Which is probably why they will merge it. You can get a lot done in chat mode, especially if you connect custom MCPs to it. I can't see that continuing.
Pro messages is like 50 per week for pro 100 and 200 for pro 200.
Regular chat, even on extra high thinking mode, is sort of unlimited. Idk at what point you hit the abuse gaurdrail but its really high whatever it is.
For a company with Open in the name, OpenAI is very opaque about things, there are all kinds of limits and quotas that randomly come and go, but they only show you the meters for a couple.
E.g. codex reviews come from codex quota but also has its separate quota they don’t tell you about. Same with security reviews which has another quota still.
So the chat messages can be sent at several effort levels and from various models including 5.6 and 6 pro. The 6 pro messages are limited and they don’t tell you how many you’ve sent or how many are left. But the 5.6 messages seem to be unlimited, however there could just be a much higher unstated quota.
Why would you accept it when the benchmark's ranking is obviously nonsense.
It literally has muse spark 1.3 above 6 astra, 5.6 sol and fable 5. Anyone who has played with any of these models for any amount of time would immediately realize that this is total bunk.
Its "pure capabilities" are definitely worse than Fable, but I find codex has a much more pleasant style and is in comparison much more generous with its limits.
Ugh, people are still saying the Codex limits are more generous. They're not, Claude's are over 2x higher, have been for months! [1] It's just that Claude uses far more tokens, 2-3x is common. Except sometimes GPT will use just as many or even go into a compact loop and then your quota is gone, little headroom for hard tasks.
That website seems to suggest that Opus 5 spends ~57 cents per task, while GPT 5.6 Sol spends ~49 cents per task? That ratio doesn't feel quite right to me. Artificial Analysis says Opus 5 High costs nearly ~3x as much as GPT 5.6 Sol High for a given task: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/comparisons/claude-opus...
Yeah I subscribe to both and watch the numbers too, and it drives me nuts
Who wants to actually watch anyways, rather than worry about it my team just created our own harness that prioritize usage + intelligence and assigns work out (and records token usage..)
These exist and are used. The issue is that because they're so much smaller, they're also much worse, so they tend to have lots of false positives while still being easy to circumvent.
The fundamental issue is that for these systems bigger is essentially always better (if affordable). So if we can squash something like Kimi K3 down to run on a 'normal' system, that just incentivizes devs to increase the model size until once again we're at the limit of what can be run.
This is not what the bitter lesson is about. It's not "don't develop better methods, just scale", it's that those methods which scale best win. LeCun's work is fundamentally about devising a method that scales better with data than LLMs. Agree with him or not about the feasibility of it, but this is fundamentally still a bitter lesson-pilled mindset.
However "world models" have been a thing for the entire history of computers. They have changed names over time: "rules engines", "expert systems", "semantic web", and so on and so forth.
And they have failed every single time.
The bitter lesson essay was written precisely to dismiss that approach, which used to dominate conferences and scientific publications of the era. A general learning system, given sufficient computation power, will always outperform specialized crafted systems in the long run.
Think of it like this: if a world model is a useful abstraction, the general learning system will create it by itself during its training, without us needing to implement it by hand. This is the bitter lesson. And it comes for us all.
This is some bizarre victim inversion. The providers of closed models are the ones who are trying to use regulation to stop their open model competition, not the other way around.
Now, what if you order a construction crew for building your house? What if you also hire an architect to design the plan? And an overseer who manages everything?
Surely at some point you would stop saying "I built this house", even if you ordered and financed it?
This is getting a bit off-topic, but there are certainly people who will still say that they built it. That is, in a nutshell, how people try to reconcile desert theory with the existence of the super-wealthy.
