It's amusing how desensitized we became to AI companies charging money however they like.

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'm not going to lie, one big reason I as a researcher have been a customer of OpenAI is that on their Pro plan Pro-tier model in chat and codex are decoupled in terms of billing. Anthropic instead billed you fully. This was very useful for long mathematical reasoning for me and I could attach outputs of my simulations in the context.

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.

They need to rollout a 50 dollar plan then. I often run out of codex 5h limit and this would lock me out of simple google like queries. Can't justify the 100 dollar plan while also paying for claude and having a github copilot at work.

It kills me to run out of claude code usage then my much more mundane usage, queries or web searches, is also cut off. Not doing that has been a big plus of chatgpt/codex in my mind.

They ought to reserve a very small amount of quota exclusively for chatgpt so it doesn't just shut off if you exhaust your quota using codex. If they don't it would make more sense to keep codex and chatgpt usage on different accounts, which I'm sure OpenAI doesn't intend to incentivize.

Claude is already way superior in coding than Open AI atm. So coders are mostly using Claude.

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.

This will hurt people who use GPT-6-Pro which isn't easily available in codex and deep research.

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.

Well this sucks, but not unexpected.

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...

Everyone saying they should keep the limits separate: they should give users one limit and a setting to partition it how they want.

This isn’t good. I wish they would reverse it. It is easy to blow your codex usage — but then making it so CHAT is also busted is a shame. Please undo that.

I just got an email stating that "Chat and Work are coming together in one experience". Then, half way through it's the real headline: "A shared allowance for ChatGPT and Codex". Figured it was coming at some point...

It won't affect pro users like me as we get unlimited usage. Even when running autonomous task's, the compute is much more than required!

Might affect go and Plus users.

I'm not surprised. At work, we paired devs and non-devs together, and we're sharing subscriptions, since we tend to exclusively use one or the other. It's like when Copilot was billing per query rather than per token, always bound to disappear.

I got it, too. Not surprising but this was definitely one of the deciding factors keeping me with ChatGPT. Much more willing to change providers now.

In reality this is a non-issue because average chat conversations use 1/1000th the tokens of agentic coding usage (given they aren't reading their 1 million lines of generated code for every change), but at the same time... it should be a non-issue for OpenAI too. They talk about developing "intelligence too cheap to meter" and then go on to meter an absolutely trivial amount of usage for people already paying $100-$200 a month, embarrassing. The PR hit and psychological aversion to using ChatGPT this will instill in users will hurt them more than covering this usage could ever possibly do.

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.

Claude Max x20 became x10 and now this? I think the demo period is ending.

So happy to have the open models!

I really think that OpenAI during this period not only can't release anything good, but is doing more and more restrictions.

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.

Not surprising: Claude has behaved like this for awhile and it was only a matter of time.

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

In the end, the service was maintained because of subsidies, and the service quality seems to be getting worse. There’s nothing that can be done.

it should have been only one always, as in the end its model rate limits, so doesn't matter whats the client.

Sama not too long ago said the "last resort" would be ads in ChatGPT, but maybe with cutting usage, there are more last resorts left. Maybe a useful signal for shareholders on when to bail (i.e. now).

I've been using ChatGPT since release and Codex since before ChatGPT was a thing (with the original Codex model). Am I the only one who didn't realize these limits weren't already merged since the current Codex app was released?

i wouldn't knock it till i see how it affects usage.

[flagged]