How is that the case? ChatGPT not only gives a lot of Codex/Agentic usage, once you've run out of that you still have a massive quota of Chat usage that's entirely separate. You can still use plug-ins with Github, Google Drive, etc... using the Chat usage as well.

Is it still cheaper than Luna if using an OpenAI subscription? My gut is no, but I have not done the math.

Some china proxies charge as little as 1 cent / Mio tokens for luna, which I use. As far as I know they bundle multiple codex subscriptions to get subsidized token pricings, so in codex it should be.

You'd have to compare against something like the OpenCode Go subscription, and I'm fairly sure deepseek napkins out cheaper in that scenario

I'm still not sure, there's a promo going on now, but generally Go gives $60 of API credit and right now it might be $120 with deepseek. But $20/month OpenAI subscription I believe gives you many hundreds of API-equivalent usage? I've heard $100/month giving many thousands API-equivalent per month.

Everything is cheaper if using a subscription, but some applications require API usage.

>They need to slow down and do a model release once a year and only do extremely minor iterations instead.

There are a ton of use-cases where the models still struggle a lot and make bad decisions, I'd much prefer they continue their acceleration for a while more.

I have friends and family who use Gemini, but entirely because their Pixel phones came with a year of it for free. No other reason, and they will most likely never pay for it.

The subsidizing thing is repeated over and over without proof. Personally, I doubt they're actually subsidized.

Given how OpenAI got rid of their 5-hour limits and reset weekly limits so often, is Kimi really undercutting them on effective price?

The 5 hour limits are coming back soon right? I thought that was temporary

Maybe, but Tibo said something on Twitter last week making it sound like it might not be.

Sure, but at those API rates it doesn't beat the subscription plans for OpenAI.

Literally no UI changes when I toggle between the two. It's 100% identical, one is not less technical than the other.

The button changes from green to blue.

>Also, when you toggle btween ChatGPT Work and ChatGPT Codex, nothing changes. This is super confusing.

This is the weirdest thing. It's completely unclear even if I was using the app for "work" rather than "coding" why I wouldn't just use the "Codex" option. Why even bother toggling? Can Codex actually not do any of the things in "Work"?

>They mean the same thing as GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast but require base knowledge for an analogy.

But do they though? When do you use GPT-5.6-Max-Low vs. GPT-5.6-Plus High? Or GPT-5.6-Fast-Xhigh? What's the Pareto optimal choice (outcome and price)? According to the benches it seems to bop around and the even if the benches are accurate the best choice isn't always consistent.

> When do you use GPT-5.6-Max-Low vs. GPT-5.6-Plus High?

You don't, because that isn't something I proposed using for model naming.

I called them GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast. Reasoning levels are distinct from the model design itself, and the UI makes that clear.

Plus, using that same flawed argument this would be called GPT-5.6-Sol-Low or GPT-5.6-Luna-High which also makes no sense/is confusing. So that argument applies (or more accurately doesn't), no matter the model names.

Your names are not good because “Fast” is not a descriptor of model size and overlaps with fast/ultrafast inference. And “Plus” collides with the ChatGPT subscription plan. Point being, naming is hard.