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

171–180 of 241 posts

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#171

Post by adonese »

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,

While I agree with the sentiment, I think that might have been initially driven by older models being nerfed and/or newer ones were better at token/$. And there is this notion that those labs don't constraint the model on the first days after its release.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#172

Post by chillfox »

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 know what they have done to Claude, but when using through copilot it's truly awful compared to using it straight from the API.

I have always just used the API, but I decided to give copilot a go on the weekend because of the cheap price. And I am seeing weird behavior like I have never seen before... It will somehow fail to use the file editing tool and then spend an absolutely huge amount of time/tokens building a python script to apply the edit in a sub process... And it will spin it's wheels on stuff the API routinely just gets right in one shot.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#173

Post by neya »

HumanOstrich wrote: post #153
hx8 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. Github Copilot is mostly for organizations that have an existing Azure bill and would rather see that go up then get a new vendor bill. Professional middlemen.

[flagged]

> Learning the difference isn't hard.

I get your frustration, and it pisses me off too, but no need to be rude to the commenter to get your point across.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#174

Post by kelnos »

HumanOstrich wrote: post #153
hx8 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. Github Copilot is mostly for organizations that have an existing Azure bill and would rather see that go up then get a new vendor bill. Professional middlemen.

[flagged]

It technically does indeed matter, because "then" means a totally different thing in that sentence, but using "then" in that way would be an odd enough way to construct that sentence that it's blindingly obvious that they meant "than".

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#175

Post by ieie3366 »

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…

They are for large corps with bureaucracy, big spend on anthropic is difficult to get approved but microsoft services get greenlit instantly

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#176

Post by barnabee »

omcnoe wrote: post #115
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 found the Copilot harness generally more buggy/disfunctional. After seeing a "long" agent response get dropped (still counts against usage of course) too many times I gave up on the product. It doesn't matter how competent the actual model is, or how long it's able to operate independently, if the harness can't handle it and drops responses. Made me think are they even using their own harness? At least Anthropic is…

I only ever used Copilot through OpenCode and for a while it was a crazy good deal. Quite possibly two orders of magnitude cheaper than API credits.

It was great while it lasted.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#177

Post by krzyk »

Aurornis wrote: post #137
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 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…

I use Haiku frequently, and for my codebase it is working fine.

But I'm not vibecoding, I don't let models do large work or refactorings, this is just for some small boring tasks I don't want to do.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#178

Post by enraged_camel »

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.

>> Yeah, I hear that a lot, but it never comes with proof. Everyone is special.

You were the one who made the claim that Haiku is fine most of the time. To any reasonable person, the burden of proof is on you. Maybe you should share some high level details about your codebase, like its stack, size, problem domain, and so on? Maybe they are so generic that Haiku indeed does fine for you.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#179

Post by ncruces »

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.

The value add for me is that I can use the web UI to start chatting about and drafting stuff on my phone while I'm commuting to work.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#180

Post by ncruces »

selcuka wrote: post #73
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…

> 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.

I think Haiku is fine (e.g.) for any task that you could almost, but not quite, complete with (regex?) find and replace.

You give it 3 examples of the change you want, then ask it to do the other 87. You'll end up saving time and “money”.

Post reply on HN