Paraphrasing from README.md:

>Spent over $400,000 in API priced tokens with GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT 6 Astra. They wrote over 1.3m lines of Rust over multiple months of /goal loops and never got past like 84% compat.

Then they let Claude code lose on the problem:

> I figured it'd be fun to throw Opus 5.5 at this. It had a working v0 in 10 hours. I assumed it kept using the code the Codex models wrote. I was wrong. Opus 5.5 started from scratch. It got further than Astra in 1/10th the time.

In the warnings from README.md

> Also worth mentioning: I've never read a line of this code.

▲

xnorswap an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I've been rinsing Opus 5.5 and I've been unable to get over 20% of my plan usage, it seems to use a tiny fraction of the usage that Opus4.8 or 5.0 used.

I don't know if it's an accounting trick or genuinely less usage, but since 5.5 I've not had to think about limits at all.

▲

orthogonal_cube 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They spent over $400k for an experimental project and published it without reading a single line of code??

I am so confused about the motivation behind this.

▲

jckahn 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The motivation was to see the result. Why is reading the code an important concern?

▲

LelouBil 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They didnt actually spent 400k, that's in "API-priced" tokens, he spent ~$24,047

▲

orthogonal_cube 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Ok, that makes more sense. If the other comments are correct in saying this was done using a $200/mo personal subscription, I get this is more of a “what is possible, and how much would it cost without subsidized pricing” type of experiment. Thank you for clarifying on that.

▲

chasd00 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He didn’t spend that much either. That’s the equivalent API cost using his $200/month subscription. It took less than a day so I guess it cost about $7 in actual money.

▲

JBits 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How on earth does someone just randomly spend $20k? If he's not going to maintain the project, the whole thing seems completely pointless.

	▲	orthogonal_cube 29 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Looks like this is a company’s org which heavily relies on AI. Probably “the cost of doing business” and to see just what can be done with the new model.
	▲	Rapzid 31 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Youtuber. It's content.

▲

epolanski 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I am so confused about the motivation behind this

Seems obvious, experimenting with what it's possible with LLMs.

▲

nialv7 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

throw away $400k on a failed attempt is crazy...

▲

xedrac 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It wasn't $400k in real money.

▲

globular-toast an hour ago | parent [-]

What was it then? Who paid the $400k?

▲

true_religion an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's theoretical money, because he used multiple subscription accounts that would have cost $400k in token pricing, if he were going via the API.

	▲	globular-toast 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What the hell is "theoretical money"? It sounds like either OpenAI took the $400k hit, or their API pricing is utterly bonkers and therefore completely pointless to quote. It would be like me saying my car is worth $400k in theoretical money because, yeah, I'd totally sell it to you for $400k.

▲

dwattttt 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

No one. Quoting sibling, it would have been about $7 usage of a $200/month subscription.