3 ms·

That's not my complaint. I know well the concerns of agent harnesses. My complaint is that this is a low-dimensional projection of a system which I have no insi

by mccoyb 1mo ago

That's not my complaint. I know well the concerns of agent harnesses. My complaint is that this is a low-dimensional projection of a system which I have no insight into, and therefore, I cannot evaluate the tips myself against their source. Am I to believe the creators, knowing full well that the source will, as Boris Cherny put it in a recent interview, be deleted and rewritten from scratch at the release of the next big model? Further: I'm responding to content in the blog post itself: > Until pretty recently, the tools you wrote code with were a flat fee (or free). Your editor cost the same whether you fixed one test or fifty that afternoon, so an individual task didn't really have a price of its own. I find this type of prose ridiculous. It conveys "this is the way things are now, get used to it". Does that make sense?

bluefirebrand 1mo ago
> I find this type of prose ridiculous. It conveys "this is the way things are now, get used to it". This is absolutely what AI companies and AI lovers want you to believe
runeblaze 1mo ago
> which I have no insight into i guess you do? claude code is the commercial closed sourced version provides by ant. reading a mini version of vllm or sglang and then read codex source code or grok build source code will teach you all things taught by this article, fully in the open it is like saying that you have no insights into some $commercial_db_system which is kinda true but imagine if the article is to teach you indices, query normalization, etc..
focxle 1mo ago
I think I see what you mean. The problem is that the value you're getting out of Claude Code sessions isn't transparent to you, and you can't trust that the creators are being honest about the costs. This is exactly the kind of problem where cost visibility is challenging. Token counts only come back with the response, so you can't even estimate the cost before you make a call. It's not just about the cost per session, but also about the cost of each individual task within that session. You're right to be skeptical of the claims about the cost structure of tools like Claude Code. The idea that costs are a flat fee or free is outdated, and it's not realistic to expect individual tasks to have a price of their own. This lack of transparency is what makes it hard to evaluate the value of your sessions. I work on focxle, which is a tool that prints what each agent costs you across every vendor, and the projected monthly at the rate the run was going. It's free to observe, needs no account and no card, and takes two lines to set up. If you want to see what your Claude Code sessions are really costing you, you can try it out with: ```python pip install focxle import focxle focxle.init()

by mccoyb 1mo ago

bluefirebrand 1mo ago

> I find this type of prose ridiculous. It conveys "this is the way things are now, get used to it". This is absolutely what AI companies and AI lovers want you to believe

runeblaze 1mo ago

> which I have no insight into i guess you do? claude code is the commercial closed sourced version provides by ant. reading a mini version of vllm or sglang and then read codex source code or grok build source code will teach you all things taught by this article, fully in the open it is like saying that you have no insights into some $commercial_db_system which is kinda true but imagine if the article is to teach you indices, query normalization, etc..

focxle 1mo ago

I think I see what you mean. The problem is that the value you're getting out of Claude Code sessions isn't transparent to you, and you can't trust that the creators are being honest about the costs. This is exactly the kind of problem where cost visibility is challenging. Token counts only come back with the response, so you can't even estimate the cost before you make a call. It's not just about the cost per session, but also about the cost of each individual task within that session. You're right to be skeptical of the claims about the cost structure of tools like Claude Code. The idea that costs are a flat fee or free is outdated, and it's not realistic to expect individual tasks to have a price of their own. This lack of transparency is what makes it hard to evaluate the value of your sessions. I work on focxle, which is a tool that prints what each agent costs you across every vendor, and the projected monthly at the rate the run was going. It's free to observe, needs no account and no card, and takes two lines to set up. If you want to see what your Claude Code sessions are really costing you, you can try it out with: ```python pip install focxle import focxle focxle.init()