Some thoughts regarding the current satiation with OpenAI. OpenAI is clearly in a difficult position right now, especially as compute capacity is becoming an increasingly serious problem. We recently saw new sign-ups for the $200 subscription temporarily suspended. Shortly afterward came the major blow: usage rates were effectively cut in half across the $200 plan and all the other plans, with GPT 6.1 Sol introduced as a highly efficient alternative to compensate.

The usage allowances were generous at first, but inference was slow. It has since become faster, but it still has a way to go. Personally, I still prefer GPT 6 Astra on Medium, but with the reduced subscription limits, I will soon be unable to use it as much as I normally do. Worse still, I won’t be able to use future top-tier models in the Astra family to the same extent either. I don’t think this is down to malice on OpenAI’s part, but simply to how severe its compute constraints have become.

Somewhat bafflingly, the headline announcement at Dev Day was the always-on agent, which I have yet to find particularly compelling. That makes it easy for Anthropic to position itself as the appealing alternative right now.

I still consider Opus 5.5 the better model, particularly when compared directly with GPT 6.1. With Fable 5.5 due to be released soon, OpenAI is under even more pressure to respond. Honestly, I no longer understand OpenAI’s vision.

By reducing its subscription allowances, OpenAI has made it easy for Anthropic to present itself as the better alternative and draw users back to Claude ahead of Anthropic’s IPO. OpenAI has done itself a real disservice.

OpenAI’s recent communication has also been far from good. Instead of speaking plainly about the problems, it framed the reduction in weekly usage limits as an efficiency improvement, as though users were actually getting more than before. I honestly don’t believe that. Which leaves me wondering: Quo vadis, OpenAI?