies like Anthropic have said that inference is profitable, but I assume that’s only on a steady state basis, which nobody in the industry has ever reached at this point. As far as I know, everyone is still burning cash with data center buildouts and overall training costs.
I think the people that are saying that mean that the inference is massively profitable. From what I've seen, the margins are between 50 and 90% on an API call. It's the training that's very, very expensive!
As far as I understand, for both OpenAI and Anthropic, currently the majority of their GPUs are being used for training, with only a smaller portion being used for actual customer serving.
I dislike this approach. In my opinion it is much useful a 1x/2x billing based on hour like Deepseek does. Being unable to use it at the hours I need it makes me want to remove the service, not upgrading it.
This is one of the reasons I’ve built a resident daemon on top a local CC/codex. 5h sessions is a [lazy] way to shift the scaling responsibility onto a user, so they are staying with us for a while
People should realize by now that they aren't giving out thousands of dollars worth of compute in a $20 subscription out of the goodness of their hearts. The base level plans aren't meant for any kind of serious work beyond the equivalent of Google searches. At best treat it like a trial.
The audience for this sort of thing is currently quite limited. It may grow more in the future, especially if prices get out of control, but for now, it's a relatively small subset of people.
Sorry but this is a pretty delusional take. No, you cant run the same level or even close to that level of model on a mac, not even on a 512gb studio. You can run good models sure, but not models anywhere close to the capabilities of these ones yet, despite what idiots on Twitter keep spouting.
The "run locally" thing is a red herring. The fact that anyone can be an inference providers and offer them as a service is what we need to focus on. If they are "good enough" then market forces will stop Anthropic/OpenAI from charging monopoly rents.
There's an escape valve: I've had Claude stand-up AI-enabled features in my app, so we're much less dependent on Claude itself. The app uses cheap API calls to check code quality and run other "lessons learned" sweeps. Some of these become regular code in the end as well.
Same. Claude "loves" writing tools to make checks deterministic so much that I actually have to pull it back sometimes and point out that some things need to keep using LLMs. But even then, I have it "farm out" a lot of things to scripts using dirt-cheap models for things I don't need a Sonnet or higher level model for as well. The proportion that runs on the SOTA models keeps dropping.
But there's open models that are (pessimistically) 1 year behind? It's not like if openai decided to rugpull everyone, we'd be going back to writing code by hand and all the developers who forgot how to fizzbuzz would be screwed.
Open AI rents compute. It seems unlikely given the huge investments they have already spent that they can profitably match someone who is just selling GPU time.
Are you a member of a team? Then you are the outsourced intelligence. Your manager is not writing everything by hand, they are outsourcing it to you. Just understand that may change (I mean I am already mentally prepared for it to be a thing of the past within years). If you are purely writing software for hobby/fun then disregard, nothing will stop you from doing that.
That boils down to who the customers for ChatGPT really are. $10 isn't going to make a difference for those who already pay, because they are basically pro-consumers. OpenAI might deliver enterprise solutions for large companies, but those deals are besides the per month subscriptions on the website.
For ChatGPT I really only see two customer groups, pro-consumer and small and medium enterprise. The entry level are just going to use Google/Gemini for the most part, or some ad supported ChatGPT tier. There's no price low enough to make the entry level, average consumer pay for an AI service. These are people who will not pay for search, email and social media. They only pay for streaming because there's no way around it.
Ok half was an exaggeration, but I think $10 might make quite a lot of them jump to Claude. Or DeepSeek. Remember, we're talking about a global user base here.
I settled on GPT Plus/Codex for my own work, while my employer settled on Claude on Bedrock (where I am, according to their metrics, using about $20 of compute a day, so I can believe that GPT Plus is a loss-leader). If I hit too many 5-hour timeouts I'm not jumping to Pro I'm jumping to Claude.
(Funnily enough, I just hit one. It'll reset in... three hours. I wasn't even hammering it, just writing some tests. I think I'm gonna just go reactivate my Anthropic account for a month).
I'd agree that $10 can and will make users switch to a different provider. Just as streaming music services are all price basically the same, as to avoid users just jumping to the cheapest, I think the AI companies will find a suitable price point for consumer AI. After that they'll just settle into a system where when one raise or lower their price, the rest will follow.
Those who benefit from using and LLM will continue to pay for one, regardless of provider, regardless of the price being $20 or $50.
The global aspect is interesting, because $50 is a lot of money for most of the global population. The AI advocates claim to be getting more hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of value from their subscription. In the poorest countries that should make an even greater difference, but that assumes that they can get those first $50 and that the value is actually being generated.
Your intelligence is good, but mine is better. They could easily raise their prices until their user base falls to zero, and the offer steep discounts, but then... so could everybody else. We need to pimp all the speculators until they are bankrupt. Welcome to web 4.0b. "We will bury you."
Your cheap cynicism makes OpenAI's lower prices sound like a reason to avoid using them, but that's backwards! It's a better strategy to use them now while prices are low and switch later if necessary. Nobody knows who will have the best prices later, so better to decide later.
Aware of what, though? We don't actually know OpenAI's profit margins on inference. Do we need to know?
It's enough to know that the market is competitive and new models with better prices are released often. This means you should have a way to switch models.
The entire market is subsided more than it is competitive. The market wouldn’t exist the same as it does today if it weren’t being propped up. Thats the point.
I remember the days when I had a $2000+ credit balance on Uber because I mastered their referral program. “Free” uber blacks for 2 years!
When you’re using free shit that you should probably be paying more for, it’s good to not fool yourself.
In the Uber example, the fact that Lyft also existed at the time didn’t matter to me as someone happily riding around the city in Uber Black for $0. Unfortunately Lyft’s referral program wasn’t so lucrative so I couldn’t switch…
Openrouter is not so open as well, right? They take the middle man cut by enforcing their own limit restrictions and 429s on top of the model provided limit restrictions and what not.
Now why would I pay a middle man anything if I can get the same hosted model without their own whimsical service limits?
To the extent that the 3rd party inference resellers are a viable market because of Chinese/certain US AI labs (current) willingness to absorb substantial compute/R&D/data harvesting costs while releasing weights on permissive licensing terms for free, then yes, current pricing is distorted.
> Are you saying that all of them are actually losing money?
Are you saying these companies are operating on anything resembling a sustainable business model?
I think not!
If OpenAI needs to impose 5 hour limits during a time where they are aggressively trying to grow market share, what do you think they (or whatever the winning provider is) will do in 5 years once they IPO and need to boost margins?
They won’t be as friendly with usage caps as they’re being now.
`needs to impose 5 hour limits ` I'm no OpenAI defender but that's like saying Apple is going bankrupt because they charge for their products. Why wouldn't they do everything they can to turn $20 users into $200 users?
Exactly. It is common knowledge that all the AI companies have terrible margins. IMO tokens are the cheapest they'll ever be as these companies compete for users.
Aware that this is essentially a soon to be deprecated service. As any vendor you need to know the life expectancy of it, plus forecast/predict any pricing changes. You really do not want to become dependent. Even if competitors exist, there still some non trivial cost to switch
agree and underscores the idea that you should keep your setups portable between model providers by using external memory systems and connector gateways
Or to just give users enough usage to find categories in which it is useful for them.
I pay the $200/mo., and don’t regret it for an instant - I have a project manager, an executive assistant, a business analyst, a software developer and an international accountant, for an absolute song.
> People should realize by now that they aren't giving out thousands of dollars worth of compute in a $20 subscription out of the goodness of their hearts. The base level plans aren't meant for any kind of serious work beyond the equivalent of Google searches. At best treat it like a trial.
I've said this countless times already; if OpenAI or Anthropic were serious about world domination they would offer an infinite $500 to $1000/month tier subscription. No limits; eat as much as you'd like buffet. Maybe limit concurrent connection (say 10 conns max in parallel) to limit abuse. This would actually allow regular users to run 24/7 agentic loops, massively speeding up deployment. Win win for everyone.
The business model works by over provisioning, which means you actually do want to cap the people who will attempt fully utilize the service.
Once you know someone is going to use 100% of the service rather than 25%, you have to charge them full price. That's why you see them fail over to API pricing.
They must have realised by now what they are selling is addictive. It's pretty normal for drug dealers and the like to give people introductory prices then hike once dependence kicks in.
> They must have realised by now what they are selling is addictive. It's pretty normal for drug dealers and the like to give people introductory prices then hike once dependence kicks in.
I have never heard of a drug dealer actually doing that.
In all of them I've seen it's a window that starts when you haven't been using it in a while and begin work OR when your previous window expired. The window starts with a set number of tokens and cuts you off when they're used, it is fully reset at the end of the window (it's not a sliding window).
When you haven't used any tokens for an extended amount of time it reverts to the point where whenever you send your first token is when the window begins.
Hm, it seems like it'd make sense to automate a script to send one small prompt at, say, 7 or 8am so that you get your reset around noon instead of having to wait until 5h or more into the workday.
I never quite understood why they picked 5h, it seems oddly arbitrary
it is a window that starts with usage and continues for five hours.
When I was doing an evaluation using a lower paid tier of Claude, I would have a service send a "hello" ping 4 hours before I started my work day, to reduce my first work-hours session window to 1 hour.
The goal was to have this be more of a "thinking" session for planning the next larger block of work, and then being able to use a lower cost model for implementation.
That said, if your 5 hour window quota is 15% of your weekly quota, this means you can be using 30% or more a day of the weekly quota.
Once they capature enough marketshare prices and restrictions are both going to skyrocket. The difference between the subscription usage and API pricing are stark.
This would need to be a collusion across most of the providers (which I think is likely to happen) otherwise OpenAI would get ditched for Anthropic or vice versa, depending on who raises the prices more. If it happens across the board then enterprises that can use Chinese models won’t have that many options but to pay up.
This is interesting to think about. There's so much competition among the frontier labs and from outside via open source it just doesn't seem obvious to me they could maintain elevated prices
Ya, setting aside any judgement about what's "right", this strategy doesn't seem profitable. There's no real moat between one model/provider to another, switching is relatively easy. I don't understand how this is supposed to work for them.
It strikes me as similar to UPS / USPS / Fedex -- everyone uses the mail, and they mostly use whichever is cheapest for their requirements. I don't think there's much loyalty to specific services, and people are happy to switch between the options
just dont fall in love with goofy memory style features and its likely gonna be fairly easy to just plug and play whatever model for a ton of use cases.
I dont see a lot of love for weird memory like features on HN, but on provider subreddits its constantly talked about.
Every project I have tends toward coding agents over time partly for this reason - if nothing else, I want have both control, visibility and portability over memory and a log of the reasoning that went into the current state of things.
You’re going to get multiple tiers (as we already are). You’re always going to pay top dollar for frontier models, but you’re going to find things highly discounted if you’re willing to move off the frontier. See GLM 5.3 Flash, for instance.
Say things are going to suck and they suck. You look brilliant.
Say things are going to suck, and they don't suck. Nobody cares because it doesn't suck.
Say things are going to be good, and they're good. A few attaboys for getting it right, but nobody cares.
Say things are going to be good, and they suck. You look like a moron.
Because of negativity bias everyone is leaning towards predicting DOOOOOOOOOOM. People aren't even consciously doing this, it's just a factor of the medium, because looking like a moron hurts way more than a few attaboys.
I think in about a year, we're going to see a scad of these ASICS like chat jimmy running year old models on dedicated hardware. Imagine racks and racks full of Astra but running at 15,000 tokens a second or whatever? Imagine swarms of them running the models we have today essentially for "free." That's where we're going to be. The bottleneck will be production, tbh, not demand.
"Hey Astra-Silicon, solve the Goldbach Conjecture!" Sure, it might take a few hours and be totally un-readable to a human being, but the 6m lines of Lean or whatever will be correct. Then what? What can we start doing then?
I mean, kind of yeah? But like, there are already people working on the chips, there are already people designing the next hardware, etc. I'm sure we're going to get to a plateau in capability soon-ish? Exponentials are actually all sigmoids. But what does that look like? If the plateau in capability is 100s of times smarter than the average person (arguably we're already there in many many but not all domains) then in 10 years time last year's reasoning model etched into an ASIC or some crazy monstrosity built out of FPGAs but for LLMs is probably way more than enough for 99.999% of use cases?
But yeah, doomerism is the dominant narrative of the day here right now. There's a sort of eschatological poisoning that's happening presently. Nobody can even seem to imagine a world where things get better. It's crazy. Maybe it's because I recently went through a major illness, maybe it's because I hit my head one-to-many times along the way? But I've never been more optimistic about the future than I am now.
Crypto never did anything is the difference? The only people it did anything for were speculative investment types.
That said bitcoin is still at like $80k per bitcoin though... so while it's not a good investment IMO (and I don't really mess around with crypto except for the time I got drunk and bought doge and made money), but there are people out there still using it. There's a bitcoin ATM less than a mile from my house.
There is so much competition among frontier labs, but it is a competition to see who can burn the biggest pile of cash. Once your competitors flame out, they are gone, and you are free to raise prices. Think WalMart/Uber tactics.
Harness and data seem like two vectors. It's also not clear to me that at some point we won't get a snowball effect from the platform that has the most use and thus the most training data just running away with a positive feedback loop.
Controversial take but this works better for me than just the weekly limit. I have about 1-2 hours of sustained focus per 5 hour period so if I run out of tokens then I can take a break and start again in a few hours. Or just use the top ups that I’ve paid for in case I want to push through.
Having just the weekly limit meant I could blow through too much within the first couple of days. Fortunately, resets were raining down during that time.
(I know I could just vibe code a tracker that splits up my usage into arbitrary periods and lets me know when to take a break. Maybe if they remove the 5-hour limit again.)
I think it's reasonable for the Plus plans to have this. If you're doing any serious work you should be on the Pro plan. If you're a casual user, 5 hours is more than plenty.
My goodness, the complaining... Just get all your devs a $200 ChatGPT Pro (20x) plan. Yes, you lose the "team" component, but you gain so much more. And what's $200 against the salary of a good developer? It's absolutely inconsequential, even in far cheaper non-US salary regimes.
Think they are pretty happy with 20x pro subscribers, even at a loss. Highest value customer base, they'll be happy to take a loss to gain market share.
i would love to give them $200 a month, but unfortunately I have no money
AI is just another case of the rich getting richer, people who dont really need AI with practically unlimited access, and people who need to it to try and change their lives being priced out
its a wealth inequality accelerator at the worst time in history for wealth inequality
i would take 50% less usage just to be able to use it in my own time, the plus plan without 5 hour limit gives me 1 days work a week, so 4 days of usage per month, and I was happy with that
now thats been taken away i get 15 minutes of usage then 5 hours later ive lost interest in the work, i now sit with 70% usage knowing 5 hours ago that a reset was coming and I couldnt even be bothered using it
its completely killed the product for me, im now paying 20 a month for something that is no use to me
At least we all got a reset out of it! I was holding off, refreshing & smashing "beg" on https://codex-resets.com
I appreciate that he gave the heads-up. I deliberately burned through my quota yesterday, low key expecting a reset, but ready if I needed to use a other banked reset.
> Thanks for reading. We will do a global reset of the usage for all paid subscriptions so that you can keep enjoying Astra after burning through all of it doing fun 3D modeling in blender. The work week is about to start.
minimaxir | 16 hours ago
programmarchy | 16 hours ago
msh | 15 hours ago
ronsor | 15 hours ago
esafak | 15 hours ago
quietsegfault | 15 hours ago
ronsor | 15 hours ago
Second, the offerings are subject to change at random. They advertised $60 of usage for $10/month (knowing most users wouldn't reach that). This was consistently the case up until early August, when the per-model "usage multipliers" started taking over. Some models give $15 of usage per month, others $30, still others remain at $60, and apparently one at $100 now?[0] Either way, I don't want to expend the mental effort to track which model is the best deal for capability and usage.
Right now I use Hyper[1] for $20/month and give $100/month to OpenAI. Not OpenAI's biggest fan, but the value is good right now, and that's what matters.
[0] https://opencode.ai/docs/go/
[1] https://hyper.charm.land
drob518 | 14 hours ago
ronsor | 14 hours ago
drob518 | 14 hours ago
ronsor | 13 hours ago
watty | 15 hours ago
I'm now hitting the session limits which means I can either purchase another plan, upgrade, or move off of Codex.
jstummbillig | 15 hours ago
People have a fair chance to learn resource management in 5 hour chunks, while not being limited to silly models, and burning through all tokens in the first hour of the week. Seems mostly good.
ignoramous | 15 hours ago
What's not good for the customer is the constant change of rules. It is bait & switch.
jstummbillig | 13 hours ago
People want things to be better more than they want things to not change. That's a good thing!
arw0n | 3 hours ago
PaywallBuster | 15 hours ago
I've had few weekends where I spend the full week credits over night then have nothing to do for a week
wrkronmiller | 15 hours ago
recursive | 15 hours ago
robotswantdata | 15 hours ago
jeanmichelselli | 15 hours ago
parineum | 15 hours ago
drob518 | 14 hours ago
alastair1646 | 14 hours ago
As far as I understand, for both OpenAI and Anthropic, currently the majority of their GPUs are being used for training, with only a smaller portion being used for actual customer serving.
almog | 15 hours ago
browningstreet | 15 hours ago
estebarb | 15 hours ago
Gurio | 15 hours ago
paxys | 15 hours ago
solenoid0937 | 15 hours ago
brazukadev | 15 hours ago
tehjoker | 14 hours ago
Their goal is to create AGI and replace humans with something resembling the plot of Horizon Zero Dawn and its sequel but more extreme.
password54321 | 15 hours ago
copperx | 14 hours ago
password54321 | 14 hours ago
flir | 14 hours ago
(I get what you're trying to say, I'm just finding the irony amusing).
mrweasel | 14 hours ago
password54321 | 14 hours ago
solenoid0937 | 14 hours ago
Also, who cares? Such is the price of progress, I'm not selfish enough to hold humanity back because "muh job"
password54321 | 14 hours ago
solenoid0937 | 14 hours ago
mrweasel | 13 hours ago
geraldwhen | 15 hours ago
apparent | 15 hours ago
howdareme9 | 15 hours ago
taylorfinley | 14 hours ago
dwaite | 13 hours ago
Software companies don't give up and fold because they can't hire one of the five best engineers in the world.
esskay | 15 hours ago
andybak | 14 hours ago
fny | 15 hours ago
catchnear4321 | 15 hours ago
zulux | 15 hours ago
vidarh | 14 hours ago
gruez | 14 hours ago
ghostly_s | 14 hours ago
0cf8612b2e1e | 14 hours ago
dgellow | 14 hours ago
benterix | 14 hours ago
Well, as as SWE who writes code by hand and has no intention to outsource their intelligence to any entity, I felt slightly offended by "back".
nightski | 14 hours ago
fny | 11 hours ago
flir | 15 hours ago
I wouldn't be surprised if every $10 you add to the subscription cost halves your audience.
mrweasel | 14 hours ago
For ChatGPT I really only see two customer groups, pro-consumer and small and medium enterprise. The entry level are just going to use Google/Gemini for the most part, or some ad supported ChatGPT tier. There's no price low enough to make the entry level, average consumer pay for an AI service. These are people who will not pay for search, email and social media. They only pay for streaming because there's no way around it.
flir | 12 hours ago
I settled on GPT Plus/Codex for my own work, while my employer settled on Claude on Bedrock (where I am, according to their metrics, using about $20 of compute a day, so I can believe that GPT Plus is a loss-leader). If I hit too many 5-hour timeouts I'm not jumping to Pro I'm jumping to Claude.
(Funnily enough, I just hit one. It'll reset in... three hours. I wasn't even hammering it, just writing some tests. I think I'm gonna just go reactivate my Anthropic account for a month).
mrweasel | an hour ago
Those who benefit from using and LLM will continue to pay for one, regardless of provider, regardless of the price being $20 or $50.
The global aspect is interesting, because $50 is a lot of money for most of the global population. The AI advocates claim to be getting more hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of value from their subscription. In the poorest countries that should make an even greater difference, but that assumes that they can get those first $50 and that the value is actually being generated.
ForOldHack | 11 hours ago
skybrian | 14 hours ago
cj | 14 hours ago
skybrian | 14 hours ago
It's enough to know that the market is competitive and new models with better prices are released often. This means you should have a way to switch models.
cj | 14 hours ago
I remember the days when I had a $2000+ credit balance on Uber because I mastered their referral program. “Free” uber blacks for 2 years!
When you’re using free shit that you should probably be paying more for, it’s good to not fool yourself.
In the Uber example, the fact that Lyft also existed at the time didn’t matter to me as someone happily riding around the city in Uber Black for $0. Unfortunately Lyft’s referral program wasn’t so lucrative so I couldn’t switch…
fgkramer | 13 hours ago
stymaar | 13 hours ago
cuttothechase | 13 hours ago
Now why would I pay a middle man anything if I can get the same hosted model without their own whimsical service limits?
qlte | 13 hours ago
cj | 13 hours ago
Are you saying these companies are operating on anything resembling a sustainable business model?
I think not!
If OpenAI needs to impose 5 hour limits during a time where they are aggressively trying to grow market share, what do you think they (or whatever the winning provider is) will do in 5 years once they IPO and need to boost margins?
They won’t be as friendly with usage caps as they’re being now.
thejazzman | 12 hours ago
solenoid0937 | 3 hours ago
skybrian | 10 hours ago
MikhailTal | 14 hours ago
skybrian | 10 hours ago
solenoid0937 | 13 hours ago
rgbrgb | 14 hours ago
NewJazz | 13 hours ago
madaxe_again | 14 hours ago
I pay the $200/mo., and don’t regret it for an instant - I have a project manager, an executive assistant, a business analyst, a software developer and an international accountant, for an absolute song.
dgellow | 14 hours ago
TuxSH | 14 hours ago
Now, let's see how the Anthropic IPO goes.
edoceo | 14 hours ago
kraftman | 15 hours ago
worldsavior | 15 hours ago
add-sub-mul-div | 14 hours ago
fennecbutt | 14 hours ago
rfgplk | 14 hours ago
I've said this countless times already; if OpenAI or Anthropic were serious about world domination they would offer an infinite $500 to $1000/month tier subscription. No limits; eat as much as you'd like buffet. Maybe limit concurrent connection (say 10 conns max in parallel) to limit abuse. This would actually allow regular users to run 24/7 agentic loops, massively speeding up deployment. Win win for everyone.
dwaite | 13 hours ago
Once you know someone is going to use 100% of the service rather than 25%, you have to charge them full price. That's why you see them fail over to API pricing.
leros | 14 hours ago
I definitely see the pricing model. I can afford $100, maybe $200, but not $3000.
j3th9n | 13 hours ago
globular-toast | 13 hours ago
Eisenstein | 3 hours ago
I have never heard of a drug dealer actually doing that.
surgical_fire | 13 hours ago
cyanydeez | 12 hours ago
reenorap | 15 hours ago
colechristensen | 15 hours ago
When you haven't used any tokens for an extended amount of time it reverts to the point where whenever you send your first token is when the window begins.
ipdashc | 14 hours ago
I never quite understood why they picked 5h, it seems oddly arbitrary
d1sxeyes | 14 hours ago
gowthamgts12 | 15 hours ago
dwaite | 13 hours ago
When I was doing an evaluation using a lower paid tier of Claude, I would have a service send a "hello" ping 4 hours before I started my work day, to reduce my first work-hours session window to 1 hour.
The goal was to have this be more of a "thinking" session for planning the next larger block of work, and then being able to use a lower cost model for implementation.
That said, if your 5 hour window quota is 15% of your weekly quota, this means you can be using 30% or more a day of the weekly quota.
CSMastermind | 15 hours ago
KronisLV | 15 hours ago
johnnyApplePRNG | 15 hours ago
jamesriso | 15 hours ago
pinkmuffinere | 15 hours ago
It strikes me as similar to UPS / USPS / Fedex -- everyone uses the mail, and they mostly use whichever is cheapest for their requirements. I don't think there's much loyalty to specific services, and people are happy to switch between the options
sidrag22 | 15 hours ago
I dont see a lot of love for weird memory like features on HN, but on provider subreddits its constantly talked about.
dwaite | 13 hours ago
drob518 | 15 hours ago
Den_VR | 15 hours ago
piloto_ciego | 14 hours ago
On the internet you have 4 possible outcomes.
Say things are going to suck and they suck. You look brilliant.
Say things are going to suck, and they don't suck. Nobody cares because it doesn't suck.
Say things are going to be good, and they're good. A few attaboys for getting it right, but nobody cares.
Say things are going to be good, and they suck. You look like a moron.
Because of negativity bias everyone is leaning towards predicting DOOOOOOOOOOM. People aren't even consciously doing this, it's just a factor of the medium, because looking like a moron hurts way more than a few attaboys.
I think in about a year, we're going to see a scad of these ASICS like chat jimmy running year old models on dedicated hardware. Imagine racks and racks full of Astra but running at 15,000 tokens a second or whatever? Imagine swarms of them running the models we have today essentially for "free." That's where we're going to be. The bottleneck will be production, tbh, not demand.
"Hey Astra-Silicon, solve the Goldbach Conjecture!" Sure, it might take a few hours and be totally un-readable to a human being, but the 6m lines of Lean or whatever will be correct. Then what? What can we start doing then?
satvikpendem | 14 hours ago
piloto_ciego | 14 hours ago
But yeah, doomerism is the dominant narrative of the day here right now. There's a sort of eschatological poisoning that's happening presently. Nobody can even seem to imagine a world where things get better. It's crazy. Maybe it's because I recently went through a major illness, maybe it's because I hit my head one-to-many times along the way? But I've never been more optimistic about the future than I am now.
missingcolours | 14 hours ago
piloto_ciego | 14 hours ago
That said bitcoin is still at like $80k per bitcoin though... so while it's not a good investment IMO (and I don't really mess around with crypto except for the time I got drunk and bought doge and made money), but there are people out there still using it. There's a bitcoin ATM less than a mile from my house.
f30e3dfed1c9 | 4 hours ago
Don't forget the criminals. When it comes to crypto, never forget the criminals.
fwlr | 13 hours ago
andybak | 14 hours ago
CSMastermind | 4 hours ago
jonpurdy | 15 hours ago
Having just the weekly limit meant I could blow through too much within the first couple of days. Fortunately, resets were raining down during that time.
(I know I could just vibe code a tracker that splits up my usage into arbitrary periods and lets me know when to take a break. Maybe if they remove the 5-hour limit again.)
indigodaddy | 15 hours ago
andybak | 14 hours ago
nullbio | 15 hours ago
redox99 | 15 hours ago
A better approach if they want to balance the load is having higher usage or lower usage consumption at different times of day.
pkulak | 14 hours ago
redox99 | 14 hours ago
The 5h limit hurts the most on the $20 plan because the limit is already very small (5h is ~15% of your weekly).
nicce | 14 hours ago
xqcgrek2 | 14 hours ago
pxx | 14 hours ago
ttul | 14 hours ago
alpineman | 14 hours ago
ttul | 11 hours ago
alpineman | 44 minutes ago
Synthetic7346 | 13 hours ago
beginnings | 7 hours ago
AI is just another case of the rich getting richer, people who dont really need AI with practically unlimited access, and people who need to it to try and change their lives being priced out
its a wealth inequality accelerator at the worst time in history for wealth inequality
i would take 50% less usage just to be able to use it in my own time, the plus plan without 5 hour limit gives me 1 days work a week, so 4 days of usage per month, and I was happy with that
now thats been taken away i get 15 minutes of usage then 5 hours later ive lost interest in the work, i now sit with 70% usage knowing 5 hours ago that a reset was coming and I couldnt even be bothered using it
its completely killed the product for me, im now paying 20 a month for something that is no use to me
jauntywundrkind | 13 hours ago
I appreciate that he gave the heads-up. I deliberately burned through my quota yesterday, low key expecting a reset, but ready if I needed to use a other banked reset.
> Thanks for reading. We will do a global reset of the usage for all paid subscriptions so that you can keep enjoying Astra after burning through all of it doing fun 3D modeling in blender. The work week is about to start.
> Lands around 6pm PST today.
https://m.x.com/thsottiaux/status/2097043464538264003
chid | 13 hours ago