MAROKO133 Update ai: Claude Code costs up to $200 a month. Goose does the same thing for f

📌 MAROKO133 Breaking ai: Claude Code costs up to $200 a month. Goose does the same

The artificial intelligence coding revolution comes with a catch: it's expensive.

Claude Code, Anthropic's terminal-based AI agent that can write, debug, and deploy code autonomously, has captured the imagination of software developers worldwide. But its pricing — ranging from $20 to $200 per month depending on usage — has sparked a growing rebellion among the very programmers it aims to serve.

Now, a free alternative is gaining traction. Goose, an open-source AI agent developed by Block (the financial technology company formerly known as Square), offers nearly identical functionality to Claude Code but runs entirely on a user's local machine. No subscription fees. No cloud dependency. No rate limits that reset every five hours.

"Your data stays with you, period," said Parth Sareen, a software engineer who demonstrated the tool during a recent livestream. The comment captures the core appeal: Goose gives developers complete control over their AI-powered workflow, including the ability to work offline — even on an airplane.

The project has exploded in popularity. Goose now boasts more than 26,100 stars on GitHub, the code-sharing platform, with 362 contributors and 102 releases since its launch. The latest version, 1.20.1, shipped on January 19, 2026, reflecting a development pace that rivals commercial products.

For developers frustrated by Claude Code's pricing structure and usage caps, Goose represents something increasingly rare in the AI industry: a genuinely free, no-strings-attached option for serious work.

Anthropic's new rate limits spark a developer revolt

To understand why Goose matters, you need to understand the Claude Code pricing controversy.

Anthropic, the San Francisco artificial intelligence company founded by former OpenAI executives, offers Claude Code as part of its subscription tiers. The free plan provides no access whatsoever. The Pro plan, at $17 per month with annual billing (or $20 monthly), limits users to just 10 to 40 prompts every five hours — a constraint that serious developers exhaust within minutes of intensive work.

The Max plans, at $100 and $200 per month, offer more headroom: 50 to 200 prompts and 200 to 800 prompts respectively, plus access to Anthropic's most powerful model, Claude 4.5 Opus. But even these premium tiers come with restrictions that have inflamed the developer community.

In late July, Anthropic announced new weekly rate limits. Under the system, Pro users receive 40 to 80 hours of Sonnet 4 usage per week. Max users at the $200 tier get 240 to 480 hours of Sonnet 4, plus 24 to 40 hours of Opus 4. Nearly five months later, the frustration has not subsided.

The problem? Those "hours" are not actual hours. They represent token-based limits that vary wildly depending on codebase size, conversation length, and the complexity of the code being processed. Independent analysis suggests the actual per-session limits translate to roughly 44,000 tokens for Pro users and 220,000 tokens for the $200 Max plan.

"It's confusing and vague," one developer wrote in a widely shared analysis. "When they say '24-40 hours of Opus 4,' that doesn't really tell you anything useful about what you're actually getting."

The backlash on Reddit and developer forums has been fierce. Some users report hitting their daily limits within 30 minutes of intensive coding. Others have canceled their subscriptions entirely, calling the new restrictions "a joke" and "unusable for real work."

Anthropic has defended the changes, stating that the limits affect fewer than five percent of users and target people running Claude Code "continuously in the background, 24/7." But the company has not clarified whether that figure refers to five percent of Max subscribers or five percent of all users — a distinction that matters enormously.

How Block built a free AI coding agent that works offline

Goose takes a radically different approach to the same problem.

Built by Block, the payments company led by Jack Dorsey, Goose is what engineers call an "on-machine AI agent." Unlike Claude Code, which sends your queries to Anthropic's servers for processing, Goose can run entirely on your local computer using open-source language models that you download and control yourself.

The project's documentation describes it as going "beyond code suggestions" to "install, execute, edit, and test with any LLM." That last phrase — "any LLM" — is the key differentiator. Goose is model-agnostic by design.

You can connect Goose to Anthropic's Claude models if you have API access. You can use OpenAI's GPT-5 or Google's Gemini. You can route it through services like Groq or OpenRouter. Or — and this is where things get interesting — you can run it entirely locally using tools like Ollama, which let you download and execute open-source models on your own hardware.

The practical implications are significant. With a local setup, there are no subscription fees, no usage caps, no rate limits, and no concerns about your code being sent to external servers. Your conversations with the AI never leave your machine.

"I use Ollama all the time on planes — it's a lot of fun!" Sareen noted during a demonstration, highlighting how local models free developers from the constraints of internet connectivity.

What Goose can do that traditional code assistants can't

Goose operates as a command-line tool or desktop application that can autonomously perform complex development tasks. It can build entire projects from scratch, write and execute code, debug failures, orchestrate workflows across multiple files, and interact with external APIs — all without constant human oversight.

The architecture relies on what the AI industry calls "tool calling" or "<a href="https://platform.openai…

Konten dipersingkat otomatis.

🔗 Sumber: venturebeat.com

📌 MAROKO133 Eksklusif ai: Elon Musk Fans Increasingly Disgusted by His Toxic Outbu

Elon Musk is expectorating racist diatribes even more than usual, and it’s alienating his fans and investors.

On his website X, over six percent of Musk’s posts have been about race in the past seven months, which is almost triple the rate of the two previous years, a new investigation by The Washington Post found.

More than half of these posts included the word “white,” reflecting Musk’s obsession with the racist myth that white people are being “replaced.”

“Whites are a rapidly dying minority,” Musk seethed in January, for instance. 

He has paid particular attention to his home country of South Africa, whose government he frequently accuses of being “anti-White.”

“There are now more anti-White and anti other race laws in South Africa than there were anti-Black laws under Apartheid!” Musk tweeted at one point, a claim he has repeatedly nearly verbatim, without evidence.

Tesla was once seen as a shining beacon of green energy and the future of automobiles, and SpaceX a company that would take humans to Mars and beyond. Nowadays, Tesla owners are so ashamed of their cars that they slap anti-Elon stickers on them; and SpaceX has been rolled together with Musk’s AI company, xAI, whose chatbot Grok is best known for calling itself “MechaHitler” and generating nudes of minors.

His claims of whites being a dying minority are the same talking points that out-and-out white nationalists espouse, and longtime Musk supporters have taken notice, with some telling WaPo that on top of the beliefs being appalling, they distract from the mission of his businesses that they still believe in.

A once prominent pro-Tesla account quipped in December: “Rivian: focused on autonomy and their next vehicle. Elon: focused on the percentage of white people in New Zealand.”

Others saw the writing on the wall years ago. Fred Lambert, the editor in chief of the EV blog Electrek, sold his stake in Tesla in 2024 after shareholders caved to appease Musk with a $56 billion pay package, despite Musk’s extremist turn already blowing back on Tesla’s reputation and business. The company’s mission had become “enriching” its owner, he fumed, saying that it’s become impossible to ignore Musk’s beliefs.

“At this point, if you are invested in Elon, you are pretty much doing it for the white nationalism,” Lambert wrote in a January tweet.

“The entire situation baffles me… there’s no doubt he is a White nationalist based on his recent statements about White people ‘reclaiming their nations,’” Lambert later told WaPo in an interview. “As for the massive institutions backing him and investing in his ventures — it’s money before morals.”

More on Elon Musk: SpaceX’s IPO Plan Will Give Elon Musk Ironclad Rule Over the Resulting Empire

The post Elon Musk Fans Increasingly Disgusted by His Toxic Outbursts appeared first on Futurism.

🔗 Sumber: futurism.com