ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

https://chatgpt.com/pricing/

by strongpigeon • 3 months ago

214 251 3 months ago

chatgpt.com

selectively3• 3 months ago

Price drops are nice. Unfortunately, the quality differential versus the competitor is night and day.

And everyone serious uses the API rate billing anyway.

hyperionultra• 3 months ago

Disagree. I use codex extensively. It just works so well with vscode and python. Claude with ridiculous limits - thanks no. For some even xAI is good fit.

randomNumber75• 3 months ago

For some even xAI is good fit.

Grok makes sense if you want s.th. less censored that is not biased towards woke ideology.

I don't see how this matters for coding though. I only use it to give me a summary of recent news (so I don't have to actually read the bs newspapers and X posts myself).

satvikpendem9• 3 months ago

I prefer and use 5.4 over Opus, it's simply better, faster, and doesn't glaze me like Claude models want to do for some reason.

nilkn• 3 months ago

This take is out-of-date by months (which is an eternity in this space). Codex today has caught up and is very much on par with CC.

aerhardt2• 3 months ago

the quality differential versus the competitor is night and day.

This myth about the inferiority of ChatGPT and Codex is becoming a meme.

I have active subscriptions to both. I am throwing at Codex all kinds of data engineering, web development and machine learning problems, have been working on non-tech tasks in the "Karpathy Obsidian Wiki" [1] style before he posted about it.

Not only does Codex crush Claude on cost, it's also significantly better at adherence and overall quality. Claude is there on my Mac, gathering dust, to the point I am thinking of not renewing the sub.

There are plenty of fellow HNers here who feel the same from what I read in the flamewars. I suspect none of us really has a horse in this race and many are half-competent (in other threads, they mention they do things like embedded programming, distributed DL systems, etc.)

I'm starting to suspect a vast majority of people pushing the narrative that Claude is vastly better haven't even tried the 5.3 / 5.4 models and are doing it out of sheer tribalism.

[1] https://gist.github.com/karpathy/442a6bf555914893e9891c11519...

selectively3• 3 months ago

I have access to effectively infinite API tokens for all models from Anthropic as well as OpenAI. The differential in performance in complex tasks is vast and strongly in favor of Opus, in my experience. I do not use the official harnesses for either model, though - as they are not my taste.

Codex is closer to my taste, as it is at least a native app and not typescript slop. But the model is just not up to snuff.

xur17• 3 months ago

Any idea way "5x or 20x more usage" means?

reed1234• 3 months ago

If you pay 200 you get 20x

recursive6• 3 months ago

The price is $100 according to this post. Where is there an option for $200?

recursive6• 3 months ago

I assume it means 5x if they get to choose. They're the ones enforcing the limits.

josh_p• 3 months ago

What’s the difference between the two Pro plans?

Both Pro plans include the same core capabilities. The main difference is usage allowance: Pro $100 unlocks 5x higher usage than Plus (and 10x Codex usage vs. Plus for a limited time), while Pro $200 unlocks 20x usage than Plus.

From their faq

terramex• 3 months ago

5x more usage than in Plus is 100$

20x more usage than in Plus is 200$

I see this when I try to upgrade my Plus subscription.

gib444• 3 months ago

Exactly! :)

rvz2• 3 months ago

Suppose you enter a casino and the owner welcomes you in and sees that you are a frequent loyal s̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ customer (with the amount of tokens you are spending a month) with an existing membership.

With this new VIP membership that comes with 5x or 20x usage, if you spend $100 you get 5x. $200 you get 20x and you get to spin the wheel and use the slot machines unlimited times even at peak hours more than most without any restrictions, 24/7, no waiting for hours with priority.

So spend more to get more abundance and more simultaneous spins at the wheel.

Except if you're trying to abuse the slot machines themselves or sharing or reselling your membership to other customers who want a spin at the roulette wheel; but were previously banned. [0]

[0] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-about-chatgpt-pr...

Archerlm• 3 months ago

just a rumor, but i heard altman was adding a timer which required the R&D dept. to triple

throwatdem12311• 3 months ago

I heard it’ll take about a year. Timers are a hard problem to solve.

sassymuffinz10• 3 months ago

While they work on getting it to tell the time they'll just be over there listing targets for military strikes.

2001zhaozhao• 3 months ago

The title is misleading. The only thing they seem to have done was add a $100 plan identical to Claude's, which gives 5x usage of ChatGPT Plus. There is still a $200 plan that gives 20x usage.

selectively3• 3 months ago

Oh. Yikes.

jstummbillig2• 3 months ago

That is not the "only" thing: You get access to GPT-5.4 pro.

giwook5• 3 months ago

Just to clarify, one does not get access to the pro model on the Pro plan?

taoh2• 3 months ago

Does GPT-5.4 pro give a much better result in some circumstances? What're their typical uses in your experience?

J_Shelby_J• 3 months ago

Will they fix the pro model so it actually finishes the last step instead of hanging for 10-20m doing nothing?

It’s only use case now is when you can walk away for an hour.

strongpigeon• 3 months ago

You’re right. I missed the “From $100”. Edited title.

exitb• 3 months ago

Notably, up until now Pro had 6x usage of Plus. So the title is only slightly misleading.

On the other hand, the benchmark of Plus usage seems to be to be all over the place, so it’s difficult to say now how does the usage compare to the old Pro.

creamyhorror• 3 months ago

r/codex is reporting that $20 (Plus) seems to have had its usage limit reduced (some people are saying it feels like 1/3 the previous limit now). The theory[1] is that reducing $20's limit lets them claim $200 has 20x $20's limit (and $100 has 10x).

If that's true, then the value comparison is not so positive for Codex any more

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1sgxy71/so_did_they_...

rossant• 3 months ago

How much was it before?

coreyburnsdev2• 3 months ago

$20 or $200 plan, now we have a middle plan.

gmig• 3 months ago

This is an additional offering to the existing plan.

5x=$100 20x=$200

satvikpendem9• 3 months ago

The era of subsidization is over, it seems.

For my money, on the code side at least, GitHub Copilot on VSCode is still the most cost effective option, 10 bucks for 300 requests gets me all I need, especially when I use OpenAI models which are counted as 1x vs Opus which is 3x. I've stopped using all other tools like Claude Code etc.

giwook5• 3 months ago

I use both GH Copilot as well as CC extensively and it does seem more economical, though I wonder how long this will last as I imagine Github has also been subsidizing LLM usage extensively.

FWIW it feels like GH Copilot is a cheaper version of OpenRouter but with trade-offs like being locked into VSCode and the Microsoft ecosystem overall. I already use VSCode though and otherwise I don't see much downside to using GH Copilot outside of that.

satvikpendem9• 3 months ago

I'm hopeful because Microsoft already has a partnership and owns much of OpenAI so can get their models at cost to host on Azure with they already do, so they can pass on the savings to the user. This is why Opus is 3x as expensive in Copilot, because Microsoft needs to buy API usage from Anthropic directly.

treesknees2• 3 months ago

You’re not locked into vscode. There are plugins for other IDEs, and a ‘copilot’ cli tool very similar to Claude Code’s cli tool.

I also wouldn’t say you’re locked into Microsoft’s ecosystem. At work we just have skills that allow for interaction with Bitbucket and other internal tooling. You’re not forced to use GitHub at all.

sassymuffinz10• 3 months ago

You could use something like [https://opencode.ai](OpenCode) which supports integration with Copilot.

lossyalgo• 3 months ago

but with trade-offs like being locked into VSCode and the Microsoft ecosystem overall

You can use GH Copilot with most of Jetbrains IDEs.

WithinReason• 3 months ago

You can use copilot models from OpenCode:

https://github.blog/changelog/2026-01-16-github-copilot-now-...

sassymuffinz10• 3 months ago

I tried Claude Code for a week straight recently to see what all the hype was about and while it pumped out a bunch of reasonable looking code and features I ended up feeling completely disconnected from my codebase and uncomfortable.

Cancelled the plan I had with them and happily went back to just coding like normal in VSCode with occasional dips into Copilot when a need arose or for rubber ducking and planning. Feels much better as I'm in full control and not trusting the magic black box to get it right or getting fatigue from reading thousands of lines of generated code.

Anyone who says they're able to review thousands of lines effectively that Claude might slop out in a day are lying to themselves.

torben-friis2• 3 months ago

Anyone who says they're able to review thousands of lines effectively that Claude might slop out in a day are lying to themselves.

The amount you can review before burning out is now the reasonable limit, for the same reason that a car is supposed to stay at the speed you can handle and not the max speed of the engine.

Of course, many people are secretly skipping reviews and some dare to publicly advocate for getting rid of them entirely.

coreyburnsdev2• 3 months ago

why not just use it to review your codebase/commits/prs? you don't have to let it write a bunch of code for you neccessarily.

bossyTeacher4• 3 months ago

I think most people doing what is now called agentic development, aren't following most established dev methodologies and are to a great extent playing it by vibe.

The codebase disconnect is real.

We are like blue collar workers that need to hit the gym to maintain the body that our cavemen ancestors could maintain by doing their daily duties.

Codebase gym sessions might become a thing.

bluegatty4• 3 months ago

I don't like calling a posture 'ignorant' , but I think that's what we have here. I don't mean that as an insult.

It's likely you didn't learn how to use the tool properly, and I'd suggest 'trying again' because not using AI soon will be tantamount to digging holes with shovels instead of using construction equipment. Yes, we still need our 'core skill's but, we're not going to be able to live without the leverage of AI.

Yes - AI can generate slop, and probably too many Engineers do that.

Yes - you can 'feel a loss of control' but that's where you have to find your comfort zone.

It's generally a bad idea to produce 'huge amounts of code' - unless it's perfectly consistent with a design, and he architecture is derived from well-known conventions.

Start by using it as an 'assistant' aka research, fill in all the extra bits, and get your testing going.

You'll probably want to guide the architecture, and at least keep an eye on the test code.

Then it's a matter of how much further 'up' you can go,

There are few situations in which we should be 'accepting' large amounts of code, but some of it can be reviewed quickly.

The AI, already now in 2026 can write better code than you at the algorithmic level - it will be tight, clean, 'by the book' and far lesss likley to have erros.

It fails at the architectural and modular level still, that will probably change.

The AI 'makes a clean cut' in the wood, tighter to the line than any carpenter could - like a power tool.

A carpenter that does not use power tools is an 'artisnal craft person' , not really building functional things.

This is the era of motor cars, there is really no option - I don't say that because I'm pro or anti anything, AI is often way over-hyped - that's something else entirely.

It's like the web / cloud etc. it's just 'imminent'.

So try again, experiment, stay open minded.

deadbabe• 3 months ago

Not over yet. More hikes will come. It will reach $1000.

satvikpendem9• 3 months ago

That's what I said by subsidization being over.

dismalaf• 3 months ago

The era of subsidization is over

Of course it is. Returns are diminishing, AGI isn't happening with current techniques but it is good enough to sell, so it's time to monetize. I just got an email from OpenAI as well about ads in their free tier (I signed up once out of curiosity).

rvz2• 3 months ago

AGI isn't happening with current techniques but it is good enough to sell, so it's time to monetize.

Or perhaps it was a scam in the first place for an IPO.

bluegatty4• 3 months ago

Subsidization is not nearly over

It's true AGI is 'not happening' but it doesn't matter.

Demand for AI is explosive, sales are skyrocketing.

We have another 5-8 years of this crazy investment stuff.

Altman will step aside before they turn into a 'normal company'.

Like they did at Uber.

_2d30• 3 months ago

Pro used to be $200.

KellyCriterion• 3 months ago

OT:

In general I view VS Code and VS.NET Community + SQL Server free universe as the most effective option :) I think these products are great actually.

varispeed• 3 months ago

What is the difference between Pro and normal mode apart from the fact the Pro takes ages to finish? I see not much difference in output quality.

MallocVoidstar• 3 months ago

https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2042296046009626989

Our existing $200 Pro tier still remains our highest usage option.

flextheruler• 3 months ago

Tell me you're losing market share to competitors without telling me you're losing market share to competitors

patates3• 3 months ago

5.4, in my own testing, was almost always ahead of Opus 4.6 for reviews and planning. I'm on plus plan on openai, so I couldn't test it so deeply. Anyone who had more experience on both could perhaps chime in? Pros/cons compared to Opus? I'm invested in Claude ecosystem but the recent quality and session limits decrease have me on the edge.

giwook5• 3 months ago

Do you mind elaborating on your experience here?

Just curious as I've often heard that Claude was superior for planning/architecture work while ChatGPT was superior for actual implementation and finding bugs.

patates3• 3 months ago

Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.

It compensates for most during implementation if you make it use TDD by using superpower et al, or just telling it to do so.

GPT 5.4 makes more simple plans (compared to superpowers - a plugin from the official claude plugin marketplace - not the plan mode), but can better fill the details while implementing.

Plan mode in Claude Code got much better in the last months, but the lacking details cannot be compensated by the model during the implementation.

So my workflow has been:

Make claude plan with superpowers:brainstorm, review the spec, make updates, give the spec to gpt, usually to witness grave errors found by gpt, spec gets updates, another manual review, (many iterations later), final spec is written, write the plan, gpt finds mind boggling errors, (many iterations later), claude agent swarm implements, gpt finds even more errors, I find errors, fix fix fix, manual code review and red tests from me, tests get fixed (many iterations later) finally something usable with stylistic issues at most (human opinion)!

This happens with the most complex features that'd be a nightmare to implement even for the most experienced programmers of course. For basic things, most SOTA modals can one-shot anyway.

azuanrb• 3 months ago

Same for me. I'm on $20 plan for both and I use them both interchangeably. Similar "intelligence" imo. Just different way of doing things, that's all. But Claude is getting worse in terms of token usage so I've cancelled my plan last month.

conradkay3• 3 months ago

Yeah it's probably a bit better overall. 5.4 is a month newer than Opus 4.6

My guess is that 5.5 will come out soon and be significantly better so you'd want to be using Codex then, but then when Opus 5 comes out probably back to claude code

Also 5.4 has fast mode, and higher usage limits since it's cheaper

psadauskas• 3 months ago

I use opencode, so can toggle between Claude and Codex fairly easily, and do so whenever one of them is having problems (until yesterday, that is, when Claude blocked opencode for good, and I cancelled my account). This means I'm using the same prompts and instructions for both.

Personally, it seems like I have to redirect Opus/Sonnet much less often. GPT felt pretty "dense", it was more likely to ignore earlier instructions in the session, I had to remind it more often, and when I reviewed the code it produced I had to make more corrections that seemed obvious.

Entirely subjective, but I also find I prefer Claude's "personality" to ChatGPT, but I couldn't point to any specific differences.

pseudosavant3• 3 months ago

That has me quite tempted. In general, I stay under the Plus limits, but I do watch my consumption. I could use `/fast` mode all of the time, with extra high reasoning, and use gpt-5.4-pro for especially complex tasks. It wasn't worth 10x the price to me before, but 5x is approachable.

jstummbillig2• 3 months ago

I think you currently can't use pro inside codex, or can you?

pseudosavant3• 3 months ago

Good question. I'd hope/expect that you could, but that doesn't mean much.

codybontecou• 3 months ago

That's an odd choice. I wonder why.

righthand• 3 months ago

This is like the 2010s hosting price wars.

antirez2• 3 months ago

Very good move. In my experience, for system programming at least, GPT 5.4 xhigh is vastly superior to Claude Opus 4.6 max effort. I ran many brutal tests, including reconstructing for QEMU the SCSI controller (not longer accessible) of a SVSY UNIX of the early 90s used in a 386. Side by side, always re-mirroring the source trees each time one did a breakthrough in the implementation. Well, GPT 5.4 single handed did it all, while Opus continued to take wrong paths. The same for my Redis bug tracking and development. But 200$ is too much for many people (right now, at least: the reality is that if frontier LLMs are not democratized, we will end paying like a house rent to a few providers), and also while GPT 5.4 is much stronger, it is slower and less sharp when the thing to do is simple, so many people went for Claude (also because of better marketing and ethical concerns, even if my POV is different on that side: both companies sell LLM models with similar capabilities and similar internal IP protection and so forth, to me they look very similar in practical terms). This will surely change things, and many people will end with a Claude 5x account + a Codex 5x account I bet.

Tiberium3• 3 months ago

Thanks for confirming my impressions, it's been like 4 months now that I've arrived at the same conclusions. GPT models are just better at any kind of low-level work: reverse engineering including understanding what the decompiled code/assembly does, renaming that decompiled code (functions/types), any kind of C/C++, way more reliable security research (Opus will find way more, but most will turn out to be false positives). I've had GPT create non-trivial custom decompilers for me for binaries built with specific compilers (it's a much simpler task than what IDA Pro/Ghidra are doing but still complex), and modify existing Java decompilers.

Regarding speed, I don't use xhigh that often, and surprisingly for me GPT 5.4 high is faster than Claude 4.6 Opus high (unless you enable fast mode for Opus).

Of course I still use Opus for frontend, for some small scripts, and for criticizing GPT's code style, especially in Python (getattr).

antirez2• 3 months ago

In the SCSI controller work I mentioned, a very big part of the work was indeed reasoning about assembly code and how IRQs and completion of DMAs worked and so forth. Opus, even if TOOLS.md had the disassembler and it was asked to use it many times, didn't even bothered much. GPT 5.4 did instead a very great reverse engineering work, also it was a lot more sensible to my high level suggestions, like: work in that way to make more isolated progresses and so forth.

beering2• 3 months ago

Codex also gives you a lot more usage for $20/mon than Claude, so there’s not also that fear that high or xhigh reasoning will eat up all your quota. It really comes down to whether you want to try to save some time or not. (I default to xhigh because it’s still fast enough for me.)

zozbot234• 3 months ago

The $100/mo giving access to GPT Pro (with reduced usage) is a nice counter to the just teased Claude Mythos. But GPT 5.4 xhigh being able to perform that kind of low-level reconstruction task is very impressive already.

Asyne• 3 months ago

+1 to this, I've found GPT/Codex models consistently stronger in engineering tasks (such as debugging complex, cross-systems issues, concurrency problems, etc).

I use both OpenAI and Anthropic models, though for different purposes, what surprises me is how underrated GPT still feels (or, alternatively, how overhyped Anthropic models can be) given how capable it is in these scenarios. There also seems to be relatively little recognition of this in the broader community (like your recent YouTube video). My guess is that demand skews toward general codegen rather than the kind of deep debugging and systems work where these differences really show.

mediaman• 3 months ago

It's surprising to me how much LLM "personality" seems to matter to people, more than actual capability.

I do turn to Anthropic for ideation and non-tech things. But I find little reason to use it over codex for engineering tasks. Sometimes for planning, but even there, 5.4 is more critical of my questionable ideas, and will often come up with simpler ways to do things (especially when prompted), which I appreciate.

And I don't do hard-tech things! I've chosen a b2b field where I can provide competent products for a niche that is underserved and where long term relationships matter, simply because I'm not some brilliant engineer who can completely reinvent how something is done. I'm not writing kernels or complex ML stacks. So I don't really understand what everyone is building where they don't see the limits of Opus. Maybe small greenfield projects with few users.

dvfjsdhgfv• 3 months ago

I use codex for cleaning after cloude and it always finds so many bugs, some of them quite obvious.

beering2• 3 months ago

Or rather, it’s hard to ask everyone to side-by-side compare both products on their use cases. So the choice really comes down to word-of-mouth even though their use cases may be better served by Codex.

aerhardt2• 3 months ago

I completely agree with you on both the technical and ethical reasoning.

Thank you for speaking out. I think it's important that reputable engineers like you do so. The Claude gang gaslighting is unhinged right now. It would be none of my concern but I have to deal with it in the real world - my customers are susceptible to these memes. I'm sure others have to deal with similar IRL consequences, too.

bob10294• 3 months ago

GPT5.4 with any effort level is scary when you combine it with tricks like symbolic recursion. I actually had to reduce the effort level to get the model to stop trying to one shot everything. I struggled to come up with BS test cases it couldn't dunk in some clever way. Turning down the reasoning effort made it explore the space better.

rolls-reus• 3 months ago

can you explain what you mean by symbolic recursion tricks in this context?

sho_hn• 3 months ago

Same for me, cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47680123

dweekly• 3 months ago

GPT 5.4 is the surly physics PhD post-doc who slowly and angrily sits in a basement to write brilliant, undocumented, uncommented code that encapsulates a breakthrough algorithm.

Opus 4.6 is the L5 new hire SWE keen to prove their chops and quickly turn out totally reasonable code with putatively defensible reasons for doing it that way (that are sometimes tragically wrong) and then catch an after-work yoga class with you.

simianwords5• 3 months ago

GPT is also cautious and Defensive but opus is agreeable.

fragmede• 3 months ago

and then catch an after-work yoga class with you.

That's cute, but do you mean something concrete with this, aka are there some non-coding prompting you use it for that you're referring to with that or is it simply a throwaway line about L5 SWEs (at a FAANG).

(FWIW, I find myself using ChatGPT for non-coding prompting for some reason, like random questions like if oil is fungible and not Claude, for some reason.)

pdntspa2• 3 months ago

Who replies to you with fucking emoji brainrot

SunshineTheCat• 3 months ago

1000%. I have been running claude's work through codex for about a week now and it's insane the number of mistakes it catches. Not really sure why I've been doing this, just interesting to watch I guess.

Not to mention a billion times more usage than you get with claude, dollar for dollar.

scrollop• 3 months ago

It's widely reported that opus has been greatly reduced for a number of weeks since Mythos was released internally

sixothree2• 3 months ago

Funny, I've been doing the same thing. I've also been giving them both the same task and seeing who does a better job.

I think it's all of this controversy around usage limits and model nerfing that made me start doing this.

In the end though, I _much_ prefer working with claude because it understands the task at hand so much better and I feel like I understand the results better. It's just that codex is doing a better job at the actual coding lately.

postalcoder• 3 months ago

What I like most about gpt coding models is how predictable of a lever that thinking effort is.

Xhigh will gather all the necessary context. low gathers the minimum necessary context.

That doesn’t work as well with me for Opus. Even at max effort it’ll overlook files necessary to understanding implementations. It’s really annoying when you point that out and you get hit with an”you’re absolutely right”.

Codex isn’t the greatest one shot horse in the race but, once you figure out how to harness it, it’s hard to go back to other models.

osti2• 3 months ago

Yup I've mentioned this in another thread, I got gpt 5.4xhigh to improve the throughout of a very complex non typical CUDA kernel by 20x. This was through a combination of architecture changes and then do low level optimizations, it did the profiling all by itself. I was extremely impressed.

esperent3• 3 months ago

Do you mean the non-codex model? Are people preferring normal GPT over codex?

thisisit• 3 months ago

My non scientific tests has been that GPT models follow the prompts literally. Every time I give it an example, it uses the example in literal sense instead of using it to enhance its understanding of the ask. This is a good thing if I want it to follow instructions but bad if I want it to be creative. I have to tell it that the examples I gave are just examples and not to be used in output. I feel comfortable using it when I have everything mapped out.

Claude on the other hand can be creative. It understands that examples are for reference purposes only. But there are times it decides to off on a tangent on its own and decide not to follow instructions closely. I find it useful for bouncing off ideas or test something new,

The other thing I notice is Claude has slightly better UI design sensibilities even if you don’t give instructions. GPT on the other hand needs instructions otherwise every UI element will be so huge you need to double scroll to find buttons.

veber-alex• 3 months ago

This is also what I noticed.

GPT doesn't know how to get creative, you need to tell it exactly what to do and what code you want it to write.

For Claude you can be more general and it will look up solutions for you outside of the scope you gave it.

I presonaly prefer Claude.

sixothree2• 3 months ago

I think you might benefit from the "superpower" plugin. Add the word "brainstorm" before your prompt and it does a little bit better at figuring out how you want things.

TacticalCoder• 3 months ago

I use Claude Code / Anthropic models but...

I ran many brutal tests, including reconstructing for QEMU the SCSI controller (not longer accessible) of a SVSY UNIX of the early 90s used in a 386.

QEMU is one project that, for a variety of reasons, said that atm they simply refuse any code written by a LLM. Is this just as a test? Or just for you? Or do you think QEMU shall accept that patch?

munksbeer• 3 months ago

right now, at least: the reality is that if frontier LLMs are not democratized, we will end paying like a house rent to a few providers

This part of your comment has slipped through but is very worrying for me. I _think_ we're passing the point now where programmers are accepting that LLMs writing code are the real deal. Lots of antagonism along the way, but the reality is these things are good, and getting better all the time.

What this means in reality, in my opinion, is that if you're an independent programmer, or smaller company trying to compete with others to earn a living, you're almost certainly going to have to use coding agents, which means your competitiveness in the market is going to be gated by the big model providers until we have more options. If you somehow get banned from a few of them, which seems like it can happen through no fault of your own, you're going to be seriously negatively impacted.

That's quite worrying having gatekeepers to our industry where it was previously in our own hands.

nealmueller• 3 months ago

Price change is ChatGPT not Codex, you may be mixing them up, Codex (for coding) remains $200

esperent3• 3 months ago

I just checked the codex pricing page, it's pro 5x for $100, pro 20x for $200. The 20x plan has a codex usage boost until the end of may, whatever that means.

Edit: apparently the usage boost is an additional 2x for both 5x and 20x. So maybe it's time to start watching whichever of these services is currently doing offers like this and switch subscriptions every few months.

pjjpo• 3 months ago

Really great to see this whole thread after so many questioning looks from people on why I use codex instead of Claude which generally doesn't work for me.

I never thought it was about particular usefulness for low level vs high level but it tracks with my general low level work.

laacz• 3 months ago

They are actively exploiting the compute shortages of Anthropic. In our team we're pushing for more or less vanilla and portability, since the best harness today might not be the best one in 6 months.

hackable_sand• 3 months ago

Can you guys remind me again why you're doing this?

I_am_tiberius• 3 months ago

For me it's not the price. It's the fact that they obviously read my prompts and may even use a derived version of my data for training. As it's very clear in the meantime that SAMA lies most of the time, there's just no way I can trust this company in any way.

asadm• 3 months ago

are your prompts that important that you would not use SOTA models just to protect them?

For me, they are just a means to an end and disposable.

Toutouxc• 3 months ago

So.. would you mind releasing all your code on GitHub?

disiplus• 3 months ago

It looks like its called prolite.

https://snipboard.io/jmGKfM.jpg

koolba• 3 months ago

Does this give you something different than the $20/mo plan when using codex?

Tiberium3• 3 months ago

Yes, it's 5x more usage than Plus, and with the current promotions you actually get 10x more usage than Plus on the $100 plan until May 31st.

Same for the $200 plan, it's still 2x its normal usage until that date.

bossyTeacher4• 3 months ago

It really feels like LLMs will mostly become tools for tech workers rather than the kind of civilization-level transformation sama has been peddling. Every single comment here seems to confirm the above.

wolttam3• 3 months ago

This is kind of the goldilocks zone for LLMs right now.

I wouldn't mistake this for any kind of capability plateau. There is a massive push towards making transformers the engine of humanoid (and other kinds of) robotics, we just haven't reached the hype moment for those yet.

bossyTeacher4• 3 months ago

I wouldn't mistake this for any kind of capability plateau. There is a massive push towards making transformers the engine of humanoid (and other kinds of) robotics, we just haven't reached the hype moment for those yet.

Problem is that the fuel to get this train going relies on investors money. Investors aren't going to be happy with the quote I took from your message.

And that's the real bet really, can the industry turn the spark into fire before the investor money runs out?

dude250711• 3 months ago

I have heard a CTO had a major success building a side project over a weekend.

bossyTeacher4• 3 months ago

Is that CTO in the room with us?

randomNumber75• 3 months ago

Every single comment here seems to confirm the above.

The population on Hacker News heavily skewed towards tech workers so I wouldn't draw a conclusion from that.

000ooo0002• 3 months ago

Wouldn't put too much weight on HN comments boosting AI. Lots of brand new accounts, obvious LLM drivel ("it's not X, it's Y"). I just tried to reply to one to call out how overt it was and the comment was already killed, so they're definitely here.

swdf4• 3 months ago

Thats exactly what they will be and they will not earn excess returns. So the valuations of OAI and Anthropic are bizarro.

And I dont see open source development stopping either.

jedisct1• 3 months ago

Awesome news.

And that includes usage of the API with any agent without risking being banned. OpenAI is also very supportive of open source software.

I'm using GPT-5.4 with Swival (https://swival.dev) for a while, alongside local models, and it's absolutely fantastic.

mrdependable• 3 months ago

It's interesting seeing all the ChatGPT users in this thread, knowing what we know about OpenAI. Either they don't care about what OpenAI does, don't know their reputation, or feel like their use is too insignificant to matter.

MattGaiser3• 3 months ago

What has the tech industry ever resisted on moral or reputational grounds?

sonofhans2• 3 months ago

This is sarcastically-stated but an excellent point, and an honest answer will come up with a vanishingly small list. We geeks may think we care about Important Things, but our industry cares for nothing but money and power — morality is a hindrance to the accumulation of those.

abound• 3 months ago

One example I can think of is Google + Project Maven [1], where Google was partnering with the DoD but "withdrew in 2018 after internal protests". Though they've since partnered with the DoD on other initiatives [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-dep...

burnte2• 3 months ago

Maybe it's time to start.

selfhoster112• 3 months ago

There was Lavabit, though that's an example of just one such event.

Edit: and to some extent Apple, at least in the past.

somenameforme2• 3 months ago

I assume in any sort of thread on a topic like this there is going to be inorganic activity. These companies are all fighting rather hard to try to gain marketshare, potentially worth $trillions, with a product fully capable of producing endless reasonably compelling content to populate an account, a website, or any other basic proof of identity one might ever want.

It's probably never been the case that plurality of views meant anything since online is a bubble to begin with, filtered by endless biases wherever we happen to be reading, making it an even more fringe bubble, but the advent of AI has pushed it all over the edge to the point that perceived pluralities are just completely and utterly meaningless. Somewhat depressing for a one who enjoys online chat as a pasttime, but it's the reality of the world now.

rs_rs_rs_rs_rs2• 3 months ago

Yeah yeah yeah, everyone's a bot expect you with all the right opinions...

rs_rs_rs_rs_rs2• 3 months ago

What's with the holier-than-thou attitude? Why do you think you're better than someone using chatgpt?

Morromist2• 3 months ago

If an AI company has done unethical things do you think it is inappropriate to discuss that? Take Grok: among other things it created sexualized images of underaged women without their consent, not by accident but as a feature. Is that just something you want to ignore? In response the people in charge merely restricted the feature to paid subscribers instead of removing it.

Do you think people who mention grok creating CSAM is a holier-than-thou attitude? Do you not think the people who ignore that are worse than other people?

simianwords5• 3 months ago

People love to roleplay as activists because it gives their life some meaning and illusion of control

Devasta• 3 months ago

The difference between Silicon Valley and Wall Street is that Wall Street knows they are lying when they justify the awful things they do in the name of enriching themselves.

mootothemax2• 3 months ago

For what it’s worth, I cancelled my ChatGPT subscription, and every time I try debugging a Linux system issue, I feel sad that Claude is sooooooo confidently bad at it.

Claude is noticeably poor for my use case on this particular issue. That said, I imagine I’m not alone in refusing to continue paying OpenAI. We’re in for a wild ride.

randomNumber75• 3 months ago

Do you know game theory? If you look at it through this perspective this doesn't sound like a good strategy.

Basically the classical prisoner dilemma. The other devs with less moral can then outperform you.

It could be a valid strategy if you can increase your crediblity with this relinquishment.

burnte2• 3 months ago

If Sam Altman told me what time it was I'd check my watch and probably still not believe him.

monkeyisland• 3 months ago

Could you spell it out? I pay a $20/m OpenAI subscription and I haven't read the reasons why I might want to stop.

freely0085• 3 months ago

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may...

Yizahi3• 3 months ago

Sam is a pathological liar. He is also trying to build a monopoly which is never a good thing. And finally he is trying to get humans into a binary choice where either there is massive unemployment due to overly successful LLMs resulting in a crisis, or there is a crisis because of the failed LLM expectations.

tl;dr: If you need to pay for LLM for work, at least don't pay to the market leader.

yrds96• 3 months ago

I don't think people paying for AI at this moment are concerned about moral or ethics.

Apr1026• 3 months ago

There is a saying in India that roughly translates to - Everyone is naked in this bath house.

All AI players are 50 shades of evil and are only concerned about their profits.

Instead of virtue signaling it's best to use the tools that work best for your needs.

nickvec• 3 months ago

There are varying degrees of evil though. Saying that Anthropic and OpenAI are both "evil" to the same degree is disingenuous (in my opinion) given Altman's sociopathic behavior.

arw0n• 3 months ago

This is moral relativism at its finest, and just plain wrong. I'm not willing to go so far as to call Anthropic a good player, but they are surprisingly often willing to put their money where their mouth is. Obviously everything can be interpreted as a PR move as well, but we just lack context to know true intentions. Personally I have repeatedly sold being a good org as a PR move, it is the easiest way to do good in a capitalist environment. The success of such a sales pitch significantly relies on the moral values (or lack thereof) of the other decision makers at the company.

With Project Glasswing for example, I'm impressed at how generally well thought out it is, and very much appreciate that they donate a lot of money to OSS. I would have liked them to extend the Project to smaller players as well, but power centralisation is an inherent problem of AI, not something that is unique to Anthropic.

Yizahi3• 3 months ago

You are halfway to the correct answer. You are correctly recognizing that evil comes into an infinite spectrum of severity and many actors are evil at different levels at the same time. Now take the next step and recognize that fighting said evil also comes into many different levels of severity. It is not just either clear 100% win or do nothing and immediately resign without a fight. There are many intermediate levels of fight in between two maxima. For example as a small step, one can continue using and paying to LLM corpos, but at least avoid the worst one of them, which OAI objectively is today.

Yizahi3• 3 months ago

Absolutely not surprising. Just ask HN users what browser are they using and the answer will be Chrome or Chrome clone in 99% of cases. I even got a reply once along the lines "why do you use Firefox?". I was at a loss for words.

I also observe exact same pattern in two different countries among experienced IT workers. They mostly don't care at all about any non-tech implications of the services or employees they are using. Creepto, gambling, tax evasion, supporting monopolies, etc. - all fair game.

PS: I'm guilty of the same too, in other areas. But at least I'm selfaware about my transgressions.

BAHKA• 3 months ago

GPT user here ;) And Chrome user too :-D I can tell you straight away why I choose Chrome (or Chromium-based browsers) over Firefox. In fact it is very simple reason - speed. Just run Speedometer 3.1 and observe. On my machine Chrome produces around 45, Firefox stucks at 34. MotionMark - the difference is like x3. I have to use very heavy websites on a daily basis (like Salesforce) and I can literally feel the difference.

sourcecodeplz• 3 months ago

I like that they kept limited access to Codex even on free tier.

LE: Someone said this is how the tiers are now counted:

"Essentially if old plus is 1x then new limits are: Plus - 0.3x Pro $100 - 1.5x Pro $200 - 6x (unchanged)"

bottlepalm• 3 months ago

Are you allowed to run your own autonomous agents with it outside of Codex, like OpenClaw and others?

christkv• 3 months ago

I wish these plans had burst mode where I could set default plan size and max plan size and just scale up for a month automatically if needed but automatically drop back to my default plan at the next billing cycle

yoniknak2• 3 months ago

I was going to say they have that, but it looks like they only have that for teams, not individuals: https://openai.com/index/codex-flexible-pricing-for-teams/

d3rockk• 3 months ago

Now they just need every iPhone owner on the planet to subscribe, and this AI bubble will officially be unpoppable!

yoniknak2• 3 months ago

I’ve used both a fair amount, and for actual coding work I still prefer Codex over Opus.

daft_pink• 3 months ago

It says 5x or 20x more usage, so does that mean they have copied clause and have a 5x for 100 and 20x for 200?

gizmodo59• 3 months ago

Gpt 5.4 high with fast mode in codex app is hands down the best way to do anything coding or non coding. If you have not tried it you are missing out. 100$ well spent. Claude code is too hyped up on HN.

jerrygoyal• 3 months ago

Astroturfing here is beyond control

Brosper• 3 months ago

It's the end of cheap AI. (It's my opinion.)

It helps them cut the subsidization of tokens. Then they will release Pro x2, which could be the same as the old $200 but with fewer tokens.

AbstractH24• 3 months ago

I deleted my ChatGPT account after alll that stuff with the pentagon. Have I missed anything?

ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

Related Stories