Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
desktopcommander.app
Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
1–10 of 10 posts
Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#2Part of it tracks how many tokens you actually get from various subscriptions, over time.
Past week, multiple people asked me about it — they'd been hitting Claude and Codex limits faster than expected.
Ran the tests yesterday. Reran today. Here's what came back: ▸ ChatGPT Plus / GPT-5.5: 95M → 37M tokens/week (−61%) ▸ Claude Max 20× / Sonnet 4.6: 388M → 214M (−45%) ▸ Claude Max 20× / Opus 4.7: 248M → 162M (−35%) ▸ Claude Pro / Sonnet 4.6: 19.6M → 11.4M (−42%) ▸ Claude Pro / Opus 4.7: 15.6M → 10.2M (−35%)
5 of 5 retested plans dropped 35-61% in five days. None went up.
Anyone else seeing similar in their own usage?
Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#3Building a tool to compare value across LLM provider options. Part of it tracks how many tokens you actually get from various subscriptions, over time. Past week, multiple people asked me about it — they'd been hitting Claude and Codex limits faster than expected. Ran the tests yesterday. Reran today. Here's what came back: ▸ ChatGPT Plus / GPT-5.5: 95M → 37M tokens/week (−61%) ▸ Claude Max 20× / Sonnet 4.6: 388M → 2…
>Value over time by provider
Via a #fragment at the end of your url. It looks like you're selling me something at the top of the page so I can see how you were flagged dead.
Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#4Is the AI itself degrading? Or is it because of product-policy changes, such as system prompt modifications and usage limits? Or is it both?
I sometimes wonder whether degradation is simply an inherent property of LLMs themselves.
Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#5Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#6Not a criticism of this project — it's a good idea, it just highlights the central question of "how well is this model working?" I'm not sure it's so straightforward.
Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#7"Quality metrics" need much more discussion and attention, in my opinion. Not a criticism of this project — it's a good idea, it just highlights the central question of "how well is this model working?" I'm not sure it's so straightforward.
But that is huge and expensive project. Only "approximation" I could pull of reasonably to get this started was to use benchmark scores as "surrogate" for that.
But working on a way to get this going. If you have additional thoughts on how to approach this I it would be super valuable.
Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#8AI always seems to perform best on the first day after release, and then its performance gradually declines. Is the AI itself degrading? Or is it because of product-policy changes, such as system prompt modifications and usage limits? Or is it both? I sometimes wonder whether degradation is simply an inherent property of LLMs themselves.
They use these releases to get users. When they got them they can play around with "degrading" model just enough not to loose users but save on costs. It sadly kinda makes sense...
Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#9so happy clang's output is consistently great
Re: Both Codex and Claude got worse this week. Across every plan I retested
#10Building a tool to compare value across LLM provider options. Part of it tracks how many tokens you actually get from various subscriptions, over time. Past week, multiple people asked me about it — they'd been hitting Claude and Codex limits faster than expected. Ran the tests yesterday. Reran today. Here's what came back: ▸ ChatGPT Plus / GPT-5.5: 95M → 37M tokens/week (−61%) ▸ Claude Max 20× / Sonnet 4.6: 388M → 2…
Vouched you. Side note: Perhaps include anchor tags with IDs so you can skip to a section like >Value over time by provider Via a #fragment at the end of your url. It looks like you're selling me something at the top of the page so I can see how you were flagged dead.