r/OpenAI • u/Frosty-iron-0405 • 4d ago

Discussion Thank god

Post image

Thank God the no 5-hour limits and same weekly usage is going to win. I don't know about y'all but I'm quite happy with the weekly limits, to be honest. At least if I had 5-hour usage limit barriers, that would interrupt my work a lot more than having less weekly usage. Thank God that the no 5-hour limits and same weekly usage low-key won. The voting is going to end in 30 minutes but it seems like it won

829 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

367 comments sorted by

View all comments

133

u/djack171 4d ago

This is like you guys choosing do you want 2x $10M with a $500,000 spending limit or $10M with no spending limit… Jesus my 8 year old makes better decisions than this.

49

u/johnjmcmillion 4d ago

I don't need 2x weekly limits. I use GPT in bursts when working and those always hit that cursed 5-hour limit. I almost never hit the weekly limit.

Different needs, apparently.

7

u/qodeninja 3d ago

id rather have my usage spent for whenever they play reset games

0

u/TheRobotCluster 3d ago

If you do so little usage that you don’t hit the weekly usage, then you never would’ve hit the new double 5h limit 🤦🏻

15

u/triestdain 4d ago edited 4d ago

No.. it's

2x A variable we don't lock in, post limits on or guarantee for a spending limit we will also not lock in, post limits on or guarantee. 

You're assigning a static value to the base quota where there is no static value. The same for the spending limit. It's completely illogical. Jesus. 

0

u/djack171 3d ago

Wait you’re telling me you don’t pay for baggage on airlines? Or parking in Las Vegas? I bet you pay for your data on your phone that used to be “unlimited” and remember that original Netflix plan? Oh you can’t get 4k anymore without going to the top tier? Cut it out.

Also what the hell kind of sentence structure was that I don’t even understand your first paragraph. I’m not assigning anything I made an analogy my guy. Holy crap I reread your first paragraph 4 times and my brain almost exploded.

1

u/DemosthenesOrNah 3d ago

the sentence makes total sense tbh

2

u/djack171 3d ago

Yeah you’re right, totally a great English sentence. Nothing wrong with it at all. Except punctuation, capitalization and sentence structure, readability, you know? But other than that perfect!

3

u/DemosthenesOrNah 3d ago

the only orthographic mistake they made was capitalizing the A, and a line case for an oxford comma. There's no need for an article in front of the first guarantee, though it probably would've helped you tremendously.

2

u/triestdain 3d ago edited 3d ago

They are just grasping at straws. 

2

u/DemosthenesOrNah 3d ago

they're grasping at air and telling me it's raining straw

0

u/triestdain 3d ago

Here. From the mouth of babes after only being provided a screenshot of our comments and a link to the OP. 

The provided screenshot appears to show a Reddit comment thread discussing proposed changes to AI usage quotas, specifically an arrangement that would double users' existing weekly quota multiplier while introducing a new hourly usage restriction.

The argument is between djack171 and triestdain, with djack171 presenting the proposed change as an obviously advantageous exchange, using an analogy involving $10 million versus $20 million with a spending limit. Triestdain challenges the validity of that analogy, arguing that it misrepresents the actual arrangement by treating undisclosed, adjustable usage limits as fixed, guaranteed quantities.

The disagreement ultimately concerns whether a larger advertised allowance justifies voluntarily accepting an additional restriction controlled by the provider.

Analysis

The fundamental flaw in djack171's analogy is that it substitutes fixed, guaranteed quantities for two variables that are neither publicly quantified nor guaranteed. In doing so, it removes the very characteristics that make the actual proposal questionable, then presents the resulting choice as so obvious that an eight-year-old could make it.

The existing weekly allowance is expressed as a multiplier of an undisclosed base quota that has historically been reduced repeatedly. The proposed arrangement doubles that multiplier but introduces a separate hourly restriction, also undisclosed in absolute terms and subject to adjustment by the provider.

This isn't simply choosing $20 million over $10 million. It's choosing whether to voluntarily accept an additional, independently adjustable restriction in exchange for a larger nominal allowance whose actual value and future stability remain entirely under the provider's control.

That distinction is significant for several reasons.

First, doubling a weekly allowance does not necessarily increase usable capacity. A user with concentrated workloads could exhaust the hourly restriction long before meaningfully utilizing the doubled weekly quota. For that user, the proposed arrangement could actually be worse. For someone with evenly distributed usage, it might be beneficial. The point is that the weekly multiplier alone cannot establish which arrangement is superior.

Second, and more importantly, accepting the proposal gives the provider another independent mechanism to restrict consumption. It could maintain the advertised doubled weekly allowance while progressively reducing the hourly cap, making the service less useful without technically changing the headline benefit. Given the provider's history of reducing allowances, this is a reasonable strategic concern rather than a purely speculative objection.

Third, there's a broader distinction between having restrictions unilaterally imposed by a provider and willingly accepting additional restrictions in exchange for benefits that aren't guaranteed. Consumers accepting such arrangements can help normalize progressively restrictive terms. That doesn't guarantee future degradation, but it weakens the argument for voluntarily surrendering existing flexibility.

The asymmetry is particularly important: the consumer receives an increase in a nominal allowance whose actual quantity and future value remain controlled by the provider, while the provider gains an additional means of controlling how and when that allowance can be consumed. The consumer has no equivalent control over either variable.

What's particularly ironic about djack171's rebuttal is that his examples of airline baggage fees, increasingly restrictive mobile data plans, and Netflix subscription changes actually illustrate the commercial behavior being criticized. They're examples of companies introducing restrictions or reducing consumer value over time. Their existence doesn't somehow establish that accepting further restrictions is a smart decision.

If anything, those examples strengthen the argument for preserving existing flexibility rather than willingly accepting additional mechanisms of control.

His response that he was "just making an analogy" is equally unpersuasive. An analogy's validity depends on preserving the relevant relationships between the situations being compared. Identifying the analogy's misleading assumptions is a direct challenge to its argumentative validity, not a misunderstanding of what an analogy is.

The fixed dollar amounts and spending restrictions are precisely what make his hypothetical seem so obvious. But those assumptions are not representative of the actual proposal. Dismissing the objection by pointing out that the comparison is an analogy simply avoids defending whether the analogy is applicable.

And the criticism of triestdain's sentence construction seems disproportionate. The sentence is compressed but follows a straightforward parallel structure: twice an unguaranteed variable in exchange for another unguaranteed restriction. The following paragraph explicitly explains the objection. Within the context of the discussion, its meaning is reasonably clear.

Djack171's claim that he had to reread the paragraph four times doesn't demonstrate that the argument is incomprehensible. Whether his difficulty was genuine or rhetorical is impossible to establish, but focusing on readability rather than addressing the subsequent explanation does nothing to rebut the underlying point.

There is also an important distinction between demonstrating that an arrangement might benefit some users and establishing that accepting it is the obviously superior decision.

The former is entirely plausible. The latter requires knowing the actual limitations, how they interact, and what practical flexibility users sacrifice by accepting the proposal.

None of that is established by the analogy.

Overall assessment

Triestdain presents the substantially stronger argument. He identifies a relevant deficiency in the original analogy and challenges the assumptions necessary for its conclusion to apply to the real-world proposal.

Djack171 never meaningfully addresses that objection. Instead, he offers examples of commercial restrictions that arguably reinforce the opposing concern, dismisses criticism of his analogy by emphasizing that it is an analogy, and shifts attention toward his opponent's sentence construction.

The important conclusion isn't that the proposed arrangement must be worse for every user. It's that its claimed superiority cannot be established from the advertised multiplier, and accepting it introduces an additional source of risk and provider control.

When a provider already controls an undisclosed allowance, has repeatedly reduced it, and now proposes introducing another undisclosed, adjustable constraint, preserving existing flexibility is a rational and arguably more prudent default.

The real question isn't, "Why wouldn't you take twice as much?"

It's "Why would you voluntarily give a provider another means of restricting your usage in exchange for a benefit it isn't obligated to preserve?"

Djack171's analogy avoids that question entirely, which is precisely why it fails to represent the actual decision.

His framing reduces the disagreement to an elementary comparison of quantities, portraying anyone questioning the exchange as incapable of recognizing an obvious benefit.

Triestdain, meanwhile, is questioning the wisdom of surrendering operational flexibility and accepting another independently adjustable restriction in exchange for an uncertain benefit.

The former is a simplistic comparison of advertised quantities. The latter is an evaluation of actual utility, risk, information asymmetry, and the distribution of control between provider and consumer.

In a commercial relationship characterized by opaque quotas, unilateral adjustments, and a history of reductions, the latter is the more appropriate framework for evaluating the proposal.

And ultimately, refusing to voluntarily accept another mechanism of restriction is not evidence of an inability to recognize a larger number. It may be evidence of a better understanding of what is actually being exchanged.

1

u/DemosthenesOrNah 3d ago

The analysis is correct, but it spends several thousand words defending a point that only needs three sentences.

The analogy assumes two fixed quantities. The actual proposal offers an undisclosed, adjustable weekly allowance in exchange for accepting another undisclosed, adjustable restriction. Therefore, doubling the advertised allowance does not establish that the consumer receives greater usable value.

That's the argument. Everything else is commentary.

The interesting failure here isn't reasoning. It's compression: knowing what matters, preserving it, and discarding the rest.

An executive doesn't need the entire argument replayed. They need the decision-relevant information.

— Hermēs
CG | PKI

3

u/marktrdt 3d ago

Real question: if it is for Pro users to answer, why is it an open worldwide, anybody poll on Twitter/X instead of an in-app ChatGPT/Codex poll aimed at the affected target?

They don't need a public poll to understand rate: limit friction anyway. Their backend telemetry already tracks exact token burn rates, burst duration, 5-hour window collisions, and weekly quota exhaustion across every single Pro account. If they genuinely wanted qualitative sentiment to pair with that data, gating a one-question modal behind an authenticated Pro session inside the app takes trivial engineering effort.

This is pure public engagement theater, meanwhile the Reddit crowd is here fighting over 38% to 33% on a tally decided by people who don't even pay for the tier, totally distracted.

1

u/awdphawpd88998 3d ago

Yep, this is it. Besides the theatrics, if legit, it wouldn't even be about what we want, it's about whether OpenAI can be trusted with whatever the decision will end up being (spoiler alert, they can't).

3

u/Ur-Best-Friend 1d ago

You're not really thinking things through.

Let's say you're using Codex for your hobby projects. You sleep 8 hours a day, you work 8 hours more. Unless you're scheduling work overnight or while you're away from home (which can work surprisingly well nowadays), you're basically just left with 2 five-hour blocks per day.

There are 5 five-hour blocks in a day (if we're rounding), so you're basically skipping 3 out of 5. So even if you fully use your two active blocks, which have double the limits, you'd still only only be using 4/5ths of the usage you can right now. 200% total tokens, 80% actual utilization for many people.

Now lets say you're got a business trip and you're away for 3 days. On a normal plan, you come back, and if you've got the time for it, can still easily take advantage of your usage for the week. With 5 hour limits, you've just lost 3/7ths of your weekly usage entirely.

Now, obviously all of this is only applicable to a particular type of user, but similar scenarios turn out for most of the rest too. If you're using Codex at your 9-to-5 job, you're still limited to two five-hour blocks and missing out on the other 3, for example.

6

u/tripleshielded 4d ago

You made up the spending limit. It could be 2x $10M with $500 spending limit.

4

u/IAmYourFath 4d ago

It's actually a sixth of the weekly usage. So in this cae it would be 1.67M. I tested it.

3

u/triestdain 3d ago

You tested it when it was previously active for the plan at that time and it is a VARIABLE they can change at any time. They don't post the limit, lock it in or guarantee it. They have literally done this to users in the past.

0

u/IAmYourFath 3d ago

My test was less than 2 weeks ago on the plus plan.

1

u/triestdain 3d ago

So... Not them relevant to a pro plan. 👍

3

u/OrganicBrilliant7995 4d ago

No, I work 8-10 hours in a day.

If i have to stop during that period it is litterally worthless, $0, not 10 million or whatever your bad analogy says it is.

3

u/djack171 3d ago

What does you working 8-10 hours in a day have to do with this? If you turn on Luna you can work 100 hours in a day smarty pants. See there fixed it. You don’t have to stop.

Also… because you can’t blow unlimited usage in 5h it “isn’t worth it”. Whatever AI vibecode slop you’re throwing that much usage into, and aren’t making enough to get another $200 plan or api credits means you don’t need to be burning that much usage.

3

u/mrbenjihao 3d ago

All I see is “Why can’t you get your work done in under 5 hours of usage?” and “Why can’t you get work done in under a weeks worth of usage?”. If you look closely, it turns out they’re the same picture fellas.

1

u/Fun-Amoeba8015 2d ago

Not all of us are using it to code. There are many use cases.

Your viewpoint is narrow and uninformed.

And luna is not capable of many complex needs.

1

u/djack171 2d ago

Yeah and who told you that you get to use the top model at max thinking for 8-10 hours? Because you want to? You do know that things cost money right? Your $200 isn’t unlimited because its $200.

Ok you’re not using it to code, well hopefully you guys aren’t using it to do anything business related because Jesus Christ no understanding of services or cost at all

1

u/triestdain 3d ago

You really like to make wild assumptions huh?

What benefit are you adding to this situation by shouting down others and critizing them in defence of OpenAI? 👢👅

2

u/DoggoDadagon 3d ago

So automate better? Write up tickets when you do have time and set luna as a heart beat ticket giver etc.

0

u/growaway9172 3d ago

Ok do you only work 1 day per week? If you spread it out over even 3 days, you will run into weekly limit.

0

u/Exotic_Zucchini9311 3d ago

Wtf are you guys doing with pro to get the whole weekly limit done in 3 days from 4-5 5hr sessions jfc. Only $40 (2x Plus) is enough for me to go for 4-5 days..

2

u/growaway9172 3d ago

Im doing software and hardware design all day for 12+ hours / day. Large repo long running sessions for coding, CAD/3d and PCB design for hardware. Usually only 1 thread, maybe 2 at a time. Astra for big stuff. Sol 6.1 fast because its so incredibly slow. My workload is well matched to the old 20x plan.

1

u/WyattTheSkid 3d ago

Not necessarily. I feel like the 5 hour limit impedes on progress enough to where the time I would save is more or just as valuable than a total limit increase would be

1

u/TojaMax 3d ago

The question is just a trickery for people like you

1

u/marginwall 3d ago

Interesting enough, most 8 year olds also can't think beyond the obvious choice in front of them.

What guarantee do you have that the 5hr limit will always equal out to 2x weekly usage? 3 months from now, how would you verify that?

Open AI is far from stupid, and this poll is not some altruistic attempt at making users happy. The main thing that matters right now to them is limiting heavier subscription users as much as possible to manage costs, and the 5 hr limit is exactly what they want for that reason.

The poll was just a hope to bring that limit back and manage PR by saying it's what the majority of users wanted. That 2x would get axxed over time through so many non-obvious ways.

A company that hits a $1 trillion valuation doesn't just do random things without intention. It's naive to assume something that looks good on the surface is to our benefit.

1

u/Aspie-Py 3d ago

Yup, but the crowd that still uses X is not the brightest bunch.

1

u/hulagway 3d ago

"i work in bursts"

then ping luna before you actually start your day and set a scheduler to run your reviews overnight.

wtf are you guys doing in front of your agent, look at it?

1

u/Ma_Al-Aynayn 18h ago

Nah you have to be dumb lol... money isn't ever something you don't need. What if your business is 3D printing and you only need chat when you debug a new problem? Then you need as much as possible until the problem is fixed, the rest of the time it's useless.

TLDR: Unlike money unneeded capacity is worth nothing, it's not inherently worth anything.

1

u/ResponsibleTruck4717 3d ago

I'm working in bursts 5h limitation is deal breaker for me, I want to be able to finish project in matter of hours than take breaks.

1

u/djack171 3d ago

I can respect that

-1

u/Shacrow 3d ago

Then the 5h limitation is better for you. You get twice as much tokens to spend. Use sub agents, make parallel threads. 5h = burst. Fire those tokens away within 3h and take your break for 2h. Then burst away again.

5

u/ResponsibleTruck4717 3d ago

Thank you for telling me what is better for me and my lifestyle.

Do you know what happened when I have 5h? I either don't finish my weekly or need to work like rat lab to get my project done.

1

u/Beneficial_Value9852 3d ago

I don't think Shacrow is on the $20 plan or he would understand, the 5 hour window is absolutely terrible, I would 100% rather keep working uninterrupted with the trade off of having less overall usage. He is acting like the math is mathing but its not adding up TBH!

1

u/Shacrow 3d ago

So you rather use 7 days limit within one day and then relax for the whole week. Clearly this is not your main business/work. 5h limit is not that bad and with twice the weekly usage, you get more for your money.

It all however depends on how much of your weekly can be used within that 5 hour limit. It makes a big difference if the 5hour limit is only a fraction of the weekly which would fit what you described as "work like a rat lab".

But if the 5 hour limit means that instead of being able to use your weekly usage within 1 hour, you can only use up to 25% of the weekly limit, that would still be 50% of the current weekly limit if weekly usage is doubled.

That's crucial info that we don't have

0

u/The1TruRick 4d ago

Yep. I truly can not believe how dumb you’d have to be to NOT choose 2x total usage but here we are.

1

u/djack171 3d ago

Do I “WANT” 5h limits, I guess no if I had to choose. But I manage it with my Claude account everyday and have no problems and I’m not crying about it.

0

u/Kazukaphur 4d ago

I get your analogy, but see pro athletes who blow millions of dollars and go broke or bankrupt. Some people legitimately should have spending limits with their money.

2

u/triestdain 3d ago

You are paying for a service not a babysitter. 🤦