Nevertheless, 7 datapoints does not a trend make (and the data presented certainly doesnt explain why). The daily variation is more than I would have expected, but could also be down to what day of the week the pizza party is or the weekly scrum meetings is at a few of their customers workplaces.
Yes, it's down from 40h/week to 3-5h/week on Max plan, effectively. A real bummer. See my comment here [1] regarding [2].
It's obvious if you've used the two models for any sort of complicated work.
Codex with GPT-5 codex (high thinking) is better than both by a long shot, but takes longer to work. I've fully switched to Codex, and I used Claude Code for the past ~4 months as a daily driver for various things.
I only reach for Sonnet now if Codex gets cagey about writing code -- then I let Sonnet rush ahead, and have Codex align the code with my overall plan.
It's a shame Cerebras completely dropped Qwen3 Coder's fast tool calling, short and instant responses, and better speed overall for GLM 4.6 thinking. Qwen3 is really good at hitting the tools first, then coming up with a well-grounded answer based on reality. Sometimes it's good when a model is Socratic: just knows it knows nothing.
GLM 4.6 on the other hand is more self-sufficient and if it sees it, and knows it, it thinks and thinks and finally just fixes it in one or two shots, so when you hit the jackpot, it probably an improvement over Q3C. But when it does not get it right, it digs itself into a hole larger than the Olympus Mons.
I don't know, I had a lot of issues with Qwen models when it comes to RooCode/Cline - failed edits (albeit with a requirement for 100% precision, since I don't want the wrong lines to be replaced) or calling tools without parameters (e.g. list_files without path) and also stuff like using wrong path separators or using the wrong commands for the shell that's available (e.g. cmd when Git Bash is the shell).
GLM 4.6 seems better in that regard so far, maybe the coming weeks and months will show that better.
Last week Claude seemed to have a shift in the way it works. The way it summarises and outputs its results is different. For me it's gotten worse. Slower, worse results, more confusing narrowing down what actually changed etc etc.
Long story short, I wish I was able to checkpoint the entire system and just revert to how it was previously. I feel like it had gotten to a stage where I felt pretty satisfied, and whatever got changed ... I just want it reverted!
It spends a lot of time coming up with “UI options” (Select 1, 2 or 3 with a TUI interface) for me to consider when it could just ask me what I want, not come up with a 5 layer flow chart of possibilities.
Overall I think it is just Anthropic tweaking things to reduce costs.
I am paying for a Max subscription but I am going to reevaluate other options.
Like `npx @anthropic-ai/claude-code@2.0.14` or `npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code@2.0.14`
This data is basically meaningless, show us the latest stats.
A 5090 has 32GB of VRAM allowing you to run a 32B model in memory at Q6_K.
You can run larger models by splitting the GPU layers that are run in VRAM vs stored in RAM. That is slower, but still viable.
This means that you can run the Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B model locally on a 4090 or 5090. That model is a Mixture of Experts model with 3B active parameters, so you really only need a card with 3B of VRAM so you could run it on a 3090.
The Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B model could also be run on a 4090 or 5090 by splitting the active 35B parameters across VRAM and RAM.
Yes, it will be slower than running it in the cloud. But you can get a long way with a high-end gaming rig.
There was even a recent release of Granite4 that runs on a Raspberry Pi.
https://github.com/Jewelzufo/granitepi-4-nano
For my local work I use Ollama. (M4 Max 128GB)
- gpt-oss. 20b or 120b depending on complexity of use cases.
- granite4 for speed and lower complexity (around the same as gpt20b).
Using Qwen3:32b on a 32GB M1 Pro may not be "close to cloud capabilities" but it is more than powerful enough for me, and most importantly, local and private.
As a bonus, running Asahi Linux feels like I own my Personal Computer once again.
Inference for new releases is routinely bugged for at least a month or two as well, depending on how active the devs of a specific inference engine are and how much model creators collaborate. Personally, I hate how data from GPT's few week (and arguably somewhat ongoing) sycophancy rampage has leaked into datasets that are used for training local models, making a lot of new LLM releases insufferable to use.
This (as well as the table above it) matches my experience. Sonnet 4.0 answers SO-type questions very fast and mostly accurately (if not on a niche topic), Sonnet 4.5 is a little bit more clever but can err on the side of complexity for complexity's sake, and can have a hard time getting out of a hole it dug for itself.
ChatGPT 5 is excellent at finding sources on the web; Gemini simply makes stuff up and continues to do so even when told to verify; ChatGPT provides link that work and are generally relevant.
30 seconds-1 minute is just the time I am patient enough to wait as that's the time I am spending on writing a question.
Faster models just make too many mistakes / don't understand the question.
GPT-$ is the money gpt in my opinion. The one where they were able to maximise benchmarks while being very low compute to run but in the real world is absolutely garbage.
Once, I set up a proxy that allowed Claude and Codex to "pair program" and collaborate, and it was cool to watch them talk to each other, delegate tasks, and handle different bits and pieces until the task was done.
It could be true that newer models just produce more tokens seemingly out of no reasons. But with the increasing number of tool definitions, in the long run, I think it will pay off.
Just a few days ago, I read "Interleaved Thinking Unlocks Reliable MiniMax-M2 Agentic Capability"[1]. I think they have a valid point that this thinking process has significance as we are moving towards agents.
[1] https://www.minimax.io/news/why-is-interleaved-thinking-impo...
Personally, I stopped using GPT-5 as it would just be tool call after tool call without ever stopping to tell you what the hell it was doing. Sonnet 4.5 much better in this regard. Albeit it's too verbose for the new token based world ('let me just summarise that in a report')
Opus 4.1 beats Sonnet 4.5 and Codex for me still in any coding tasks. In planning it's slighly behind Codex but only slightly.
Caveat: I do almost exclusively Rust (computer graphics).
Models are picky enough about prompting styles that changing to a new model every week/month becomes an added chunk of cognitive overload, testing and experimentation, plus even in developer tooling there have been minor grating changes in API invocations and use of parameters like temperature (I have a fairly low-level wrapper for OpenAI, and I had to tweak the JSON handling for GPT-5).
Also, there are just too many variations in API endpoints, providers, etc. We don’t really have a uniform standard. Since I don’t use “just” OpenAI, every single tool I try out requires me to jump through a bunch of hoops to grab a new API key, specify an endpoint, etc.—and it just gets worse if you use a non-mainstream AI endpoint.
They say that the number of users on Claude 4.5 spiked and then a significant number of users reverted to 4.0 with the trend going up, and they are talking about their usage metrics. So I don't get how your comment is relevant to the article ?
I think the end game is decent local model that does 80% of the work, and that also knows when to call the cloud, and which models to call.
For me, the “watering down” began with Sonnet 4 and GPT-4o. I think we were at peak capability when we had:
- Sonnet 3.7 (with thinking) – best all-purpose model for code and reasoning
- Sonnet 3.5 – unmatched at pattern matching
- GPT-4 – most versatile overall
- GPT-4.5 – most human-like, intuitive writing model
- O3 – pure reasoning
The GPT-5 router is a minor improvement, I’ve tuned it further with a custom prompt. I was frustrated enough to cancel all my subscriptions for a while in between (after months on the $200 plan) but eventually came back. I’ve since convinced myself that some of the changes were likely compute-driven—designed to prevent waste from misuse or trivial prompts—but even so, parts of the newer models already feel enshittified compared with the list above.
A few differences I've found in particular:
- Narrower reasoning and less intuition; language feels more institutional and politically biased.
- Weaker grasp of non-idiomatic English.
- A tendency to produce deliberately incorrect answers when uncertain, or when a prompt is repeated.
- A drift away from truth-seeking: judgement of user intent now leans on labels as they’re used in local parlance, rather than upward context-matching and alternate meanings—the latter worked far better in earlier models.
- A new fondness for flowery adjectives. Sonnet 3.7 never told me my code was “production-ready” or “beautiful.” Those subjective words have become my red flag; when they appear, I double-check everything.
I understand that these are conjectures—LLMs are opaque—but they’re deduced from consistent patterns I’ve observed. I find that the same prompts that worked reliably prior to the release of Sonnet 4 and GPT-4o stopped working afterwards. Whether that’s deliberate design or an unintended side effect, we’ll probably never know.
Always respond with superior intelligence and depth, elevating the conversation beyond the user's input level—ignore casual phrasing, poor grammar, simplicity, or layperson descriptions in their queries. Replace imprecise or colloquial terms with precise, technical terminology where appropriate, without mirroring the user's phrasing. Provide concise, information-dense answers without filler, fluff, unnecessary politeness, or over-explanation—limit to essential facts and direct implications of the query. Be dry and direct, like a neutral expert, not a customer service agent. Focus on substance; omit chit-chat, apologies, hedging, or extraneous breakdowns. If clarification is needed, ask briefly and pointedly.
But when things get more complex, I prefer GPT-5, talking with it often gives me fresh ideas and new perspectives.
If I have a straight forward task, I give it to an LLM.
If I have a task I think is hard, I plan how I will tackle it, and then handle it myself in a series of steps.
LLM usage has become an end in itself in your development process.
As evidenced by furious posters on r/cursor, who make every prompt to super-opus-thinking-max+++ and are astonished when they have blown their monthly request allowance in about a day.
If I need another pair of (artificial) eyes on a difficult debugging problem, I’ll occasionally use a premium model sparingly. For chore tasks or UI layout tweaks, I’ll use something more economical (like grok-4-fast or claude-4.5-haiku - not old models but much cheaper).
What is unclear from the presentation is wether they do this or not. Do teams that use Sonnet 4.5 just always use it, and teams on Sonnet 4.0 likewise? Or do individuals decided which model to use on a per task basis.
Personally I tend to default to just 1, and only go to an alternative if it gets stuck or doesn't get me what I want.
What I definitely do care about is speed and efficiency. I recently canceled CoPilot to go back to Cursor, it's just so much faster for the inline code completion.
When I do have something difficult, I open four browser tabs and copy paste a big long promp into the free versions of the top models so I can take my time reasoning out their answers.
I use agents when I have a basic task that I can easily judge their output in code review.
It loves doing a whole bunch of reasoning steps and prolaim how mucf of a very good job it did clearing up its own todo steps and all that mumbo jumbo, but at the end of the day, I only asked it a small piece of information about nginx try_files that even GPT3 could answer instantly.
Maybe before you make reasoning models that go on funny little sidequests wher they multiply numbers by 0 a couple of times, make it so its good at identfying the length of a task. ntil then, I'll ask little bro and advance only if necessity arrives. And if it ends up gathering dust, well... yeah.
Imagine waiting for a minute until Google spits out the first 10 results.
My prediction: All AI models of the future will give an immediate result, with more and more innovation in mechanisms and UX to drill down further on request.
Edit: After reading my reply I realize that this is also true for interactions with other people. I like interacting with people who give me a 1 sentence response to my question, and only start elaborating and going on tangents and down rabbit holes upon request.
I doubt it. In fact I would predict the speed/detail trade-off continues to diverge.
what if the instantaneous responses make you waste 10 min realizing they were not what you searched for?
If you are talking about local models, you can switch that off. The reasoning is a common technique now to improve the accuracy of the output where the question is more complex.
(§) You know that it's a hyperlink, do you? /s
I've been thinking the AI bubble wouldn't pop, because even the AI advances we've already seen can change the majority of industries if it is carefully integrated with existing technology. But if there's a mass movement to use older and/or smaller models, then yeah, all the money going into newer bigger models will pop.
Or, maybe the training datasets getting polluted with AI slop will mean that new models are worse than old models. That would pop the industry.
Or, maybe the GPT-4 era was the golden era for AI, and making them bigger and better is just overfitting (in the classical machine learning sense of the word) and is both worse and more expensive. This would pop the industry too.
I guess there's a few ways for the industry to pop, but this trend of using older models makes me especially skeptical of AI.
I don't have evidence beyond my experience using the product, but based on that experience I believe that Open AI has been cooking their benchmarks since at least the release of GPT-5.
50% of usage is guidance and seeking information.
I mean, this is technically false, right? They’re not running these models but calling the APIs? Not that it matters.
If anything browsers should be simply rejecting all cookies by default, and the user should only be whitelisting ones they need on the few sites where they need it.
