Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 241 posts

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#91

Post by timr »

p1necone wrote: post #85
timr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the comments here drives home an industry wide problem with these tools: people are just using the latest and most expensive models because they can , and because they’re cargo-culting. This is perhaps the first time that software has had this kind of problem, and coders are not exactly demonstrating great discretionary decision making. I’ve been using Anthropic models exclusively for the last month on a larg…

I think it heavily depends on how you're using it. If you understand your codebase and you're using it like "build a function that does x in y file" then smaller/cheaper models are great. But if you're saying "hey build this relatively complex feature following the 30,000 foot view spec in this markdown doc" then Haiku doesn't work (unless your "complex feature" is just an api endpoint and some UI that consumes it).

I largely agree. But that goes back to my point (albeit with mixed metaphors): there are lots of people who are just hitting things with a jackhammer in lieu of understanding how to properly use a hammer.

I basically never just yolo large code changes, and use my taste and experience to guide the tools along. For this, Haiku is perfectly fine in nearly all circumstances.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#92

Post by bko »

hx8 wrote: post #54

I really dislike these AI middleman plans. The value-add that Microsoft brings to Github Copilot is near zero compared to directly buying from Anthropic or OpenAI, where 99% of the value is being delivered from. I don't understand why anyone would want to deal with Microsoft as a vendor if they don't have to. The short period of discounted usage was always the obvious rug pull.

I disagree. I like the standard interface, being able to easily switch models as things invariably change from week to week, and having a relationship with one company. That's why I'm a big fan of openrouter and Cursor. Not too much experience with Copilot, but I think there's a huge value add in AI middlemen.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#93

Post by girvo »

hypercube33 wrote: post #89
girvo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic literally just removed Claude Code from their Pro plan today, so you're even more right than you know.

Do you have a citation on this? I have a Claude Pro subscription and looked at the comparison page and it says this under Pro: Everything in Free and: Claude Code directly in your codebase Power through tasks with Cowork Higher usage limits Deep research and analysis Memory that carries across conversations

Go to the pricing page: https://claude.com/pricing

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#94

Post by rdiddly »

Marsymars wrote: post #59
hx8 wrote: post #54

I really dislike these AI middleman plans. The value-add that Microsoft brings to Github Copilot is near zero compared to directly buying from Anthropic or OpenAI, where 99% of the value is being delivered from. I don't understand why anyone would want to deal with Microsoft as a vendor if they don't have to. The short period of discounted usage was always the obvious rug pull.

> I don't understand why anyone would want to deal with Microsoft as a vendor if they don't have to. It can bill to our Azure sub and I don't have to go through the internal bureaucracy of purchasing a new product/service from a new vendor.

I would also add that the models they supply through Azure Foundry are covered under my employer's existing customer agreement, by which MS is not allowed to train models on our data (which might include IP of the company or its clients). For organizations worried about that, it's nice & cozy.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#95

Post by vially »

hypercube33 wrote: post #89
girvo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic literally just removed Claude Code from their Pro plan today, so you're even more right than you know.

Do you have a citation on this? I have a Claude Pro subscription and looked at the comparison page and it says this under Pro: Everything in Free and: Claude Code directly in your codebase Power through tasks with Cowork Higher usage limits Deep research and analysis Memory that carries across conversations

It was recently discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47855565

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#96

Post by girvo »

almyk wrote: post #64
girvo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude Pro no longer includes Claude Code

where have you read this? According to https://claude.com/pricing/pro it is included.

According to https://claude.com/pricing it no longer is. They’ve explicitly updated that page to exclude it (it was on there before)

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#97

Post by zdragnar »

timr wrote: post #79
selcuka wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the time, Haiku is fine. Haiku is most definitely not fine for the code bases that I work on. Sonnet is probably fine for most daily tasks, but Opus is still needed to find that pesky bug you've been chasing, or to thoroughly review your PR.

> Haiku is most definitely not fine for the code bases that I work on. Sonnet is probably fine for most daily tasks, but Opus is still needed to find that pesky bug you've been chasing, or to thoroughly review your PR. Yeah, I hear that a lot, but it never comes with proof. Everyone is special. I’m sure you’d find that Haiku is pretty functional if there were a constraint on your use.

I don't think it's really helpful to tell people they're holding it wrong, especially when you hear the problem a lot.

Maybe, just maybe, the tool isn't suitable for all problem spaces.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#99

Post by invalidSyntax »

rcleveng wrote: post #77
selcuka wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just use claude code directly with a pro plan Usage limits are/were higher in Copilot. They also charge per prompt, not per token.

Yes, I loved my $10 a month person subscription for light coding tasks, it worked great. I'd use claude code max for heavy lifting, but the $10 a month copilot plan kept me off cursor for the IDE centric things.

Me too. Claude isn't the best option when all you do is ask "what's this error message", every 10 minutes or so.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#100

Post by timr »

zdragnar wrote: post #97
timr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haiku is most definitely not fine for the code bases that I work on. Sonnet is probably fine for most daily tasks, but Opus is still needed to find that pesky bug you've been chasing, or to thoroughly review your PR. Yeah, I hear that a lot, but it never comes with proof. Everyone is special. I’m sure you’d find that Haiku is pretty functional if there were a constraint on your use.

I don't think it's really helpful to tell people they're holding it wrong, especially when you hear the problem a lot. Maybe, just maybe, the tool isn't suitable for all problem spaces.

> I don't think it's really helpful to tell people they're holding it wrong

I’m not saying that. If anything, it really doesn’t matter much what model you use, and it’s only a case of “you’re holding it wrong” in the sense that you have to use your brain to write code, and that if you outsource your thinking to a machine, that’s the fundamental mistake.

In other words, it’s a tool, not a magic wand. So yeah, you do have to understand how to use it, but in a fairly deterministic way, not in a mysterious woo-woo way.

Post reply on HN