upvote

points

by jstummbillig4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby giwook4 hours ago|
next
[-]
Just to clarify, one does not get access to the pro model on the Pro plan?
reply
upvoteby carbocation4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The $20 Plus plan still exists, and does not give access to the pro model.

The $200 Pro plan still exists, and does give access to the pro model.

What is new is a $100 Pro plan that does give access to the pro model, with lower usage limits than the $200 Pro plan.

reply
upvoteby dimmke4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This is still worse than Anthropic's right? Because you get access to their top model even at the $20 price point
reply
upvoteby Tiberium4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's not worse, Anthropic simply has no equivalent model (if you don't consider Mythos) of GPT 5.4 Pro. Google does though: Gemini 3.1 Deep Think.

GPT 5.4 Pro is extremely slow but thorough, so it's not meant for the usual agentic work, rather for research or solving hard bugs/math problems when you provide it all the context.

reply
upvoteby giwook2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm genuinely asking, when you say Gemini 3.1 DT is an equivalent model of GPT 5.4 Pro, is there a specific benchmark/comparison you're referring to or is this more anecdotal?

And do you mean to say that you don't really use GPT 5.4 Pro unless it's for a hard bug? Curious which models you use for system design/architecture/planning vs execution of a plan/design.

TIA! I'm still trying to figure out an optimal system for leveraging all of the LLMs available to us as I've just been throwing 100% of my work at Claude Code in recent months but would like to branch out.

reply
upvoteby simianwords2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Pro and DT model are equivalents because

- internally same architecture of best of N

- not available in the code harness like Codex, only in the UI (gpt has API)

- GPT-5.4 pro is extremely expensive: $30.00 input vs $180.00 output

- both DT and Pro are really good at solving math problems

reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby irishcoffee4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So, reading the tea leaves, they're either losing subscribers for the $200 plan, or they're not following the same hockey stick path of growth they thought they were... maybe?

Edit: I wonder if this is actually compute-bound as the impetus

reply
upvoteby tedsanders4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Nope, it's just that a lot of people (especially those using Codex) asked us for a medium-sized $100 plan. $20 felt too restrictive and $200 felt like a big jump.

Pricing strategy is always a bit of an art, without a perfect optimum for everyone:

- pay-per-token makes every query feel stressful

- a single plan overcharges light users and annoyingly blocks heavy users

- a zillion plans are confusing / annoying to navigate and change

This change mostly just adds a medium-sized plan for people doing medium-sized amounts of work. People were asking for this, and we're happy to deliver.

(I work at OpenAI.)

reply
upvoteby irishcoffee2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Thanks for the response. I tried to phrase my postulations as just that, I didn’t intend to be an accusatory.

You like the job? How’s the day-to-day go? Yanking tickets or more organic?

reply
upvoteby tedsanders21 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
All good, I interpreted it as postulation and not accusation. :)

I do like the job! Much more organic than yanking tickets, though I'm on the model training side of things, rather than product side. Always a balance between short-term sprints patching bad behaviors for the next model vs long-term investments in infra and science that make future work easier. Sometimes the negative press gets to me a bit (it's a very different feeling than 2022 or 2023), but my goal is just to make the most useful product I can for people. It's been wild how much Codex has already changed my day-to-day work, I'm so curious to see what it looks like in 2030 or 2040.

reply
upvoteby alyxya4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Plenty of people wanted to spend more than $20 but less than $200 for a plan. It's long overdue IMO.
reply
upvoteby patates4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Plus plan doesn't get the pro model, which is (AFAICT) the same 5.4 model but thinks like a lot.
reply
upvoteby jgalt2124 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You're trying to make words mean what we all think they mean. Stop foisting your Textualism upon us!
reply
upvoteby J_Shelby_J3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Will they fix the pro model so it actually finishes the last step instead of hanging for 10-20m doing nothing?

It’s only use case now is when you can walk away for an hour.

reply
upvoteby taoh4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Does GPT-5.4 pro give a much better result in some circumstances? What're their typical uses in your experience?
reply
upvoteby dyauspitr3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If you want it to deeply research something pro is great. I had a problem I just couldn’t find with my oven so I gave it a lot of information and it went off on its own for about 2 hours and then gave me what I needed to fix the problem (fan was turning off too quickly which was causing the panel to overheat). I have no idea how it figured it out and I couldn’t find anything after hours of googling so it was very impressive. I even went and googled for it once I knew what the problem was and I still couldn’t find the solution that it came up with.
reply
upvoteby taoh3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Thanks for sharing this experience. Does it cost a lot of token in the deep analysis - which will make the $100 plan much quicker to drain all budgets.
reply
upvoteby dyauspitr3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think it’s going to be very hard to blow through your tokens just using chat. I mostly bought the plan so I could use Codex and on the $200 a month plan I’ve basically been using it 15 hours a day almost nonstop and I don’t run out of tokens for the week.
reply