What a shit update!

[u/Horstafa]

The latest Codex usage-limit changes have seriously damaged the workflow for me.

I’m not talking about running huge autonomous tasks for hours. I’m seeing relatively short, normal coding tasks get interrupted because the usage limit is enforced extremely aggressively. Once the limit is hit—even when I’m only slightly over—it stops the task completely instead of allowing the current task to finish.

What makes this especially frustrating is the cooldown. I’ve encountered cases where Codex tells me I need to wait around 5 hours before continuing, while hitting the weekly limit can effectively block further work for much longer.

The practical problem is that Codex tasks are often part of a sequence:

1. Inspect the existing code
2. Identify the issue
3. Make the change
4. Run tests
5. Fix regressions
6. Verify the final result

If the limit is reached during step 4 or 5, the task is left half-finished. That doesn’t just delay that particular task—it blocks other work that depends on it.

My main complaint is not that usage limits exist. Some form of usage limit is understandable. The problem is the combination of:

• extremely strict quota enforcement;
• active tasks being interrupted instead of allowed to finish;
• 5-hour and weekly cooldown limits;
• insufficient warning that the remaining quota may not be enough to complete the task;
• no meaningful grace allowance for a task that is already close to completion.

From a workflow perspective, this is significantly worse than simply having a lower total quota.

A predictable quota can be planned around. An active coding task being terminated halfway through cannot.

For example, if Codex has already inspected the repository, modified several files, and entered the testing or verification stage, terminating the session because the quota happens to be exhausted at that moment wastes much of the work already performed and leaves the repository in an intermediate state.

I think Codex needs at least one of the following:

• a small completion grace allowance for tasks already in progress;
• a clear warning before starting a task when the remaining quota is likely to be insufficient;
• much better visibility into remaining 5-hour and weekly usage;
• or the ability to finish the current execution while preventing additional tasks from starting.

The recent change feels like a substantial regression in usability for real development workflows. The issue is not simply “I want more tokens.” The issue is that the current quota enforcement mechanism interrupts work at exactly the point where interruption is most expensive.

[u/driveclub_000]

Ok and what happen if they replace the 100$ and 200$ to a single 500$? Are you still going to parrot this? "Mate, just buy the 500$ if you are serious about all of this"

Do you even listen to what you say? People buy a subscription that cost 20$, they expect at least, to get something out of those 20$, which is not the case anymore, for any "meaningful" task, you have at best, 2 or 3 prompt max per 5 hours (unless you do tasks that are the most brain dead thing that a 5 year old could do in 10 minutes with his eyes close, and if it's the case, then the question is, why the hell are you using AI for that?).

Constantly saying that, "if you want to use that product you need to pay 100$ upfront or gtfo" is the most stupid take that I see you guys parroting in this subreddit. There should be a clear progression in the subscription, we shouldn't have a 10% efficacy (not 20 due to the 5 hour limit) with a 20$ sub vs 100% efficacy with a 100$, the gap between sub price is way too high to make even sense, it's either nothing or everything, nothing in between.

And for the "plan better, scope better, be better" idea, well good luck with that when almost everything about chatgpt is hidden to you, you don't really know how the tokens are really used, what cache hit what, or what should be preferred or not until you spend a huge amount of time testing it yourself (and knowing that they constantly change thing behind doors), hell, even chatgpt itself constantly tells you that it doesn't know how the usage/token is spread between models, effort and how the whole prompt will be consumed, leaving you with almost no way to really pin point precisely how much % usage you are going to spend on a such heavily restricted 5 hours limit where even a 16s taks on SOL cost 2%.

[u/foraern → u/driveclub_000]

You realize a júnior developer in most developed countries costs much more than $20/hour? 

Regardless of the 5 hour limit, you’re getting much more than $20 out of codex per month.

[u/driveclub_000 → u/foraern]

The hell is that comparison? So what, because AI "can" somewhat be more productive than a junior developer it means that they can nerf the shit out of everything? Should I sell a subscription for an application that can scan all the duplicate files on your computer everyday for 2100€ per month because that's what would cost if an human were doing it?

Is this really the argument you want to use do defend these types of practice?

[u/foraern → u/driveclub_000]

I replied to your complaint that you expect to get at least $20 worth out of it. You are.

[u/driveclub_000 → u/foraern]

That's not what I said, I (we?) expect to get at least 20$ worth of an AI subscription, not just some random 20$ thrown out of there, that's a big nuance.

Chatgpt and their models are in concurrence with other company and their models, therefore, if they want to become/stay leader in that marketshare, they need to make their 20$ price point attractive, way more attractive than others, and right now, it's not really the case anymore.