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.

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.

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.

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...

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!

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.

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.

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

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.