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

131–140 of 241 posts

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#131

Post by computerex »

selcuka wrote: post #111
computerex wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Model selection for day to day tasks based on vibes is not very scientific. Micromanaging the model doesn't seem like a great idea when doing real professional work with professional goals/deadlines/pressures.

> Micromanaging the model doesn't seem like a great idea when doing real professional work with professional goals/deadlines/pressures. Remember that it's not only the cost per token, but also speed. Some tasks are done faster with simpler/less-thinking models, so it might actually make sense to micromanage the model when you have deadlines.

If you're using the models to generate 99%-100% of the code, then it doesn't make sense to plug yourself into the loop as a bottleneck.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#132

Post by [deleted] »

timr wrote: post #70
alexaholic wrote: post #28

I have a GitHub Pro subscription, renewed for the 2nd year, and I just found out I can no longer use Opus with it. Opus was one of the reasons I had a subscription in the first place. Opus 4.6 had a 3x multiplier in Pro. Now the new Opus 4.7 model has 7.5x in Pro+, which offers 5x more requests, but costs 4x more than Pro. So now Opus is essentially 2x the price it used to be. It’s likely that Sonnet 4.7 will be the…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#133

Post by maxloh »

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.

Some Opus models were free on Copilot, and in my country you cannot attach a repo to Gemini, that is limited to their premium offerings.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#134

Post by ignoramous »

davepeck wrote: post #8

This thread is pretty quiet for what strikes me as a substantial set of changes with, presumably, more substantial changes still to come for anyone not grandfathered into a Pro plan. I get the impression that the intersection of HN posters and Copilot users is quite small in practice; that Claude Code and Codex suck up all the oxygen in this room. But it seems plausible we’ll see similar “true costs greatly exceed ou…

> But it seems plausible we’ll see similar "true costs greatly exceed our current subscription pricing" from Anthropic and OpenAI someday soon

Enterprise might stick around, but individually, I reckon the developers will flock to OpenCode + open weights (Qwen/GLM/Codestral). The problem then is, if the open weight models impress these new adopters, they will shout about it from rooftops (conferences, social media, blogs) in unison, which might result in an exodus. Especially troublesome considering developers are a major market for both frontier labs (Anthropic & OpenAI) & its IPO ambitions.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#135

Post by Aurornis »

jimberlage wrote: post #87
plasma_beam wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you’re a vscode user up until a couple days ago you could hammer Opus 4.6 all day every day and pay nowhere close to the Claude Max plan. Many people exploited this and the subsidy is closing.

Yeah this was me. I just got a message that I hit my limit and now I am looking into what it takes to run Qwen on local hardware.

A suggestion: Don't invest in any new hardware to run an LLM locally until you've tried the model for a while through OpenRouter.

The Qwen models are cool, but if you're coming from Opus you will be somewhere between mildly to very disappointed depending on the complexity of your work.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#136

Post by Aurornis »

timr wrote: post #70
alexaholic wrote: post #28

I have a GitHub Pro subscription, renewed for the 2nd year, and I just found out I can no longer use Opus with it. Opus was one of the reasons I had a subscription in the first place. Opus 4.6 had a 3x multiplier in Pro. Now the new Opus 4.7 model has 7.5x in Pro+, which offers 5x more requests, but costs 4x more than Pro. So now Opus is essentially 2x the price it used to be. It’s likely that Sonnet 4.7 will be the…

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…

> 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 large, realistic codebase, and I can count the number of times I needed to use Opus on one hand. Most of the time, Haiku is fine. About 10% of the time I splurge for Sonnet, and honestly, even some of those are unnecessary.

You and I couldn't have more different experiences. Opus 4.7 on the max setting still gets lost and chokes on a lot of my tasks.

I switch to Sonnet for simpler tasks like refactoring where I can lay out all of the expectations in detail, but even with Opus 4.7 I can often go through my entire 5-hour credit limit just trying to get it to converge on a reasonable plan. This is in a medium size codebase.

For the people putting together simple web apps using Sonnet with a mix of Haiku might be fine, but we have a long way to go with LLMs before even the SOTA models are trustworthy for complex tasks.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#137

Post by Aurornis »

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 use models from Opus through Haiku and down into Qwen locally hosted models.

I don't know how anyone could believe that Haiku is useful for most engineering tasks. I often try to have it take on small tasks in the codebase with well defined boundaries to try to conserve my plan limits, but half the time I end up disappointed and feeling like I wasted more time than I should have.

The differences between the models is vast. I'm not even sure how you could conclude that Haiku is usable for most work, unless you have a very different type of workload than what I work on.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#138

Post by sassymuffinz »

everfrustrated wrote: post #3

This is quite the rug pull. I've been using the Pro+ with Opus 4.6 very successfully and being charged 3x rate was mostly acceptable. But removing Opus 4.6 and replacing with Opus 4.7 with a 7x rate is just insane!

I got in there quick yesterday with a refund once they pulled 4.6 and got my last month of about 1200 premium prompts free, nice.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#139

Post by fy20 »

timr wrote: post #70
alexaholic wrote: post #28

I have a GitHub Pro subscription, renewed for the 2nd year, and I just found out I can no longer use Opus with it. Opus was one of the reasons I had a subscription in the first place. Opus 4.6 had a 3x multiplier in Pro. Now the new Opus 4.7 model has 7.5x in Pro+, which offers 5x more requests, but costs 4x more than Pro. So now Opus is essentially 2x the price it used to be. It’s likely that Sonnet 4.7 will be the…

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 the reason is two fold:

- If you pay for unlimited trips will you choose the Ferrari or the old VW? Both are waiting outside your door, ready to go.

- Providers that let you choose models don't really price much difference between lower class models. On my grandfathered Cursor plan I pay 1x request to use Composer 2 or 2x request to use Opus 4.6. Until the price is more differentiated so people can say "ok yes Opus is smarter, but paying 10x more when Haiku would do the same isn't worth it" it won't happen.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#140

Post by rafaelmn »

> it’s now common for a handful of requests to incur costs that exceed the plan price

Pricing per turn/request was/is an idiotic model and I'm glad they are paying for it. It just forces you into a workflow just to work around business model. Heck the best laugh would be to create a plan outside vscode with interactive CC/Codex then copy paste into GH copilot to do a single session burn of few M tokens.

Again ridiculous model.

Post reply on HN