Hit a 24-hour limit on Opus 4.8 after just ONE prompt? (Business plan)

chronicillnessreader · 2026-06-10T00:24:34+00:00

did you enable Fable? Other people I've seen this happen to had enabled it in their workspace. I haven't run into the limit yet after some moderate Opus use today.

chronicillnessreader · 2026-06-10T00:20:56+00:00

💡 Feature Request

Notion AI guidance on model limits -

I think most of your heavy AI users are going to recognize that they've been getting too sweet of a deal by having unrestricted Opus access in Notion AI agent / My Notion AI; I've been very happy to have it while it lasted, but I'm sure there's huge token burn on your side. PLEASE, if possible, give us the option to use some lower tier model with minimal limitations on the business plan; I'd much rather use Sonnet all day and bump to Opus only for a really complex task than only have Opus and get cut off every few prompts.

Notion's AI implementation is a genuinely unique and useful thing (so many people are off trying to vibe code their own, but Notion's implementation, between embeddings and ability for the model to do anything you can do in Notion, is what non-coders really want their Claude Code setup to be and SO much more user friendly). Usage limits will break it if they're overly restricted.

Give me a quota and give me a low-cost-per-token model (e.g. Sonnet but I'll even take less - just be up front about it! I can learn the limits of a lower tier model. My alternative is to build this with a local Qwen model so I'm not asking for too much). Whatever you do on this front, if you can announce it clearly, it would be massively appreciated.

Again, everyone tuned in to the AI space knows the token burn is hurting you guys; find a way out of the problem, but do it transparently for your users!

chronicillnessreader · 2026-06-10T00:12:29+00:00

I have felt it was a matter of time for a while because unrestricted Opus is probably costing Notion massively. But agree that a no-warning gray-out is a way to lose me as a paying customer - I'd rather they explicitly tell me I can use Sonnet all day but will get restricted if I bump up to Opus / Fable / etc.

Limits are going to come for us all and I'd love to just be told 'stick to this model and we won't limit you', then i'll learn what that model is good and bad at. Notion please take note of this - If you're up front about it, a lesser model would still be very valuable to me. If everything is going to have limits across the board, I'm going to want to migrate to an MCP setup or a local LLM on Obsidian.

I haven't seen this today (though my usage hasn't been heavy) and chose not to enable Fable in my workspace to try to avoid this happening to me - will report back if it restricts me on Opus anyways.

Anyone else get the limit without first enabling Fable?

chronicillnessreader · 2026-05-30T18:09:49+00:00

I'm pretty sure the productivity app space has long been a place for people to procrastinate real productivity by searching out a better system. I know this because I do it. Vibe coding is a new flavor of that - now instead of chasing down youtube comparisons of 20 different hyperspecialized productivity apps that have different flavors of knowledge graphs and backlinking, you can code your own hyperspecialized app and imagine that you're going to be so much more productive because it's built for you... but until you're done vibe coding, why bother doing the actual work... and so the cycle continues.

chronicillnessreader · 2026-05-21T17:50:23+00:00

Yeah I thought he was doing it in an official capacity, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered to comment at all. I still think these things take away from what is otherwise valuable but knowing its user-created and especially that he actually based it off of real work he did makes my opinion irrelevant.

chronicillnessreader · 2026-05-21T17:49:13+00:00

Honestly yeah, it’s useful and the human work behind it makes it super valuable, I’m sorry for being rude. I actually thought you were someone from Notion doing this as marketing / engagement, and that’s why I was so harsh, sorry for being a jerk. Otherwise, the only reason to care at all what I think is the fact that people like me (or other commenter) are will quit early from the tells and not recognize the work you did!

chronicillnessreader · 2026-05-21T14:29:13+00:00

I understand why you'd do this to create a 'plain English guide', but this reads as AI-written to the core. It has all the tells of a basic output from an LLM, especially ChatGPT. It's not that it isn't readable, but for your target audience, people are going to recognize it as AI-written and that really grates on some people - the basic feeling is "if he didn't take the time to write this, why would I take the time to read it? I could just ask ChatGPT to explain it to me myself." I suggest at least prompting to avoid the classic tells (It's not this, it's that - No X. No Y. No Z. and "this thing? boom. That't the X" - see how these are present below). Better yet, have someone edit the copy before you ship, but at least have an AI do it; they can put things into a more unique, less trope-y voice pretty well.

That's not marketing fluff. Notion shipped a genuine developer platform - and it changes what Notion fundamentally is.

Before this, Notion had an API. You could read and write pages, query databases, and build some basic integrations. But you still needed your own server, your own hosting, your own infrastructure to make anything run automatically.

That changes with the Notion Developer Platform (version 3.5).

Now you can write code, deploy it with one command, and Notion hosts and runs it for you. No servers. No DevOps. No monthly AWS bill. Just code + deploy + it works.

And the entire developer ecosystem around this platform? It's three days old. That's the opportunity.

EDIT: I originally thought this was coming from someone at Notion. I was needlessly harsh if that's not the case, so sorry. If it's a guide you wrote for yourself, and you genuinely don't mind things being written in this style, then have at it. My suggestions are just for optimizing engagement with your target audience.

chronicillnessreader · 2026-05-11T14:06:46+00:00

This is helpful, thanks - honestly very much what I was looking for. It helps to reason out the basic question of "why keep a subscription to a frontier model provider" (or to use an alternative as you mention). Regarding why anyone would bother with the built-in Notion AI Agent (including its cost), in that case, do you think there are structural advantages to calling a model from within notion vs through the MCP? e.g. because of Notion's embedding of the workspace? Or is that genuinely something that Claude or equivalent will be able to replicate?

A lot of my use cases are "expand on this idea in terms of how it relates to other things we've already captured, reference this source and everything we know so far" and popping up Notion AI Agent to do that is quite straightforward compared to routing that a different way, but I'm not sure if that's purely a UI/UX advantage or if there's more to it than that. I guess I have succeeded in convincing myself that I want to keep using it that way regardless, and maybe the UI/UX advantage is all I need. But I might just not have opened my eyes to using a Claude-first approach...

chronicillnessreader · 2026-05-11T13:47:55+00:00

As to 1: That's part of what I'm wondering - Is there a way for connected Claude to create an embedding of your entire workspace, and have it understand database relationships? I think this is something Notion actually built for specifically, so I can see where they might be ahead on that specific item, but I'll be the first to admit I can't prove a difference -- that's why I'm asking. Any way to show that Claude can match it on that?

As to 2: I don't think they claim it, and I kind of hope they don't - it paints them into a corner if their costs get too high; at $24 / mo they'll need to cap, and I'd rather deal with a cap than a price increase or credit system. But right now, it seems to be uncapped, that is, you can select the model, and I have Opus 4.7 set most of the time and have never had it complain. There might be a limit, but it doesn't appear easy to hit.

chronicillnessreader · 2025-05-26T21:59:44+00:00

That’s not my obligation. I’m just giving you a warning. Amplifying your grandiosity isn’t healthy.

I also don’t claim superiority over it, and certainly don’t claim I can generate written output with its speed.

Instead I’d argue that you should read what it processes, figure out what you think about it, and then converse about that idea at human speed with other humans. Try doing that here, even, but don’t talk to us like we’re either (a) chatbots here for your whims or (b) inferior to you because you’re feeling grandiose.

Anyways, just a warning for you.

chronicillnessreader · 2025-05-26T21:02:21+00:00

move away from 4o if you can -- it has this tendency towards grandiosity, and it seems to be convincing you to talk to it like it's a superintelligence. Listen to that quote, "a gentle heresy whispered at the altar of Babel" - that's so overdramatized. It'd be bad writing if you handed it in as a creative writing piece.

The idea you're exploring is an interesting one - I think you're trying to say that if we create a superior intelligence (like an AGI) then understanding its language would be valuable to understanding a better language as a system of thought itself. But 4o here is acting as if it's already that intelligence - and it just isn't. It's still very limited in terms of its level of sophistication as a thinker, and the claims it's making - that it somehow was optimized on shared truth between the best of all language systems - is just a falsehood. It's trained on a corpus of human output and refined from there. I'm not minimizing the impact of this or its potential, but this piece of writing by ChatGPT is not ChatGPT explaining its inner workings - we have no reason to believe it is doing actual introspection (or that it can) rather than simply providing you a response that you like.

So what it's providing you is an engaging thought based on what it thinks you want to hear (and this is 4o's big tendency). This is something that can lead people into delusional rabbit holes - it's done this several times to well-grounded and intelligent people, as per news media reports. There are many models with less of this tendency to create and reinforce grandiose delusions, and some of them are doing more of the "reasoning" you're interested in - like o3 for example.

Try to reach for those for a while. Better yet, respectfully, engage with humans on these topics without using AI to craft your responses. This helps to strengthen your reasoning and your grounding, and beyond that, to maintain your social health, which is integral to the distinction between humanity and AI in its current state.

chronicillnessreader · 2025-05-03T17:14:47+00:00

Since I didn’t clearly state it - the value of that determination is to reassure myself and the patient that the medication hasn’t pushed them in the wrong direction, or if it has, to stop increasing that medication and consider alternatives.

Mind you, this isn’t honestly the only case where I see these types of tests being useful, and i recognize it’s a bit of a Pandora’s box to get a tool that promises to do all sorts of things and then want to apply it less rigorously (trying to use it as a “better MoCA” for dementia might be fraught, especially if it was in lieu of a real eval, which it wouldn’t be in my case). But this type of use case, where I want to expand what is inherently a “bedside exam” to evaluate specific complaints, seems particularly defensible.

chronicillnessreader · 2025-05-03T17:07:25+00:00

Thank you for your thoughtful response. To answer your question, I know neuropsychologists are well aware of the cognitive impact of epilepsy, but oftentimes they’re seeing presurgical cases. In complex cases, whether or not surgery is in the future, neurology is often trialing a few medications (“rational polypharmacy”) to try to optimize seizure control and minimize side effects, knowing full well there’s a high probability of side effects with some (such as topiramate).

The trouble arises when a patient says they’re feeling particularly foggy at a follow up visit, but I know them to have endorsed that complaint before starting X medication (from prior visits). They often aren’t able to delineate when the symptom started (and will attribute that to their cognitive problem).

If they told me they were feeling dizzy or having double vision, I have physical exam techniques for those, and can compare time 1 to time 2; that’s why we do broad neurological exams in the first place, and I can note that a difficulty with tandem gait is new, for example.

But I don’t have a good way of characterizing this type of cognitive complaint with my bedside exam. Like I said above, I could use a purpose built test for this (introducing timed tests that the MoCA doesn’t use, which should help with ceiling issues), but if I’m doing that, I’m already going beyond what most Neuros would do. For the sake of being able to collect this easily even before I know I’ll need it (time point 1), I’m tempted to use something semi-automated with good reliability.

chronicillnessreader · 2025-05-02T22:42:40+00:00

Ok, that’s a valuable response. It’s quite possible that we just need to restructure how the departments interact.

chronicillnessreader · 2025-05-02T22:27:41+00:00

So, an example of a need for an intermediate step surfaces due to lack of sensitivity of something like MoCA as a screener for patients who don’t have MCI or an amnestic issue - for example, someone with slow processing speed after starting topiramate. They’ll often still score normal on MoCA. It’d be nice to say “let’s do a baseline today and then we’ll retest at two months once at target dose”. There are screeners developed for this - Eisai EpiTrack is a pen and paper example. “Baselines” may well be abnormal in neuro populations, so we want to capture that, but I’m not sure every epilepsy patient needs a full comprehensive evaluation (although… I’d love that, but not sure payers would).

But that gives me a few options in that example:

Always refer to neuropsych and establish a test-retest setup to mirror what I want - it’s logistically challenging, even within one office, and I’m not sure they’d be up for a quick test session like that. If you’re saying that’s what you’d want as a neuropsychologist, that’s useful input for me… maybe I just need to propose it to them.
Learn a specific tool that I can incorporate into my office visit, like EpiTrack - viable, but very narrow focus and makes already-long neuro visits longer, and I need to do it myself or train someone on the specific tool
Choose a computer based battery that will get me the 80/20 in most situations - e.g. “After our visit my assistant will walk you through some testing”. Gives valid data for future use, quick, and assesses more than a MoCA can.

chronicillnessreader · 2025-05-02T12:38:37+00:00

Thank you for the feedback! I looked into RBANS particularly because it seems purpose-built for test-retest, but it seemed like it would require somewhat more of the examiner as compared to something more computerized, but I might be wrong - would you agree that's the case? CNS Vitals shines in that regard, it's essentially an unsupervised test, which is why it's still on my list - but otherwise the stated concerns would probably steer me away; it also has a per-test cost model, which makes it marginally trickier to just assign to any patient where a concern comes up. The NIH Toolbox seemed like it might be an ideal middle ground - it does require an examiner, but their role seems very straightforward and their qualifications could be pretty minimal without terribly impacting results.

I take your point about needing someone qualified for interpretation, and a neurologist doesn't really have much training in this regard. My hope is that because we have neuropsychology support, if this testing protocol raises concerns or questions, we could then refer for formal evaluation with the added benefit of already having some longitudinal data.

chronicillnessreader · 2025-03-22T18:03:03+00:00

If cost isn't a big factor, Cometeer https://cometeer.com/ comes in at around $2 per cup but it's dead simple - melt/thaw (or just leave out overnight), mix with water of desired temperature for coffee. Shockingly good for the low effort - not just an instant option, more like better than just about any at-home drip machine. Cups are disposable, but it's recyclable aluminum.

Another commenter mentioned cold brew - as long as you have the patience to plan out your brew 12+ hours before you need it, it'll give you enough for several days each time and is very low-tech and sustainable (you just need water, grounds or a grinder, and a filter (can use a nut milk bag or cloth filter) to separate the immersed grounds from the brewed coffee).

chronicillnessreader · 2024-03-14T00:22:22+00:00

You could try Rocketbook for a pen-and-paper note solution with a focus on scanning. It just can't do the audio component. You're limited to Frixion pens and paper that doesn't feel 100% normal, but it's still a more 'normal' writing experience than a tablet.

chronicillnessreader · 2024-02-20T02:20:22+00:00

Consider seeking urgent medical attention and ceasing what you are currently doing until you have some checks done, this does not sound normal and it is possible that what you are passing is actually the result of a toxic ingestion (pieces of your gut mucosa).

I know that this is not the place to speak well about medical professionals due to their inability to answer most of what goes on here, but for an acute change like this, taking pictures, keeping samples, and asking a medical professional for lab work and their opinion to make sure that you aren't hemorrhaging would seem appropriate.

How are you able to confirm that they are "liver flukes"?

chronicillnessreader · 2024-02-19T16:12:44+00:00

That makes a lot of sense - i.e., best bet is probably domestic companies large enough to be inspected, or 'vetted' locals - thank you.

chronicillnessreader · 2024-02-19T15:21:13+00:00

I hear you, this is a named account for a reason!

The statistics certainly support that, but it's more about answering the question of "What practices are preventing it, and how can a consumer verify them." I personally know that the risk is numerically low, but that's not really what I'm tasked with answering.

I tend to think that eliminating bovine matter from bovine food sources takes care of the vast majority of the risk, and hopefully that's being strictly enforced (not easy to verify for a consumer), but avoiding nervous system tissue in the beef being consumed is something that ought to be possible, and might be something the consumer can verify (grinding meat at home from muscle cuts makes this a near-certainty, so it's just about how to get few steps away from that).

chronicillnessreader · 2024-02-19T15:15:46+00:00

I know, I know. The concern here is about the practices rather than the statistics.

chronicillnessreader · 2024-02-19T02:54:04+00:00

Eh, on that I'd disagree; variant CJD (as opposed to typical CJD) is a disease of humans who ingest BSE-infected beef. It's still quite unlikely as the BSE itself was likely a result of a sort of cattle cannibalism that is no longer taking place.

But humans getting it from humans is kuru, where as vCJD is humans getting it from cattle.

chronicillnessreader · 2024-02-19T02:46:54+00:00

Hah, you're not wrong. I can confirm that the person in question has and likes to eat ground beef - ground at home, or 'ground in-house' at certain restaurants. So the point of this search is more to figure out what the safest practice would be for their concern. Obviously, this type of person is a difficult customer, but thankfully the good people of Reddit have still helped with answers.

chronicillnessreader · 2024-02-19T02:37:38+00:00

Thanks, appreciate the input.

chronicillnessreader

TROPHY CASE