I've tried throwing unsupervised agentic software factory workflows against the wall, and they burned through my tokens like nobody's business but didn't produce much.
Supervised, human-in-the-loop process on the other hand is much more productive but doesn't consume nearly as much. Maybe that's why everyone's pushing agentic approaches so much.
Dealt with that by going all out and making an agentic parallel code review skill. Basically an infinite TODO list generator. Now I'm definitely getting 100% of the usage I paid for. It really burns tokens like nobody's business, and catches a lot of issues while at it. I've been looping this review/fix process every week. It's dramatically reduced the amount of stuff I need to pay attention to during my human review sessions.
There is this real danger that our thinking, and the things we make, become bloated without constraints.
IMO software has gone to shit since both mobile phones and laptops mostly have massive amounts of compute. We always seem to use it to the limit, just because it's there.
Isn't this a (mildly exaggerated) description of AWS, which is a very successful service?
Like the other commenter said: cloud spend can also spin out of control if you don't pay attention, yet we've found ways to keep it under control (training, guardrails, limits, transparancy).
Colleague used Sonnet 4.6 on some pretty normal agentic coding tasks through AWS Bedrock to keep the data in the EU, 100 EUR usage in a single day. In comparison, the Mistral subscription costs about 20 EUR per month and we tested that for similar tasks it was okay, the usage got to around 10% of that monthly limit in a single day. Or Anthropic's own Max (5x) plan where you get way, way more tokens to do with as you please.
I feel like the sweet spot is having a monthly subscription with any of the providers (you're subsidized a bunch), but if you have to pay per tokens, now I'd just look in the direction of what tasks DeepSeek would be okay for, sadly probably not in the situation above. For a startup, though...
On the other hand, this feels a bit hypocritical:
> It was part of an effort to get project managers, designers, and other employees to experiment with coding for the first time, and sources tell me that Claude Code has proved very popular inside Microsoft over the past six months.
They're gonna say that the future is all AI... until they get the bill.
I upgraded my plan last night to Mistral Le Chat Teams. This now costs me €60 per month for two users. Limits have been reset, but I have no idea now if my per seat limit is higher than the Pro plan, or if the limit is shared between the seats, it’s really not clear. I guess I will find out next month. The limits reset on the first of the month and I really hope I don’t hit them in the next seven days.
I use Mistral Vibe CLI and I’ve written and implemented a couple of new skills[1]. Caveman, based on an idea I found online somewhere, this skill removes all extraneous response text, including articles. Makes for some fun reading, but supposedly reduces output tokens significantly. Hash-anchors, this one is based on a concept from Dirac[2], reduces search failures and also includes multi-file dispatch. It will be hard to measure, but Vibe tells me these two should result in roughly a 40% reduction in token burn.
The results for a function implementation and test of levenshtein distance in js are pretty similar but Mistral is 30x cheaper than Opus 4.7 and 4x faster than Sonnet 4.6.
I mean, the will continue to say so, they just want to be the ones being paid for the service, not anthropic :)
I tend to work with the agent, and observe what's going on as well as review/test and work through results/changes. I spend a lot more time planning tasks/features than the execution, even using the agent as part of planning and pre-documentation. It works really well. I don't think people burning through the 5hr allotment in under an hour are actually reviewing/QC/QA the results of what they're doing in any meaningful way, and likely producing as much garbage as good (slop).
I'm really curious as to HOW the MS employees were using the agents as much as what they were doing.
By buying a subscription and dealing with the limits, using claude code and paying per token seems like the fast lane to the poor house.
Me: We need to do this this that.
Claude: <random stuff that approximates human outout>
Me: Are you sure?
Claude: Well actually there is a bug <more random stuff that looks right this time>
----- Now it is:
Me: We need to do this this that.
Claude: <random stuff that approximates human outout>
Claude: Let me consult the advisor on that.
Claude: advisor came up with some advice, adjusting according to that. <more random stuff that looks right this time>
Saving money on tokens isn't something that's rewarded during performance reviews; particularly because it's difficult to quantify how much you saved versus hypothetically using a more expensive model.
Churning out useful code quickly is not solved by using more tokens per unit time. Most non-technical leaders can grasp this one and are likely more interested in the strategic game theoretical dynamics that are being forced by way of implied token consumption expectations (competition between developers).
If you want to hold out as long as possible and don't really care about anything other than the compensation package, you should at least play along with this new game in a half-assed manner. Try to goldilocks your token usage between any established extremes. You want to be in the statistical barycenter of every AI report that management can create.
Where we were 6mo ago is that a lot of big orgs realized they were behind, and needed some way of measuring if the tools were usable at all.
No sawdust at all on your job site, and you can tell nobody is cutting wood.
Now that tooling is more mature, you can measure things like % of diffs AI-generated, % of AI suggestions accepted vs edited, % of KB queries successful etc - all more useful than raw token count for quantifying how your org is using the tool.
So it’s a pragmatic metric that got a bit Goodhearted.
We may be on the cusp of the AI age's new era of 'measure twice, cut once'.
And the tragedy is that this isn't sustainable, and we all involved deeply in tech know this. There is eventually going to be a big reality check the companies will have to pay, because you can't force creativity and quality, not even with AI, because actual intelligence lies with us at least for now and for the foreseeable future. However when the rope eventually snaps these executives at best will fall upwards, with big severance bonuses and a list of "contributions" we have to be grateful for. We are the ones that will suffer through the next big layoffs.
the companies will have to pay, because you can't force creativity and quality
Exemple from one of the wealthiest company in existance, for one of its most strategic product: I was trying gemini-cli on some mcp servers just yesterday, with gemini-chat helping me configuring everything. In less than 10 minutes, I stumbled upon 3 or 4 different bugs. Eventually, even gemini-chat recommended that I throw gemini-cli in the bin and move on to another agent... That's the new norm.
In cost per line of code, we have verified this is always an error unless your time is worth less than the machine (unlikely unless you consider your time to have no cost rather than considering it as your hourly rate).
The worst thing for our productivity has been Claude Code or Claude Cowork taking a complex problem and turning around and writing bad instructions for dumb model agents then synthesizing the dumb answers into an orchestra of badness.
The single best fix for results-per-total-cost is to ensure it reads and thinks about whole content, not snippets, and thinks with the smartest model, not agents.
Agents should toil. Agents should neither think*, nor decide what to think about which itself is thinking.
* Agents should “think” like ants or bees or beavers think. Any human-like thinking, *especially* intuition-like thinking, should be thought by the best model available.
** Nobody should be “churning out code”. In a hierarchy of coders who translate detailed specs to some computer language, developers who write software that ships on a project timeline, and engineers who accomplish business goals, engineers should “churn out” engines structured for business outcomes.
Measured by that, the machine is leverage while reducing a variety of costs. At the same time, because most training data doesn't grok this, the machine doesn't grok it either. So it needs you to shape its toil.
I don't care bout cost, I care about getting good results fast.
Cost per line of code is not a suitable metric for anything. It's as silly as measuring engineers' performance by lines of code. More lines of code is worse than fewer lines of code. When you say "we have verified" whoever that "we" is makes a big difference, but you're posting pseudonymously, how are we to even guess at that "we"?
I get better results with some older cheaper models, faster. In particular older Claude models than Opus 4.7. Maybe the more expensive model churns out more lines, more complexity faster. That is a worse outcome for me. The complexity must be avoided at all costs. The simpler, smaller, answer is always better, and scales to bigger code bases. The more the model guesses at intent rather than checking intent, the more the model is clever rather than clear and simple, the worse the outcome, the more that the model turns into an architecture astronaut, the worse the outcome.
I haven't seen "just absorb a giant ball of context and do the right thing the first time" be cracked yet, even for Opus 4.7.
At the end of the day, code is code, and we have decades of lessons about how to make code more reliable and maintainable. Composable small modules, not god methods, are still the way to go, and they reward devs who use them to get focused context for agents with faster - and often better - results.
The whole industry is adjusting to the reality that the expected output of an engineer is much higher than it used to be. It’s not local to one company. You may find a better environment for the time being, but this is the direction everything is headed.
But I'd agree that everyone can start planning a career shift that'll span a few months to some years in order to seek better working conditions. Passively accepting all work degradation because that's life and money is needed is partly responsible for the current situation too.
I've been getting by on the $200/year plan by smoothing usage continuously over time.
The pay per use is for the API so does it mean you're using the API in a custom setup?
I don't buy it. Old models such as GPT4.1 were faster than newer reasoning models, and their output was as good. Newer models end up wasting an ungodly amount of time with chain-of-thought steps which can be a complete waste of time if you have a structured prompt such as a plan or a spec.
My experience in the real world is that users have to ration requests, and x0 models actually tend to be used far more because expensive models are left for more complex tasks.
When you consider that xAI's old data center was enough to bring Anthropic back ahead, it tells me Microsoft could host their own on underutilized previous gen GPUs that are sitting there wasting server real estate.
Curious what industry that is.
What they wanted was for them to use both and feedback which was better.
The developers voted with their feet and didn’t use Copilot.
What Microsoft were hoping was that the opposite would happen...
Underlying model choice still has no restrictions. Opus 4.6 is by far the most popular. there's still big $$$ bills going anthropic's way.
This was true in January -- since then, the Copilot CLI team has spent countless hours with engineering leaders and the biggest Claude Code users at the company to understand Copilot's shortcomings, define evals to properly test them head-to-head, and close the gap between the products.
The result? Claude Code usage was organically decreasing and Copilot CLI usage was organically increasing -- when this announcement was made, internal Copilot CLI usage had been greater than Claude Code usage for weeks!
Honestly I find GitHub Copilot CLI (and now also the new GitHub Copilot app) quite decent. I mostly use it with Opus 4.7, or rarely with GPT-5.5. The VSCode extension is ok, but CLI or app are the better experience IMO.
MS thinks CoPilot is the Clark Griswold of LLMs when it's really Cousin Eddie...
These days I just use Claude Code Desktop or Claude Code in powershell. Standalone, not inside and IDE. Honestly, I'm using Desktop more and more as it gets more features.
The IDE is for me. No AI in it at all. If I want to get Claude to do something specific to a file I just @ the file.
Obviously you want to be aware of what else is on the market, and use the right tool for the job -- but equally if you have a directly competing product, you'd prefer your org's telemetry and suggestions are directed towards improving your own software rather than your competitors'.
Compared to working at other big techs, where I was able to direct msg the engineers on the team for internal protobuf or datalake services in addition to user groups that were generally responsive it was just strange. Also Microsoft doesn't have a monorepo so you can't just commit patches to their service because you don't have access to their repos which I pretty regularly do elsewhere.
Technically we're using Copilot and we're playing for it through Microsoft licenses, but it's using Opus 4.7. Even before this, most of our custom agents within m365 copilot were one of the GPT models.
Or maybe you're right and they want their developers to use the copilot models.
There's a large (and growing!) contingent of people who don't write code these days. (Many don't even use the keyboard.)
I think Kiro might have some “first mover” advantage internally, but CC feels better to use.
GitHub Copilot is in a somewhat similar place as Microsoft's toy but still different -- it was more or less the first coding agent/assistant, and GitHub/VSCode/Microsoft has enough user base and impact to influence individual users and enterprises' choices.
For Amazon's coding agent -- I just never see anyone outside Amazon even mentions Kiro or Amazon Q. Maybe a little bit when Kiro was offering tons of free credits. But I don't think it's even remotely relevant these days. I don't see news about companies adopting Kiro.
To me, it's just a matter of time before they are sunset, like Chime or a bunch of AWS products.
This would never fly if stock market was rational. But it never is.
With research and hardware near guaranteed to bring the efficiency way up, I'm not scared here of massive price hikes.
There is no moat.
This is, in my opinion, tripe. SWEs are being laid off because of post-Covid over-hiring. The only evidence for labour destruction is in junior hires. But not because anyone is being fired, but because entry-level jobs are being cannibalised.
So you're getting 2 for the price of 1.5. Scale that up to 500 devs at a big company and it's a big chunk of change saved on payroll.
Keeping your headcount or hiring humans instead, AI would have to start to cost upwards of $15k/month/developer or more before it costs more than hiring. You're looking at about 4 billion tokens per month before humans start to break even or are cheaper.
While LLM Opex is "some future quarter" and very easy to co-mingle with other expenses.
call me a luddite, i'll be wearing it as a badge of honor
I've launched an internal demo of Claude Code and Deepseek on the same day and we burned through our monthly allowance for Claude in just over a week, with more than a half of that budget being spent in one day. With DS people are unable to go through that same amount of money in a month, not even close.
With that Claude feels like an expensive toy, while DS is a shovel, purely because developers do not feel like they are eating into a precious resource while using it. Also it does not feel like there is much of a difference in capability between Claude and DS-pro. DS-pro and flash do feel like sonnet/opus and haiku, but flash is still very-very capable.
After 2 weeks of Claude getting progressively worse and worse, today was the final straw.
I don't care if they have a phone app. The model is COMPLETE garbage after you subscribe long enough and they think they've "got you".
I can't code on my phone if the model literally moves in the wrong direction and does the opposite of what I tell it to. If I wanted to make my code worse, I'd just randomly commit garbage. I don't need a mobile app for that.
This was all supposed to be worked out prior to Cloud Next, but it wasn't. Ironically, they mentioned Claude in a few of their presentations at next.
And that was our solution. We are a big GCP customer but our whole team is on Claude now and much happier.
This is a warning to any company, not building their own AI, that AI assisted development could become really expensive really fast and most likely won't pay off. What Microsoft is suggesting is that the current price is to high, but it's still not high enough for e.g. Anthropic to be profitable, or AI coding tools are only as good as the developers using them. So you can't meaningfully do layoffs by replacing the developers with AIs, because the cost is to high.
How does Microsoft plan to fix CoPilot, so that the cost will be so much lower than Claude, that budget overruns won't be a problem for their own customer?
Smaller companies will have departments that distill larger models into something more specifically manageable and useful for them. At least, that's my personal prediction :)
There may be a spot of “good enough to pay for and make a profit” that exists.
The frontier model space costs 1000x as much to develop as the small language models, and is only 1.5 years ahead.
Factually, the frontier models have not paid for themselves. So, if you're MSFT and Apple, you don't need to run in a race where even the winner loses massively.
You can try to train models 1.5 years behind that are highly likely to be profitable, given your market position.
The average person is lagging behind what AI is capable of by 3+ years anyway...
So you can save 1000x on training and 10x on inference and just use SOTA small models.
Why spend $5B training a model that's for sure not going to make $5B (after inference costs) when you can spend $5M building one that WILL make far more than that after inference costs?
At one point there were rumours that they'd do that. They also have the rigts to oAI models for a few more years still, so they could always use that but apparently they're also compute starved (like anyone else).
Arguably, Copilot is GPT 5? Not sure what the CLI offers behind the covers.
The CLI can swap to whatever model (/models) based on your subscriptions.
The copilots on desktop or Office Apps are likely just GPT5 nano or other tiny models with cheap inference
It. is. so. bad.
It feels like it's at least 1-2 years behind the current top models.
> I understand that Microsoft is planning to remove most of its Claude Code licenses and push many of its developers to use Copilot CLI instead. While Claude Code has been a popular addition, it has also undermined Microsoft’s new GitHub Copilot CLI coding tool — a command line version of GitHub Copilot that runs outside of development apps like Visual Studio Code.
And people here are interpreting this as related mainly to the Claude burning too much tokens too quickly and suggesting Microsoft should rather use SomeOtherLLM©?
Is this Hacker News or rather Marketing Wars?
No public forum is naturally immune to the spread of (guerilla) marketing. [1]
[1] Internet Rule #48
Eso mensaje de hijo de Carlos
Github Copilot offered probably the best value and was IMO underappreciated for a long time; I've been an annual subscriber since day 1.
The changes announced a few days ago completely revoke that value proposition, I doubt I'll continue with it.
New pricing model changes that. I will still keep it around for autocompletion (for the rare times when I open up an editor).
There are papers describing KV cache precomputation for commonly used documents (e.g. KVLink), but, of course, it's not a priority for model providers: they'd rather sell you more tokens, also they would rather get to AGI/ASI first than optimize usage of existing models...
Normally KV cache works only if your context prefix is identical, but there are papers which demonstrate documents can be cached between different contexts.
Similarly companies seem to reward high token usage as a sign of someone willing to play ball with AI and again have forced higher costs on themselves for people reward hacking or using tokens out of spite.
Fun fact, up until you face a consequence for crime, all crime is free! Have fun and go win the competition game against your co-workers.
1. right now, usage correlates with experimentation and learning, few if anyone knows how to make these things effective on their own over long sessions of activity
2. long term, you should be using more than one agent at a time, because they are running in the background based on events (new direct message / something happened in eg. github)
I found Opus 4.7 to be slow and wasteful with token usage. It's shocking how inefficient it is with tasks like bash tool usage and web searching, delegating them to a dozen subagents only to get stuck and never return until you esc and intervene. That, in addition to all of the broken tooling Anthropic built in to limit token usage like the broken monitoring tool made managing Claude a chore. I was happy to pay $200/month for Opus 4.5 when they had more capacity, but 4.7 felt like a huge step back and no longer worth the price and inconvenience.
I remember an OpenAI employee comment on the GPT5.5 release post about how they specifically geared it towards long-horizon tasks and its been a breathe of fresh air in that regard. I have five two-week long sessions going right now and there's been no degradation in performance or efficiency. It's much better at carrying rules/learnings forward even in long-running sessions and grounding/refreshing itself in verified facts when it loses context.
Its funny because in two weeks I've gotten way more done with GPT5.5 with way fewer tokens and way less handholding. I think this goes to show how important tooling and the harness is and how a capable model like Opus 4.7 can be severely handicapped by bad product decisions.
I expect the r/LocalLLaMA guys to be going nuts about this news.
> It was part of an effort to get project managers, designers, and other employees to experiment with coding for the first time.
I suspect they weren't as efficient as they could be with token use either. Sounds like they were trying to encourage non-developers to vibe code stuff
Between Copilot, Claude, and Gemini, I still actually prefer Gemini. I do a lot of scientific writing in addition to coding and Gemini is the only model I can trust to “just be right”. This trust then transfers over to its code output.
2) Opus is not even unambiguously best at coding anymore. GPT 5.5 splits that title for some time now.
3) I would have probably done the same in his position. Dogfood the product.
Speed without judgement always compounds badly.
If anything, it's forced dogfooding, i.e., forcing their own workforce to beta-test their product.
https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-copilo...
Claude tokens are priced by GitHub at a disproportionately premium price compared to Gemini and OpenAI. I wonder why?
https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/copilot-billing...
Also it became very hard to convince management to keep both Claude code and GitHub Copilot enterprise licenses.
Side note, it's so frustrating that The Verge puts a paywall at the fold. It makes me feel like the rest of the story is not worth reading. I'm not inclined to pay $2 to read a link that was posted on an aggregator.
At least Codex is trying to win validation on merit.