Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you currently can't use pro inside codex, or can you?
Good question. I'd hope/expect that you could, but that doesn't mean much.
no you can't use pro in the harness.
ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
181–190 of 262 posts
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know game theory? If you look at it through this perspective this doesn't sound like a good strategy. Basically the classical prisoner dilemma. The other devs with less moral can then outperform you. It could be a valid strategy if you can increase your crediblity with this relinquishment.
Life is more than just empty status games and money hoarding at (almost) all cost. In fact, a good life lived well (TM) is anything but that. But I write this on mostly US forum full of faangs and similar so i dont expect strong agreement.
Someone who is never rational is equally bad as someone who claims there is nothing else in humans.
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question. I'd hope/expect that you could, but that doesn't mean much.
no you can't use pro in the harness.
That is disappointing. I find myself mostly using Codex these days. ChatGPT still for one off questions/prompts, but usually complex problems require context, like files and tools I already have on my system, and Codex is way better for that.
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#184Very good move. In my experience, for system programming at least, GPT 5.4 xhigh is vastly superior to Claude Opus 4.6 max effort. I ran many brutal tests, including reconstructing for QEMU the SCSI controller (not longer accessible) of a SVSY UNIX of the early 90s used in a 386. Side by side, always re-mirroring the source trees each time one did a breakthrough in the implementation. Well, GPT 5.4 single handed did…
My non scientific tests has been that GPT models follow the prompts literally. Every time I give it an example, it uses the example in literal sense instead of using it to enhance its understanding of the ask. This is a good thing if I want it to follow instructions but bad if I want it to be creative. I have to tell it that the examples I gave are just examples and not to be used in output. I feel comfortable using…
This is also what I noticed.
GPT doesn't know how to get creative, you need to tell it exactly what to do and what code you want it to write.
For Claude you can be more general and it will look up solutions for you outside of the scope you gave it.
I presonaly prefer Claude.
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT 5.4 is the surly physics PhD post-doc who slowly and angrily sits in a basement to write brilliant, undocumented, uncommented code that encapsulates a breakthrough algorithm. Opus 4.6 is the L5 new hire SWE keen to prove their chops and quickly turn out totally reasonable code with putatively defensible reasons for doing it that way (that are sometimes tragically wrong) and then catch an after-work yoga class wit…
Who replies to you with fucking emoji brainrot
You are absolutely right!
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, reading the tea leaves, they're either losing subscribers for the $200 plan, or they're not following the same hockey stick path of growth they thought they were... maybe? Edit: I wonder if this is actually compute-bound as the impetus
Nope, it's just that a lot of people (especially those using Codex) asked us for a medium-sized $100 plan. $20 felt too restrictive and $200 felt like a big jump. Pricing strategy is always a bit of an art, without a perfect optimum for everyone: - pay-per-token makes every query feel stressful - a single plan overcharges light users and annoyingly blocks heavy users - a zillion plans are confusing / annoying to navi…
Thanks for the response. I tried to phrase my postulations as just that, I didn’t intend to be an accusatory.
You like the job? How’s the day-to-day go? Yanking tickets or more organic?
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said I still use Copilot as needed, I just don't trust Claude to go off on its own and generate a mountain of technical debt that I can't 100% trust. To use your own analogy, there's plenty of carpenters still around for when someone needs something doing properly and bespoke, even though we can all go to Ikea, or any other flat pack furniture company, to get wobbly furniture cheaply at any time. I'd rather be…
You're offering to deliver parcels by horse - thinking that somehow your 'delivering is better because it's more natural' and that your customers will appreciate it, over the 'smog' that the cars create. Or in other words - 'non existent'. It is arrogant and luddite to suggest that 'using AI is not doing it properly' or that anyone will care. They care that it's done well - that's it. FYI, the code that AI produces i…
I really don't understand why you people always say these things so matter of factly. I'd put a lot of money (and do, in the markets) on you being wrong. I'm pretty sure in ten years I will not have a problem keeping a software job without using AI.
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#188I’ve used both a fair amount, and for actual coding work I still prefer Codex over Opus.
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#189I wish these plans had burst mode where I could set default plan size and max plan size and just scale up for a month automatically if needed but automatically drop back to my default plan at the next billing cycle
I was going to say they have that, but it looks like they only have that for teams, not individuals: https://openai.com/index/codex-flexible-pricing-for-teams/
Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it’s worth, I cancelled my ChatGPT subscription, and every time I try debugging a Linux system issue, I feel sad that Claude is sooooooo confidently bad at it. Claude is noticeably poor for my use case on this particular issue. That said, I imagine I’m not alone in refusing to continue paying OpenAI. We’re in for a wild ride.
Do you know game theory? If you look at it through this perspective this doesn't sound like a good strategy. Basically the classical prisoner dilemma. The other devs with less moral can then outperform you. It could be a valid strategy if you can increase your crediblity with this relinquishment.
> Do you know game theory?
Never heard of it. The food there good?
> The other devs with less moral can then outperform you.
I long for the days where it’s only my moral compass holding me back.