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

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

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 Update ai: Man Suing City After AI Camera Flags Him For Wrongful Arres

If you were arrested after an AI facial recognition camera wrongly flagged you as a trespasser, how far would you go to get justice?

Jason Killinger is looking to go all the way. The Nevada man recently filed a lawsuit against the city of Reno, after a police officer named Richard Jager placed him under arrest for 12 hours on the guidance of an AI surveillance system.

The filing naming the city of Reno is the latest escalation in Killinger’s months-long quest for retribution, coming after federal Judge Miranda Du agreed the city could be named in his suit, the Reno Gazette Journal reported. A lawsuit against Jager is already ongoing, which will now include Reno among its defendants.

While placing some bets at an area casino, Killinger was previously flagged as a “100 percent match” for another man who had been banned from the gaming floor at an earlier date. After being detained by casino security, Killinger was placed under arrest by officer Jager, who accused the innocent man of using a fake ID to evade casino staff.

The cop made a number of errors, the lawsuit alleged, including refusing to check Killinger for alternative forms of ID (he had at least three in his wallet at the time, he says.)

Yet the new lawsuit takes things much further, blaming the city of Reno itself for failing to train police officers properly on the legal use of AI facial recognition tools. This situation, Killinger’s attorneys allege, has led to “thousands of unlawful arrests” using facial ID technology, the Gazette reported.

“Jager’s conduct was not a sporadic incident involving the wrongful actions of a rogue employee,” the updated lawsuit declares, “but the result of a widespread custom and practice involving hundreds of municipal employees making thousands of arrests in the same manner over a period of years.”

It’s not the first incident where cops trusted machines over their brains, and it’s far from the most horrific. Last year, an innocent grandmother was jailed for over six months after Fargo police, using a generative AI system to generate investigative leads, flagged her as the perpetrator of ATM fraud (bank records later showed she was 1,200 miles away at the time of the crime.)

While Killinger’s attorneys haven’t named a specific reward they’d like to see, Reno taxpayers could be on the hook for punitive damages, attorney fees, and compensation for injuries he sustained while being handcuffed.

If Killinger wins, it could set a major precedent for wrongful arrests in an era where AI algorithms, not humans, are increasingly doing the policing.

More on facial recognition: People Are Calling Meta Ray-Bans “Pervert Glasses”

The post Man Suing City After AI Camera Flags Him For Wrongful Arrest appeared first on Futurism.

🔗 Sumber: futurism.com