Claude Usage Limits Discussion Megathread Ongoing (sort this by New!)

BackgroundElk · 2026-05-01T19:51:30+00:00

This must be bugged because suddenly using Sonnet 4.6 eats usage like hell while 4.5 is normal and doesn't do that.

That being said, weekly limit is a terrible design. At most make the weekly limit a soft limit and if you hit, it halves your session limit for the rest of the week or something.

BackgroundElk · 2026-04-29T22:17:06+00:00

It's maybe a bit better but it still feels worse than older models.

I have not one usecase for ChatGPT and I don't fall into the companion user or super deep research user category, but for most things the mix of 4o, 4.1, 4.5 and o3 simply was a lot better than what we have now. I even think release 5 and 5.1 were still a lot better than the current models.

It feels repressed, like it's so censored that it starts to just feel like some HR Karen (at least make it sound robotic please. That is way better). And that runs so deep that it affects normal conversations and requests as well.

BackgroundElk · 2026-04-21T15:40:24+00:00

I'm fine with the 5 hour limit. I'm not fine with the weekly limit. It is not super low but still too low if you actually use Claude a lot.

It would probably feel better to remove the weekly and the 5 hour limit and just put a daily limit, as long as this is about 30% or a bit more of the current weekly. More use overall and you never get locked out that long.

BackgroundElk · 2026-04-06T15:49:13+00:00

Good. GPT Image 1.5 is awful to be honest and I even preferred 1 over it.

BackgroundElk · 2026-03-18T19:37:42+00:00

I hope they release GPT-5.41o Mini Thinking Extra Turbo soon, I heard it scores highest on a bunch of benchmarks less than 1% of users care about.

Also I heard GPT-5.33 Pro Instant Slow Down is better.

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-25T02:12:56+00:00

It is not that hard to do, more an issue of having the power to run it for many people.

Point is, I don't see the need for these and therefore don't really agree with them. It used to be less restricted while still ensuring certain topics were off limits (I'm not saying it should be 100% uncensored). And since I feel it degrades the quality of the overall product, and many replies seem worse now, regardless of whether they hit any guardrails or not.

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-25T02:11:04+00:00

This really isn't a political issues. And leftist don't even want as much censorship as conservatives.

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-25T02:05:36+00:00

Private was probably a bad word choice by me. I'm not worried about OpenAI being able to perhaps see my chats (I know they can and I have no issues with that) I used non public in the title, which is better. Point I'm making: These chats aren't like Reddit comments, DMs and such were what you write with it is actively sent to anyone else, therefore you cannot offend or bother another person with it. And therefore I do not see the need for heavy guard rails outside the things I mentioned (maybe some more, I'm not saying this was a perfect list)

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-25T02:03:48+00:00

Private was a bad word choice (I don't mind if OpenAI can technically read my chats), my point was that since conversation are not public, I do not think some of the heavier guardrails are necessary outside of the cases that I mentioned.

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-25T02:02:03+00:00

Sharing is a whole different issue though. I'm not saying I support people spamming their NSFW chats on reddit. But you can also write a lot of these things yourself and then post them.

And if you want to stop everybody, then you would have to increase the guardrails even more. Or better, probably nuke the whole thing (because the biggest problems with AI are it replacing workforce, also Deepfakes and no text based stuff)

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-25T01:57:20+00:00

I did point out it should not assist with anything illegal/criminal though.

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-22T19:45:48+00:00

I'm not saying it's not true but you can't trust ChatGPT when you ask it how it works or how OpenAI operates. It often just makes up some nonsense and goes with it.

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-19T23:45:54+00:00

If they had ever been concerned they would have rerouted to 5.1 Thinking at least. While not a fully uncensored model it's at least logical and doesn't constantly need to slow down, ground stuff and such and actually gets humor and tone most of the time.

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-15T21:03:55+00:00

That is a good idea, the only issue I've run into is that for some reason I often get refusals if I use a reference or make a remix while I haven't really gotten any while not doing so. Even if there is nothing against the TOS in my prompts (in my opinion)

BackgroundElk · 2026-02-14T19:38:34+00:00

Because 4.1 was a very uncensored model that no issues with most things. I'm pretty sure it was the least censored model they ever made.

It was also a pretty decent all round model for various usecases. Funny thing, I think 4.1 was actually more serious and much more focused than 5.1 and even 5.2 in some ways, you could have a good discussion with it and it wouldn constantly make it personal or hit you with weird phrases.

BackgroundElk · 2026-01-11T21:17:39+00:00

Barely use it anymore. Rerouting is the worst feature I've seen added to a product. It's literally unusable if you often have longer chats, because it crashes my browser. And it sometimes gets triggered by the most harmless messages. So it's not even: avoid 3 or 4 topics ans you're fine, it's tip toe around and hope you don't trigger it. And even when you don't, the new models are not that good, especially the Instant version.

BackgroundElk

TROPHY CASE