| ▲ | jrflo 2 hours ago |
| Still satisfied with my switch to codex/chatgpt. I couldn't imagine switching away from claude code when it first launch but with the drastically more generous usage on codex for the same subscription tier I just can't justify it. |
|
| ▲ | goranmoomin an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| My experience is that the GPT-family of models are very smart and figure out bugs, edge cases a bit better, but it produces code that is much less mergable – if you review the code, it introduces a lot more useless/inappropriate heavy abstractions and wrapper functions, compared to the Claude-family models which introduces the right amount of straightforward human-style code. I can recognize so much of the GPT/Codex generated code long after it gets merged (not by me). Additionally, the time spent on every agent turn on GPT 5.5 is much longer compared to Claude Opus 4.8, which means iterating on the code takes a lot more patience, and there's a lot more nitpicks to pick when actually using GPT 5.5 to do software engineering. Feels like GPT-style models are more geared on doing one-shot software vibing (and handling the vibe coded mixture) compared to Claude's focus on actual software maintenance. I got a GPT Pro sub for free and wanted to cancel my Claude subscription so much, but I still keep reaching Claude models a lot more. Frustrating. |
| |
| ▲ | PhilipDaineko a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | "5. DON'T FUCKING OVERENGINEER! WRITE THE SIMPLEST CODE THAT CAN POSSIBLY WORK! NO NESTED LAYERS OF ABSTRACTION! NO UNNECESSARY CLASSES OR METHODS! NO DESIGN PATTERNS UNLESS THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! NO MAGIC! NO SHENANIGANS! JUST THE DAMN CODE THAT GETS THE JOB DONE IN THE MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY POSSIBLE! THE FIRST PRIORITY IS TO WRITE CODE THAT IS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND AND READ!!!" this is the line I keep in Agents.md that helps me prevent Codex from playing smart | |
| ▲ | superkickstart 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm not sure if i do something differently but i have the exact opposite experience with these models. Claude always feels like it's generating way too overdesigned and hard to understand code with the vibe oriented feel while codex is cleaner and more "task at hand" and easier to work with. | |
| ▲ | dilap 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Have you tried iterating on style feedback in AGENTS.md? I've been reasonably successful using this to get it to output code in a terse, non-defensive style that matches my hand-written code. | |
| ▲ | vruiz 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is my experience as well. I have defined a CLAUDE.md rule to ask codex to automatically code review, and I tell it that the reviewer is very picky and to only implement what it considers valuable feedback. I hope they don't converge over time, currently, in combination they works really well. |
|
|
| ▲ | sigbottle 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Codex IME is just smarter, I think it shows given both anecdotes but also how OpenAI has always been at the front of programming competitions and math problems. But Claude models seem to be better at long term problems or more ambiguous problems. I'm curious as to what the primary benefit here. Are there secret improvements in training? There hasn't been much in fundamental model architecture, I don't think. What about harnesses? I wonder what's pushing the AI. It seems like harnesses is the main thing pushing AI ever since CoT. |
| |
| ▲ | Spartan-S63 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I find that OpenAI's agentic tools and models are better for building human-maintainable software. Meanwhile, Anthropic seems to be cosplaying Apple while missing out on all the exceptional engineering required to create something that polished. Their admission of predominately using Claude with little human oversight and their stealth mode is an indictment of a poor engineering culture, from what I can surmise. | | |
| ▲ | someguyiguess an hour ago | parent [-] | | Serious question: what is the secret to getting Codex to write decent code? I am on Windows. Maybe that is the issue, but I can't seem to get Codex to function anywhere near the level that I was previously able to get with even Claude Sonnet. Does Codex just not work well with Windows yet? |
| |
| ▲ | someguyiguess an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've had the exact opposite experience. For various reasons, I've had to move from Claude to Codex and the rate at which it burns tokens for the same output I would get from Claude is ridiculous. I'm probably burning tokens at a rate that is at least twice as much as I was when using Opus 4.5 for coding tasks and still finding that just manually coding is easier than trying to get Codex to write functional code. | |
| ▲ | greenavocado an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | How smart a model is varies hour over hour, tracked over here: https://aistupidlevel.info/ |
|
|
| ▲ | wsatb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I guess enjoy it while it lasts? OpenAI won't be able to subsidize that forever either. |
| |
| ▲ | windexh8er an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Agreed. I think the Chinese labs are proving that OpenAI and Anthropic don't have a moat in almost every aspect, especially pricing. I also think people are getting annoyed with the constant lift and shift. I've seen more folks drop Claude Code and Codex, specifically, because of the lock-in it provides the providers. I'm curious to see how people standardize on tooling adjacent and if Anthropic, Google or OAI move to block utilization akin to the games Anthropic has been playing as of late. I think the end game is routed model usage and SLMs. I think Apple is going to prove this in the consumer space pretty handily and I'm curious how the Android ecosystem responds since the hardware is considerably lacking in model performance. I think Apple has a huge opportunity here, as much as I don't like their current ecosystem of walled garden. They did position themselves very well with ARM and custom chips for their hardware. Hopefully the broader ecosystem of ARM and Linux are able to make some headway and we see a more formalized, and broadly accepted, architecture to capitalize on. | | |
| ▲ | maxdo an hour ago | parent [-] | | I see exactly opposite . Chinese models fails under any complex scenarios, while us labs raise the price , that's a sign of confidence. | | |
| ▲ | re-thc 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > while us labs raise the price , that's a sign of confidence Regardless of what others are doing, US labs here are just rushing to IPO. It's NOT a sign of confidence. It's the equivalent of saying you have confidence in SpaceX making revenue by renting out their data center (instead of their AI making bank). |
|
| |
| ▲ | flatline 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on actual inference costs -- including the research and training that has gone into those models. We've got near-frontier capabilities from open source models from China at pennies on the dollar compared to US big tech rollouts. OpenAI and Anthropic are heavily subsidizing their inference -- no wait, they are charging the most they can get away with before going public. Where is the truth? | | |
| ▲ | andrewmutz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Both can be true. They can be charging what the market will bear, and still be charging less than their costs of running it. | | | |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on actual inference costs -- including the research and training that has gone into those models We know roughly how much these companies spend and what their revenues are. Based on that, they'd have to more than double revenue (without spending more money) just to stay even, and that's not good enough given how deep in the hole they are. > OpenAI and Anthropic are heavily subsidizing their inference -- no wait, they are charging the most they can get away with before going public. Where is the truth? Both are true. I mean, I'd be willing to spend a bit more than I do now, but not more than double, and neither are most companies. The company I work for is currently investigating how to reduce LLM spend, not looking to spend more. | |
| ▲ | dontlikeyoueith an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > OpenAI and Anthropic are heavily subsidizing their inference -- no wait, they are charging the most they can get away with before going public. Where is the truth? Both. They are charging the most they can get away with and that amount is still heavily subsidized by VC capital. | |
| ▲ | pimeys an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We pay by token at work. I just finished one session with Opus that was 4000 dollars. In about three days. Now that 200USD subscription starts to feel cheap... | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That would be about ~300 tok/s over 72 hours at Claude Fable output token prices? I'm not sure that this passes a sanity test. | | | |
| ▲ | rubyn00bie 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just outta curiosity, as I’ve never gotten a spend anywhere near that, what variant were you using? Like max context window and fast mode? Or was it just chugging along non stop for three days? | | |
| ▲ | pimeys 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Fast mode max content window. The task was: replace all 1600+ queries from one database to another and make the whole integration test pass. We did multiple passes, with different concerns when changing from database to another. My OpenCode session right now says $4,365.02. I haven't gotten close to this either before, but now we wanted to move fast because this branch gets conflicts all the time and we want to get over with the migration asap. |
|
| |
| ▲ | schaefer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on actual inference costs. There are huge numbers of users (myself included) that do have an exact idea of what inference costs on open models. Because we can buy tokens from 3rd parties that have no motivation to subsidize our use. That's to say, there's a fair marketplace[1] and we're hanging out there. If you want to say "I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on actual inference costs on these proprietary/closed models", then I could agree with that. [1]: https://openrouter.ai/rankings#leaderboard | |
| ▲ | logicchains an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We have a firm grasp on actual inference costs from the various open weights model providers on OpenRouter. They don't have the money to subsidize inference and it's quite a competitive market, so the prices are representative of the costs. | |
| ▲ | MichaelMedbed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | kllrnohj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | regardless of whether that's true or not, US companies doing hosted inference of the models coming out of China are also significantly cheaper than those from OpenAI or Anthropic | |
| ▲ | polski-g 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not relevant to the post. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pyeri 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My bet is they'll keep subsidizing for a considerable period of time, at least 1-2 decades more. Most AI companies are just testing the waters with paid tiers right now, their greatest fear with increased pricing is folks reverting back to wikipedia, stack-overflow and other public domain organic activity buzzing back to life; that will kill any RoI potential in LLMs forever. They're playing the wait game instead, observing how the digital sphere reacts to every little increase in price. If that weren't the case, they'd be pricing at lucrative premiums and even gotten away in short-term considering the increased dependency in the enterprise world. But that'd be like killing for the golden egg too soon and losing all long-term potential. Once the folks are so addicted to LLMs that even writing a hello world program sounds like a nightmare and coming up with an article draft feels like reinventing Egyptian glyphs, that's when the real pricing hammer will come. | | |
| ▲ | wsatb 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Anthropic and OpenAI won't be around in 1-2 decades if this is their long term plan. People are not going to revert, but go elsewhere. China is proving that it can be done cheaper. |
| |
| ▲ | gck1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nothing is subsidized. Subscriptions are profitable for both Anthropic and OpenAI. Anthropic wanting to switch billing to API rates is them just wanting to generate more profit. | | |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Nothing is subsidized. Subscriptions are profitable for both Anthropic and OpenAI. Even if subscriptions are locally profitable (i. e., the cost of the subscription covers the cost of inference), they're still subsidized because they don't cover training and running the company; otherwise, these companies would be profitable. | | |
| ▲ | gck1 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I can see that being true, and it very likely is true. But isn't infinite VC money and no incentives to optimize operations the reason behind that? Take a look at China for example - they have no access to NVIDIA, so they're trying to build their own hardware, they have no unlimited funding, so they try to optimize things. And Anthropic is complete opposite of that - if NVIDIA were to triple their prices tomorrow, Anthropic would still pay them. In the end, either we all somehow go mad and start paying Anthropic tens of thousands of dollars per month so support this madness, or we will go with whoever isn't lighting cash on fire. | | |
| ▲ | re-thc 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Take a look at China for example - they have no access to NVIDIA Not true. Stop following US media spam if needed. 1. Very recently, the US did close a loophole on sanctions that allowed Chinese companies to use NVIDIA hardware outside of China i.e. before that was closed they all had access. The trick was train outside, do adjustments, ship the disks back and use non-NVIDIA in China, but at least the training and endpoints not hosted in China could all use NVIDIA. 2. There's been plenty of reports including fines and bans e.g. to Supermicro on smuggling NVIDIA hardware to China. I doubt it has been stopped. You can't catch everyone. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wsatb 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Nothing is subsidized" is a wild take. They might be making money on some users, perhaps even most users, but certainly not all. Also, "subsidized" doesn't just mean on compute. | |
| ▲ | y1n0 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's interesting. Do you have anything to back that claim up? | | |
| ▲ | gck1 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I do, and it's called DeepSeek's pricing table. At the same time, "subscriptions are subsidized" cohort have no data whatsoever, and yet they're in every thread. Granted, it could still mean that Anthropic just chooses to lose money - but that's Anthropic's choice. DeepSeek has proven that inference can be much, much cheaper than what Anthropic advertises on their API rates page. | | |
| ▲ | nickthegreek 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Granted, it could still mean that Anthropic just chooses to lose money - Then the cost is being subsidized by investor capital, but it is still subsidized. |
|
| |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Nothing is subsidized" So they are profitable? I think you are mismatching accounting terms. You can't say the 'subscriptions' are profitable without accounting for the cost of making the model that is the source of the subscription. They are heavily subsidized by the shareholders. Investing, running at a loss, with hope of some future profitability. | | |
| ▲ | gck1 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And yet, that is completely uninteresting to their user base. If saner factory can sell you the same tool at a fraction of the cost of a gold plated factory, your choice is going to be obvious. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm planning on switching from the $20/month to the $100/month plan. It's worth it, and I can afford it, but I am not really the right type of user for token-based usage. It's all for personal and free work. | | |
| ▲ | micah94 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Just a personal anecdote but I have not hit any more thresholds or limits since switching to the MAX plan and so far, it's been worth it. But I do wonder how long even this will last... | | |
| ▲ | ygjb an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think subscription models are sustainable, but longer term, we should probably expect to see more prompt optimization happening in the providers inference pipeline. For example, unless you explicitly tell the agent or API to use a specific model, fronting the inference layer with a caching prompt classifier to determine which model to use, and automatically select the lowest cost model would probably already save alot of money (IDK if Claude/OpenAI do this on the backend, but several services I have worked on do some things like this to reduce costs of delivery customer facing inference at scale). | | |
| ▲ | Majromax an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > fronting the inference layer with a caching prompt classifier to determine which model to use, and automatically select the lowest cost model would probably already save alot of money Unfortunately, that doesn't work within a single session. The K-V cache of a model is intertwined with the model's configuration. Switching models invalidates the cache, meaning everything up to the point of the switchover is processed like a new, uncached input token. Per Anthropic's pricing doc, an Opus 4.8 cache hit costs 50¢/MTok, while Haiku costs $1/MTok for uncached input. Model selection works best if sessions are short and self-contained, particularly if the first few interactions can reliably classify the model need. That probably covers most 'support chatbot' use-cases, but it doesn't describe the kinds of heavy agentic automation that really chews through token budgets. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > The K-V cache of a model is intertwined with the model's configuration. I don't think this is true if you simply quantize the model or run it with fewer active experts? The underlying weights would stay the same. You could also play further tricks with skipping some of the model's middle layers outright, which works surprisingly well due to how skip connections are used. | |
| ▲ | ygjb an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a definite financial incentive for people smarter than me to solve the problem, and I don't generally bet against businesses finding ways to reduce costs :) |
| |
| ▲ | wahnfrieden an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | ChatGPT does this and codex will eventually. They’ve stated it’s the future. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rnxrx an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have the $100 plan and had almost never run out of credits until I started using the ultracode / workstreams feature w/Opus 4.8..at which point I managed to blow the full 6 hour allocation in like 20 minutes, or so. In fairness, it did some amazing things with the extracted information, but it also strongly suggested that I'd need the $200 subscription *plus* a budget for extra usage. |
| |
| ▲ | andai an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | A few weeks ago they massively cut usage on free tier. |
|
|
| ▲ | cortesoft 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have been using both codex and Claude in my day to day, trying to not get to attached to one. I want to be able to work with any provider in case one of them does something bad. |
|
| ▲ | rvshchwl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've found Codex to be the better subscription for OpenClaw, because the limits are indeed very generous. However, I've found more and more that Claude Routines/Scheduled agents can replace all the tasks I use OpenClaw for, so I've been slowly switching over to Claude Code. Aside from OpenClaw, I don't find a lot of value in Codex as a harness on it's own. |
|
| ▲ | knuckleheads 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I feel like Codex made a big push to run everything on your laptop. With Claude, I get 4 cpu's, a fair amount of ram and 30gb for every one of my dumb ideas for free in the cloud containers. Codex used to be similar, but last time I tried it just kept pushing me to run it locally on my laptop, which I really did not want to do with 20 requests going at once. That's the main advantage for me at the moment. |
| |
| ▲ | simjnd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What runs in cloud containers? The dev servers, builds, etc.? I tried to quickly glance at the Claude website and it doesn't mention cloud containers on their pricing page. | |
| ▲ | zhshhan an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | "cloud containers" do you mean Claude Code on the web? Codex also has similar Codex cloud. | | |
| ▲ | knuckleheads 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, correct, they both have the same capabilities, however it felt like codex was pushing me harder to use my local desktop in an annoying way, while claude code was happy to spin up a bunch of dev containers for me in the cloud. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | supertroop an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you use a token service like open router or just subscribe to / unsubscribe from various models sequentially? |
|
| ▲ | rekttrader 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wait till you kick the tires of Qwen Coder. |
|
| ▲ | efromvt 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I do slightly prefer 5.5 for complex work but Claude quota usage has gotten infinitely better since the dark days a few months back - has gone from being infuriating to something I pretty much don’t have to worry about with it as a daily driver. (In fact, hitting GPT weekly quotas is more annoying now). Understand if people are still scarred by the issues + poor comms around them, though. |
|
| ▲ | dd8601fn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have trouble justifying gpt after that gross stuff with the war department. Though the day is coming when there’s no distinguishing, I’m sure. |
| |
| ▲ | beering an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Right now there are Anthropic engineers deployed in the NSA to help them use their cyber models. The NSA is part of the department of war. | |
| ▲ | lovich an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | pedantically, the defense department. | | |
| ▲ | jcbrand 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | "War department" is the older name, not "Defense department". Also, is it really a defense department when you're starting wars of aggression every 15 years or so? | | |
| ▲ | derektank 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The War Department has not existed since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947 and the government department has been known as the Department of Defense under US law since the act was amended in 1949. If you have an issue with it, take it up with Congress. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | shimman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I've only ever had the $20 month claude plan but last night took the time to setup opencode + openrouter paying for deepseek + glm. Previous experience, while extremely awkward, I'd hit my limit within one or two chat replies and it'd take me like 4 limit cycles to complete my task. Now I'm able to complete an equivalent task entire task for less than $2 in two cycles (ask -> revise). I'm doing basic web development here utilizing animejs. Nothing too complicated (mostly saving time doing the scaffolding, still write the bulk of animations manually). Truly believe that American companies are going to get completely curb stomped by China due to greed, ineptitude, and violating the social contract. |
| |
| ▲ | simjnd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've switched from OpenRouter to using Deepseek directly from their platform since OpenRouter providers were pretty flaky and inconsistent. Deepseek V4 Flash is suprisingly capable and insanely cheap. It takes so much to get the session cost to get to $0.01. | | |
| ▲ | efromvt a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | The openrouter provider flakiness with deepseek was infuriating, but I’m happy in hindsight because direct deepseek has been very pleasant. Shocked by how low spend is. |
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > and violating the social contract. I agree with you on pricing, but what do you mean by this? | | |
| ▲ | shimman an hour ago | parent [-] | | Sure, modern American corporations care more about hoarding wealth rather than helping build up US society. Once neoliberalism became the mainstay economic position of the US income inequality has skyrocketed, healthcare costs have increased, childcare is more expensive than university, housing has become both unaffordable + unobtainable. By simply existing costs have increased while life becomes unstable. Why aren't corporations doing more to help workers with childcare? Why aren't they doing more profit sharing with workers? Why aren't they encouraging unions or sectorial bargaining? Why isn't the government mandating any of this? Americans very rarely benefit when US corporations do well. That needs to change. No one benefits if Meta continues making billions in profit every quarter while society suffers from isolation, depression, suicide, and scams from their services. Americans don't benefit if health insurance companies are making massive profits while they can't afford deductibles. Our society has been setup to simply extract wealth in all facets of life. That's a sick society and it needs to change. I'm not saying China does this better, in fact China has some of the worse worker rights out of all the industrialized countries; but at least American consumers would benefit from cheaper higher quality Chinese goods. The world would likely benefit too if America got off the cold war hype train that did nothing to benefit humanity outside of those making weapon systems. | | |
| ▲ | joxdosba an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Why aren't corporations doing more to help workers with childcare? Why aren't they doing more profit sharing with workers? The AI companies sure are a brilliant example of corporations needing to do more to help their employees pay for childcare. | | |
| ▲ | idiotsecant 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's more useful to everyone when you engage with the strongest part of someone's argument |
|
|
|
|