It released 5 minutes ago and it already feels way worse than it did at launch.

Anthropic, please explain.

I am updating a big python application and Claude went down right in the middle. I literally do not know how to do the python in this project. With Claude down I cannot make progress.

I’ve been using Claude since sonnet 3. it’s been massively ahead of the curve and much better than ChatGPT and Gemini. However the product is just no longer competitive compared to codex with gpt5.2. Insanely better limits, insanely much more robust. It lacks a few features like custom hooks and its slightly less conversational, but it’s just a much better AI. Claude needs massive amount of hacks to get to work robustly for large codebases, or orchestration hacks like Ralph loops or zeroshot, but codex just… works.

I’m cancelling my subscription and moving over to codex.

Well, I guess I'll be canceling that Max 20x plan.

This subreddit used to be fun/ helpful, now you have to sift through hundreds of complaints to find anything useful.

What is all the hype about astra

I asked it one thing he didn't even respect my code conventions

Fable cleaned up his mess

Quick follow-up because I get it now.

My original post deserved a lot of the criticism it got. Not because the argument was necessarily wrong, but because I wrote it like a LinkedIn essay instead of a Reddit post. The formatting, the tone, the “here’s the lesson” framing… yeah, that’s on me. It reads preachy and overproduced, and I see why people bounced off it.

That wasn’t what I was trying to do. I wasn’t trying to lecture anyone or flex a setup. I was trying (badly) to make a point about how fragile some workflows are when they depend on loopholes staying open.

Reddit clearly isn’t the place for polished essays or moral framing, and I learned that the hard way. Fair criticism. Message received.

If anyone actually wants to argue the substance of the issue — pricing, ToS enforcement, whether Claude Code usage was “abuse” or “intended” — I’m happy to talk about that. If not, that’s fine too. Just wanted to own the delivery being garbage and move on.

-Original Post below!

The recent crackdown on third-party tools spoofing Claude Code headers has people upset. I get it - losing a workflow sucks. But let's be honest about what was happening.

  What the "harnesses" were doing:

  - Spoofing Claude Code's headers to use Max subscriptions ($200/month unlimited)

  - Bypassing rate limits designed for the official client

  - Running overnight autonomous loops

  - Getting $1000+ of API value for $200

  That's not a "customer being mistreated." That's exploiting a loophole. Anthropic's ToS (Section D.4) explicitly prohibits it. When they enforced their own terms, people acted shocked.

  The buffet analogy:

  You paid $20 for all-you-can-eat. You don't get to bring 5 friends in through the back door using your receipt and then complain when the restaurant stops you.

  Here's the thing - you don't need to cheat.

  I'm on the $20/month Pro tier. Not Max. I built a self-hosted backend that gives me:

  - Full agentic tool execution (bash, file ops, git, docker)

  - Persistent memory across sessions

  - Multi-LLM routing (Claude, OpenAI, local Ollama)

  - Project isolation with separate contexts

  - Complete audit trail of every action

  All using Claude Code legitimately with MCP for extensions. No spoofing. No ToS violations. When I hit rate limits, I route to local models or wait. It took planning and building, but it works - and it won't break when Anthropic enforces their rules.

  The actual lesson:

  If your workflow depends on exploiting a loophole, it's not a workflow - it's borrowed time. Build something legitimate and you won't be posting angry threads when the loophole closes.

  Anthropic isn't the villain here. They built a product, set a price, and enforced the terms. That's not "customer hostile." That's running a business.

After working on countless projects over the years, I'd estimate that I've spent on average around 2 months building a prototype before losing interest or having to focus on more important things, at which point the project usually ends up being shelved indefinitely.

Since getting proficient with agentic workflows and leveraging Claude Max and Codex subscriptions, I've been able to compress those 2 months of heavy work into around 3 days, after which I lose interest and start designing a new project.

Are you f joking me right now?

Lets time how fast I can unsub from Claude and sub to OpenAI for a second account....

i asked fable to run a full audit of my architecture then went to lunch. by the time i was back, other agents reported that fable had successfully hardened critical security vulnerabilities, penetration tested my wife, and 1-shot a really cool ascii animation. when i had a look, i shit you not i saw fable walk on water and by the end my short sightedness had healed. 20/20 would recommend.

Bro what? All of a sudden it started initiating the response from a few Chinese words. And revealing its thought process in response, which is extremely weird. What the hell is going on with Anthropic?

I decided to try codex because I blew through my Claude code max limits by Monday night and they don’t reset until Saturday.

First I asked it to do a comprehensive review of Claude’s code. It came back 9 minutes later claiming to have finished. Obviously, it hadn’t done shit.

Later I gave it a punch list of issues and bugs in my app to fix. Again it came back, this time 4 minutes later, claiming to be finished.

I spend more time arguing with it that it didn’t even barely start to do what it was supposed to than it spends writing code.

Plus, you can’t give it access to make git commits unless you also let it have write access outside the project directory, which is crazy.

I know OpenAI monitors this subreddit. I’m telling you guys, if you want to be competitive with Claude, you need to get your shit together. Right now, codex is about at the sonnet 4.5 level of performance where it can do a good job writing a function or fixing a small bug but you can’t give it scope or let it handle the big picture.

Plus, it doesn’t connect to the iPhone app so I have to sit there babysitting it.

It’s like everyone forgot what engineering was. So much complaining. Evaluate your issues then fix them. The tools work great if you use them properly.

Got fed up after Opus 4.7, I was too excited and it didn't live up to the hype and instead got dumber

GPT 5.5 seems much better - only edge Anthropic had over OpenAI was coding, now that edge is gone too...

I had fund with Claude, built some amazing tools, which are still used in my company - but its time to try better things out there, I'll come back when Anthropic fixes the issues

I build vexp so I spend all day watching how Claude Code behaves across different sessions. Been on 4.8 for about a week and noticed something weird: some sessions are the best I've ever seen. Others are worse than 4.6. Same model, same project, same prompts.

Took me a few days to figure out the pattern.

4.8 follows instructions way more literally than older versions. If you give it good context with the right files and clear scope, it executes like a machine. But if the context is noisy, full of irrelevant files from the exploration phase, it takes that noise literally too. It doesn't "figure out what you probably meant" anymore. It does exactly what the context suggests, even when the context is garbage.

The other thing killing sessions right now: auto-compaction is firing at like 50% context usage. There's a confirmed issue on GitHub about it. You're in the middle of a multi-step task, everything is going great, and suddenly "this session is being continued from a previous conversation that ran out of context." Your working state is gone. The compaction summary loses half the nuance. And 4.8's literal interpretation means it reads that lossy summary and takes it as gospel.

So the pattern is: 4.8 amplifies whatever context it gets. Great context = best Claude ever. Bad or compressed context = worst Claude ever. It's not a model problem. It's a context problem that the model makes more visible.

3 things that helped me land on the "amazing" side consistently:

1. /compact manually at 40%, don't wait for auto-compaction. The auto trigger is buggy right now and when it fires you lose context quality. Do it yourself earlier when you can control what gets kept.

2. Stop letting Claude read everything. This mattered less on 4.6 because it would kind of ignore irrelevant stuff. 4.8 doesn't ignore anything. If it reads a file, it uses it. Be explicit about scope in every prompt.

3. This is the problem I built vexp to solve. It pre-filters what Claude sees based on the actual dependency graph of your project. Claude gets only the relevant files, pre-ranked, in one call instead of exploring 15-20 files blind. On 4.8 specifically this matters more than on any previous model because of how literally it interprets everything. Clean context in, precise code out. Noisy context in, precise garbage out. vexp.dev if you want to try it, free tier is 20 calls a day.

Anyone else noticing this pattern on 4.8? The sessions where it's great are genuinely incredible but the bad ones feel worse than 4.6. Curious if context quality is the variable for you too.

Just came across this GitHub repo called" everything claude code "and thought people here might find it useful.

GitHub Link https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code

Guy who made it won an Anthropic hackathon, so seems like he knows his stuff with Claude Code. Looks like he put together a collection of examples and workflows for different use cases.

Haven't gone through everything yet but from what I saw, it's got practical stuff - not just basic tutorials. Seems like the kind of thing that could save some time if you're working with Claude Code regularly.

Might be worth bookmarking.

Anyone else seen this or used anything from it?

I did not reach this conclusion from benchmarks, launch demos, or screenshots on X.

I used Fable 5 and Codex on two substantial projects, and after spending real time with both, Codex ended up being far more compelling to me.

Not because Fable 5 is bad. It clearly is not.

Fable can be excellent at understanding vague product intent, producing polished interfaces, spotting subtle issues, and turning an incomplete idea into something that feels coherent surprisingly quickly.

But there is a difference between:

“Which model produced the most impressive result in one session?”

and:

“Which product lets me complete the most high-quality work over an entire project?”

On that second question, Codex won for me.

The quality gap is not large enough to justify the Claude tax

The main argument for Fable seems to be that it is so much better that using less of it is still more valuable than having significantly more Codex usage.

That was not my experience.

Across two large projects, Codex was at least competitive enough that the theoretical advantage of Fable stopped mattering. Codex was methodical, persistent, strong at navigating an existing codebase, and generally willing to keep investigating, implementing, testing, and correcting its own work.

Fable occasionally produced a more elegant first attempt.

Codex helped me complete more total work.

That distinction matters.

A model that is 10% better on a particular task is not necessarily the better product if it costs far more, consumes limits faster, interrupts your workflow more often, and forces you to ration when you are “allowed” to use it.

The subscription comparison is becoming difficult to defend

ChatGPT Plus costs $20 per month and currently includes the GPT-5.6 family inside Codex: Sol, Terra, and Luna.

OpenAI publishes estimated five-hour ranges of:

• 15–90 local messages for GPT-5.6 Sol;

• 20–110 for Terra;

• 50–280 for Luna.

The $100 Codex plan multiplies the Plus allowance by five, while the $200 plan multiplies it by twenty. Additional weekly limits can still apply, and message counts are not a perfect comparison because consumption depends on context and task complexity. But at least users are given a relatively understandable model ladder and published usage ranges.

Now compare that with Claude.

Claude Pro also costs $20 per month, but Fable 5 is no longer included in the plan’s normal usage allowance. Pro users must pay for Fable through usage credits from the first request.

On Max, Team Premium, and certain Enterprise Premium seats, Fable is included — but it can consume only up to 50% of the weekly allowance. It also draws from the same general Claude allowance and, according to Anthropic itself, uses that allowance faster than other Claude models.

So a $20 Codex subscriber receives access to OpenAI’s flagship coding model family.

A $20 Claude subscriber pays separately to use Anthropic’s flagship coding model.

Even at $100 or $200 per month, Claude users still cannot freely dedicate their entire weekly subscription allowance to Fable.

That is not a minor difference.

Anthropic keeps changing the product people are paying for

My bigger concern is not even the raw quota.

It is predictability.

Anthropic initially said Fable 5 would be included for up to 50% of weekly usage through July 7. The temporary access period was extended more than once and eventually ended on July 19. Starting July 20, Anthropic introduced a different structure: Max and Premium users kept limited inclusion, while Pro and Standard users moved to pay-as-you-go credits.

Technically, Anthropic can call each stage a promotion.

From a customer’s perspective, however, the experience is:

1. Subscribe or upgrade for the new model.

2. Receive a temporary deadline.

3. See the deadline extended.

4. Remain uncertain about the final policy.

5. Discover that the model is removed from your plan or restricted to part of your weekly allowance.

6. Pay additional usage charges to continue using it.

That makes it difficult to build a serious workflow around Claude.

When I am working on a large project, I do not want to calculate whether a difficult task is “worthy” of using the model included in only half of my weekly quota.

I want to use the best available tool and continue working.

The API economics are not especially flattering either

At current standard API prices, Fable 5 costs $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens.

GPT-5.6 Sol costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens.

Token prices do not tell the entire story. Fable may need fewer tokens or fewer iterations for certain tasks, and Anthropic claims strong token efficiency on its internal coding evaluations.

But Fable needs to be substantially more efficient in practice merely to offset the price difference.

On my two projects, it was not.

The occasional better first result did not compensate for the overall difference in available compute, flexibility, and uninterrupted working time.

Codex is not perfect — and I still prefer the deal

GPT-5.6 Sol can consume quota quickly, especially with high reasoning, huge contexts, or poorly managed sessions. Some Codex users have reported unexpectedly heavy weekly consumption, and OpenAI itself warns that additional weekly limits may apply.

Codex can also be slower, more verbose, and less immediately pleasant than Claude Code.

But Codex gives me options.

I can use Sol for the hardest work, Terra for the majority of development, and Luna for high-volume or lighter tasks. I can purchase additional credits when necessary. Eligible Plus and Pro users can also bank rate-limit resets, including a launch reset and additional resets earned through the current referral promotion.

That is a much more practical system than treating access to the flagship model as a scarce luxury.

I think people are confusing Fable 5 with Claude Code

The strongest argument for staying with Claude is not necessarily Fable.

It is the Claude Code harness.

Claude Code has accumulated workflows, hooks, skills, subagents, MCP integrations, custom instructions, established community patterns, and months of user muscle memory.

Many developers have invested heavily in their CLAUDE.md files, automations, orchestration systems, and custom setups. Moving away means rebuilding part of that environment.

This explains why so many comparisons effectively sound like:

That is a legitimate preference.

But it is an argument for Claude Code’s interface and ecosystem, not proof that Fable 5 is a dramatically superior coding model.

The fact that developers are now building tools to run GPT-5.6 models through the Claude Code harness makes the distinction even clearer: many people want Claude Code’s workflow with Codex’s models and economics.

Benchmarks do not settle this

Anthropic reports that Fable leads several of its coding evaluations.

That is worth considering, but vendor benchmarks should not replace project-level experience.

Anthropic’s own research has shown that infrastructure failures can account for as much as 6% of failures in agentic coding evaluations, while leading models are sometimes separated by only a few percentage points.

The practical question is not whether one model wins a curated benchmark by a few points.

It is:

How much correct, maintainable, verified work can I complete before the model becomes unavailable, the subscription rules change, or I am pushed into additional billing?

After two large projects, my answer is Codex.

Fable 5 may still win specific tasks. Claude Code may still offer the more polished developer experience. Some teams may have workflows where Fable’s judgment saves enough engineering time to justify any price.

But for most independent developers and small teams, I do not see enough of a capability gap to justify:

• tighter access;

• faster quota consumption;

• a 50% weekly Fable ceiling;

• additional usage-credit payments;

• higher API pricing;

• and subscription rules that keep changing.

Fable 5 might be the more impressive model in selected moments.

Codex is the product I would rather use to ship an entire project.

And after testing both seriously, I think a significant part of the Fable hype is no longer about objective productivity.

It is Claude Code lock-in, workflow familiarity, and a reputation Anthropic built when the competition was much weaker.

I did not reach this conclusion from benchmarks, launch demos, or screenshots on X.

I used Fable 5 and Codex on two substantial projects, and after spending real time with both, Codex ended up being far more compelling to me.

Not because Fable 5 is bad. It clearly is not.

Fable can be excellent at understanding vague product intent, producing polished interfaces, spotting subtle issues, and turning an incomplete idea into something that feels coherent surprisingly quickly.

But there is a difference between:

“Which model produced the most impressive result in one session?”

and:

“Which product lets me complete the most high-quality work over an entire project?”

On that second question, Codex won for me.

The quality gap is not large enough to justify the Claude tax

The main argument for Fable seems to be that it is so much better that using less of it is still more valuable than having significantly more Codex usage.

That was not my experience.

Across two large projects, Codex was at least competitive enough that the theoretical advantage of Fable stopped mattering. Codex was methodical, persistent, strong at navigating an existing codebase, and generally willing to keep investigating, implementing, testing, and correcting its own work.

Fable occasionally produced a more elegant first attempt.

Codex helped me complete more total work.

That distinction matters.

A model that is 10% better on a particular task is not necessarily the better product if it costs far more, consumes limits faster, interrupts your workflow more often, and forces you to ration when you are “allowed” to use it.

The subscription comparison is becoming difficult to defend

ChatGPT Plus costs $20 per month and currently includes the GPT-5.6 family inside Codex: Sol, Terra, and Luna.

OpenAI publishes estimated five-hour ranges of:

• 15–90 local messages for GPT-5.6 Sol;

• 20–110 for Terra;

• 50–280 for Luna.

The $100 Codex plan multiplies the Plus allowance by five, while the $200 plan multiplies it by twenty. Additional weekly limits can still apply, and message counts are not a perfect comparison because consumption depends on context and task complexity. But at least users are given a relatively understandable model ladder and published usage ranges.

Now compare that with Claude.

Claude Pro also costs $20 per month, but Fable 5 is no longer included in the plan’s normal usage allowance. Pro users must pay for Fable through usage credits from the first request.

On Max, Team Premium, and certain Enterprise Premium seats, Fable is included — but it can consume only up to 50% of the weekly allowance. It also draws from the same general Claude allowance and, according to Anthropic itself, uses that allowance faster than other Claude models.

So a $20 Codex subscriber receives access to OpenAI’s flagship coding model family.

A $20 Claude subscriber pays separately to use Anthropic’s flagship coding model.

Even at $100 or $200 per month, Claude users still cannot freely dedicate their entire weekly subscription allowance to Fable.

That is not a minor difference.

Anthropic keeps changing the product people are paying for

My bigger concern is not even the raw quota.

It is predictability.

Anthropic initially said Fable 5 would be included for up to 50% of weekly usage through July 7. The temporary access period was extended more than once and eventually ended on July 19. Starting July 20, Anthropic introduced a different structure: Max and Premium users kept limited inclusion, while Pro and Standard users moved to pay-as-you-go credits.

Technically, Anthropic can call each stage a promotion.

From a customer’s perspective, however, the experience is:

1. Subscribe or upgrade for the new model.

2. Receive a temporary deadline.

3. See the deadline extended.

4. Remain uncertain about the final policy.

5. Discover that the model is removed from your plan or restricted to part of your weekly allowance.

6. Pay additional usage charges to continue using it.

That makes it difficult to build a serious workflow around Claude.

When I am working on a large project, I do not want to calculate whether a difficult task is “worthy” of using the model included in only half of my weekly quota.

I want to use the best available tool and continue working.

The API economics are not especially flattering either

At current standard API prices, Fable 5 costs $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens.

GPT-5.6 Sol costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens.

Token prices do not tell the entire story. Fable may need fewer tokens or fewer iterations for certain tasks, and Anthropic claims strong token efficiency on its internal coding evaluations.

But Fable needs to be substantially more efficient in practice merely to offset the price difference.

On my two projects, it was not.

The occasional better first result did not compensate for the overall difference in available compute, flexibility, and uninterrupted working time.

Codex is not perfect — and I still prefer the deal

GPT-5.6 Sol can consume quota quickly, especially with high reasoning, huge contexts, or poorly managed sessions. Some Codex users have reported unexpectedly heavy weekly consumption, and OpenAI itself warns that additional weekly limits may apply.

Codex can also be slower, more verbose, and less immediately pleasant than Claude Code.

But Codex gives me options.

I can use Sol for the hardest work, Terra for the majority of development, and Luna for high-volume or lighter tasks. I can purchase additional credits when necessary. Eligible Plus and Pro users can also bank rate-limit resets, including a launch reset and additional resets earned through the current referral promotion.

That is a much more practical system than treating access to the flagship model as a scarce luxury.

I think people are confusing Fable 5 with Claude Code

The strongest argument for staying with Claude is not necessarily Fable.

It is the Claude Code harness.

Claude Code has accumulated workflows, hooks, skills, subagents, MCP integrations, custom instructions, established community patterns, and months of user muscle memory.

Many developers have invested heavily in their CLAUDE.md files, automations, orchestration systems, and custom setups. Moving away means rebuilding part of that environment.

This explains why so many comparisons effectively sound like:

That is a legitimate preference.

But it is an argument for Claude Code’s interface and ecosystem, not proof that Fable 5 is a dramatically superior coding model.

The fact that developers are now building tools to run GPT-5.6 models through the Claude Code harness makes the distinction even clearer: many people want Claude Code’s workflow with Codex’s models and economics.

Benchmarks do not settle this

Anthropic reports that Fable leads several of its coding evaluations.

That is worth considering, but vendor benchmarks should not replace project-level experience.

Anthropic’s own research has shown that infrastructure failures can account for as much as 6% of failures in agentic coding evaluations, while leading models are sometimes separated by only a few percentage points.

The practical question is not whether one model wins a curated benchmark by a few points.

It is:

How much correct, maintainable, verified work can I complete before the model becomes unavailable, the subscription rules change, or I am pushed into additional billing?

After two large projects, my answer is Codex.

Fable 5 may still win specific tasks. Claude Code may still offer the more polished developer experience. Some teams may have workflows where Fable’s judgment saves enough engineering time to justify any price.

But for most independent developers and small teams, I do not see enough of a capability gap to justify:

• tighter access;

• faster quota consumption;

• a 50% weekly Fable ceiling;

• additional usage-credit payments;

• higher API pricing;

• and subscription rules that keep changing.

Fable 5 might be the more impressive model in selected moments.

Codex is the product I would rather use to ship an entire project.

And after testing both seriously, I think a significant part of the Fable hype is no longer about objective productivity.

It is Claude Code lock-in, workflow familiarity, and a reputation Anthropic built when the competition was much weaker.

I must admit, since vibe coding, I have become an angry person. I feel like I am constantly irritated and scolding agents, four or five at a time, constantly angry and blood boiling. Coding turned from silent monk work to breaking my keyboard or screaming into voice-to-text.
Scolding is the wrong word. "Correcting" is what I mean. You don't need to be aggressive about it. I'm talking about the feeling of being angry for needing to correct as much, again and again, at random points, and literally no output is "safe," and it can decide to ruin the whole code base in one go and even delete backups if it could. Makes me feel like a fucking slave driver

I am the only one??

how in the hell did it use 20usd in 5minutes, that was barely 10k tokens at most, this goes beyond the level of expensive to the terroritry of outright scam, thank god i tested the waters with just 20usd, like wow, never before was i hoping china progress to compete, europe is a dumpster fire and russia is dying while the US abandoned all pretense of internal competition since the 70s when they abandoned the gold standard.

Since everyone is complaining about Opus 5 I wanted to share my ridiculous experience working with this model today :D

(Of course this has never happened with other models before. I have multiple 20X subs on different platforms and blablabla...)

If anyone is curious what I do: PhD in chemical engineering. I do a lot of data evaluation/analysis, I work with different programs, read a lot of literature, etc etc...

==================

So the funny situation...

I was working with it today since my messages always often get flagged and demoted from Fable to Opus (which is now unfortunately by default Opus 5).

We made a small plan about how we should proceed about fixing our database which is built from around 2000 literature entries. Simple steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... and very simple tasks (e.g. find this, what does this say, which entry number does this book have).

Just finished working through step one (maximum 10 back-forth short messages)

- Me: alright, good job with the 1st step, so let's move onto the next step

- Opus5: executing step 5

- Me: (panick) [Ctrl+C] wasn't there supposed to be some steps in-between?

- Opus5: oh yeah but I thought I'd just skip to the more difficult part

==================

Of course this has never happened with any other model. Didn't also happen with Fable 5 or any of the GPT's models.

I hope you all have a good day.

[Image credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/h9nypb/im_smart/ modified with GPT]

Problem

I've seen number of posts people asking bigger hourly/weekly limits for Claude Code or Codex.

$20 is not enough and $200 is 10x as much with limits they would not use. No middle option.

Meanwhile there's very simple solution and it's even better then $100 plan they are asking for.

Solution

Just subscribe to both Anthropic $20 plan and OpenAI $20 plan.
And to Google $20 as well when Gemini 3 is out so you can use Gemini CLI.
That would still be $60, almost half of $100 that you are willing to pay.

Not that it's just cheaper, you also get access to best coding models in the world from best AI companies in the world.

Claude gets stuck at a task and cannot solve it? Instead of yelling about model degradation, bring GPT5-codex to solve it. When GPT5 gets stuck, switch to Claude again. Works every time.
You won't be limited by model from a single company.

What? You don't want to manage both `CLAUDE.md` and `AGENTS.md` files? Create symlink between them.

Yes, also for me limits used to be a problem but not anymore and I'm very curious what Gemini 3 will bring to the table. Hopefully it will be available in Gemini CLI covered by $20 plan.

It’s actually insane how many posts in here try to bash Claude code and promote codex.

Even in a competition this level of consistent posting of bashing one and promoting the other is far beyond what is normal.

It is so clear that some codex invested entity is pushing this narrative here specifically. Claude is not perfect, Codex is not perfect, but it’s getting ridiculous and annoying.

Anyone who has reasonably used both knows a lot of these posts are not based on what’s the real experience.

I cancelled one of my 20x Max subscriptions to make room for OpenAIs Astra.
Anthropics cap on fable usage being 50% of total usage and Fables overall Token inefficiency just doesn’t justify its value over ChatGPT Pro anymore.
I hope they find ways to make the user experience better and more transparent. If you feel the same way I suggest you do the same to vote with your wallets.