3 comments
One of the main reasons for me for sticking with Claude Code (also for non-coding tasks, I think the name is a misnomer) is the fixed price plan. Pretty much any other open-source alternative requires API key, which means that as soon as I start using it _for real_, I'll start overpaying and/or hitting limits too fast. At least that was my initial experience with API from OpenAI/Claude/Gemini.<p>Am I biased/wrong here?
You're not wrong, though I suspect the AI "bubble burst" begins to happen when companies like Anthropic stop giving us so much compute for 'free' the only hope is that as things get better their cheaper models get as good as their best models today and so it costs drastically less to use them.
Yep, this is a fair take. Token usage shoots up fast when you do agentic stuff for coding. I too end up doing the same thing.<p>But for most background automations your might actually run, the token usage is way lower and probably an order of magnitude cheaper than agentic coding. And a lot of these tasks run well on cheaper models or even open-source ones.<p>So I don't think you are wrong at all. It is just that I believe the expensive token pattern mostly comes from coding-style workloads.
I'm increasingly seeing code-adjacent people who are using coding agents for non-coding things because the tooling support it better, and the agents work really well.<p>It's an interesting area, and glad to see someone working on this.<p>The other program in the space that I'm aware of is Block's Goose.
Yep, totally agree. We actually had an earlier web version, and the big learning was that without access to code-related tools the agent feels pretty limited. That pushed us toward a CLI where it can use the full shell and behave more like a real worker.<p>Really appreciate the support and the Goose pointer. Would love to hear what you think of RowboatX once you try it.
Can this use local LLMs?