ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month • Hacker News Board

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#231

Post by aryehof » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 5:22 AM UTC

tedsanders wrote: post #68

irishcoffee wrote: post #43

Earlier 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…

Did you modify the Plus plans usage recently or as part of this introduction? Given that Pro plans usage are multiples of it (5x/20x) and given reports of less Plus usage, clarification would be appreciated?

Transparency on this sort of thing is the best way to address negative company sentiment.

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#232

Post by Gud » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 5:53 AM UTC

pdntspa wrote: post #138

dweekly wrote: post #111

Earlier 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 can tell it to be no nonsense

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#233

Post by tedsanders » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 6:13 AM UTC

aryehof wrote: post #231

tedsanders wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did you modify the Plus plans usage recently or as part of this introduction? Given that Pro plans usage are multiples of it (5x/20x) and given reports of less Plus usage, clarification would be appreciated? Transparency on this sort of thing is the best way to address negative company sentiment.

I'm honestly not sure, as I don't work on it. My understanding from afar is:

- There was a 2x promotion in March that ended on April 2, so limits have felt tighter since then

- We sometimes reset rate limits after bugs or milestones or because Tibo feels generous, which can make some days feel different than others (they are typically announced here: https://x.com/thsottiaux)

- Recently Plus was tweaked to have a smaller 5h limit but an increased weekly limit

- Lastly, as part of the new Pro launch, the $100 & $200 Pro tiers are getting a 2x promotion, meaning they are temporarily 10x/40x instead of 5x/20x

I've asked our team to clarify the pricing page. Agree it's not clear.

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#234

Post by krackers » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 6:35 AM UTC

bob1029 wrote: post #158

rolls-reus wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you explain what you mean by symbolic recursion tricks in this context?

The model can call a copy of itself as a tool (i.e., we maintain actual stack frames in the hosting layer). Explicit tools are made available: Call(prompt) & Return(result). The user's conversation happens at level 0. Any actual tool use is only permitted at stack depths > 0. When the model calls the Return tool at stack depth 0 we end that logical turn of conversation and the argument to the tool is presented to the…

How is this different from a standard tool-call agentic loop, or subagents?

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#235

Post by bob1029 » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 6:46 AM UTC

krackers wrote: post #234

bob1029 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The model can call a copy of itself as a tool (i.e., we maintain actual stack frames in the hosting layer). Explicit tools are made available: Call(prompt) & Return(result). The user's conversation happens at level 0. Any actual tool use is only permitted at stack depths > 0. When the model calls the Return tool at stack depth 0 we end that logical turn of conversation and the argument to the tool is presented to the…

How is this different from a standard tool-call agentic loop, or subagents?

Each stack frame has its own isolated context. This pushes the token pressure down the stack. The top level conversation can go on for days in this arrangement. There is no need for summarization or other tricks.

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#236

Post by simianwords » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 7:22 AM UTC

pseudosavant wrote: post #183

simianwords wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think pro is really subsidised and they don't want to encourage it in the harness.

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#237

Post by krackers » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 7:27 AM UTC

bob1029 wrote: post #235

krackers wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different from a standard tool-call agentic loop, or subagents?

Each stack frame has its own isolated context. This pushes the token pressure down the stack. The top level conversation can go on for days in this arrangement. There is no need for summarization or other tricks.

Is this related to the paper on Recursive Language Models? I remember it mentioned something similar about "symbolic recursion", but the way you describe it makes it sound too simple, why is there an entire paper about it?

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#238

Post by Brosper » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 7:43 AM UTC

It's the end of cheap AI. (It's my opinion.)

It helps them cut the subsidization of tokens. Then they will release Pro x2, which could be the same as the old $200 but with fewer tokens.

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#239

Post by bob1029 » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 7:50 AM UTC

krackers wrote: post #237

bob1029 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each stack frame has its own isolated context. This pushes the token pressure down the stack. The top level conversation can go on for days in this arrangement. There is no need for summarization or other tricks.

Is this related to the paper on Recursive Language Models? I remember it mentioned something similar about "symbolic recursion", but the way you describe it makes it sound too simple, why is there an entire paper about it?

The RLM paper did inspire me to try it. This is where the term comes from. "Symbolic" should be taken to mean "deterministic" or "out of band" in this context. A lot of other recursive LLM schemes rely on the recursion being in the token stream (i.e.. "make believe you have a call stack and work through this problem recursively"). Clearly this pales in comparison to actual recursion with a real stack.

Re: ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month

#240

Post by arw0n » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:58 AM UTC

Apr1026 wrote: post #224

mrdependable wrote: post #107

It's interesting seeing all the ChatGPT users in this thread, knowing what we know about OpenAI. Either they don't care about what OpenAI does, don't know their reputation, or feel like their use is too insignificant to matter.

There is a saying in India that roughly translates to - Everyone is naked in this bath house. All AI players are 50 shades of evil and are only concerned about their profits. Instead of virtue signaling it's best to use the tools that work best for your needs.

This is moral relativism at its finest, and just plain wrong. I'm not willing to go so far as to call Anthropic a good player, but they are surprisingly often willing to put their money where their mouth is. Obviously everything can be interpreted as a PR move as well, but we just lack context to know true intentions. Personally I have repeatedly sold being a good org as a PR move, it is the easiest way to do good in a capitalist environment. The success of such a sales pitch significantly relies on the moral values (or lack thereof) of the other decision makers at the company.

With Project Glasswing for example, I'm impressed at how generally well thought out it is, and very much appreciate that they donate a lot of money to OSS. I would have liked them to extend the Project to smaller players as well, but power centralisation is an inherent problem of AI, not something that is unique to Anthropic.