I find that I can do 4 to 7 sessions in parallel, and still review everything in depth and co-design.

I mostly use Fable though, Opus only via sub-agents.

I find that "vibe coders" (that is, people who do not know anything about programming, but nevertheless produce useful tools for themselves and others) are using a lot more tokens than we do as programmers.

I think this is partially because we're still attached to pre-LLM notions of architecture, good design and code quality (which are still important, but maybe less important than they once were and that we think they are), partially because their projects are in a messy state, so models have to work around the technical dept.

They're essentially trading off programmer time for LLM time (which is a good trade financially speaking).

There's lots more you can do! Use the model to monitor your deployments after they get deployed. Have them fix and watch CI issues for you. Run adverserial review. Automatically watch metrics every day and highlight performance regressions. Start reviewing your previous sessions to find ways to statically reject different failure modes and have the agent have more success earlier on etc.

Another thing to think about is, what would it take for you to care less about the understanding. Better integration / e2e tests? Performance validation? visualizing program and data flows? Better refactoring of your modules?

I created a team of agents using Opus 5.5 to review and address findings on a job system I have in a side project with medium reasoning, and I burned through the 20x plan weekly limit in 2.5 days. They were using GPT-6-Sol for reviews, and it also used 85% of my OpenAI x5 weekly limit. Three hundred something commits in total.

OTOH, in the daily job, I have the team plan that's similar to 5x plan and I never had any limit problems, because I really need to understand be able to take responsibility for the code.

Totally different uses.

It's the "semblance of understanding" you're holding on to that is keeping your demand limited. I'm holding onto it as well, but I think these companies are assuming that human understanding will no longer be relevant for most codebases going forward.

> I want to retain some semblance of understanding

How you do this (and how deeply) I think is really the limit. I am doing this by focusing heavily on the design phase with grilling and trying to continually improve process to need less effort in the review phase. Are your models doing automated reviewing and testing before pushing out the PR (themselves)?

I think in the long run as models and the tools around them get better and cheaper, those that abdicate understanding will be able to achieve more. Although programmers think of that as irresponsible, ask yourself what does a tech lead do? And then what does a CTO do, etc?

Plan longer chains of work / higher level goals that can be broken down into multiple chains of work. This will allow you to automate more work units to be worked on.

The speed of your manual reviews become the limiting factor, which you should be doing at some level to maintain sanity, even if there are enough ideas to be worked on to maintain a review queue.

Cache read is the same as Opus as well where most agentic workflow cost comes from.

Not quite sure where this fits well. Maybe small one one off requests like using Claude desktop/web?

When they inevitably drop allocation after post-launch hype dies down.

I've been vibe coding a game and running multiple Opus 5.5 in parallel on Claude Code Cloud, 5x Max plan, and I'm yet to hit a session limit too. Not sure when I'd use Sonnet. Though it would be nice to switch back to Pro I guess

Useful for API requests, when using AI in the product rather than to build the product.

I am mostly at the same point right now you are, but I think in the future with those "gas town" ideas we might be managing even more agents each.

Also, I've recently begun experimenting with specific tasked agents running on a cron like timer for non-dev work. (checking emails, managing small business tasks, etc). Once I started using Claude code in this way, the number of agents I can imagine running has skyrocketed. So I guess what I am saying is that I look forward even cheaper tokens going forward.

The only advantage I could anticipate is I still hit session limits with Opus 5.5. My usage shows I'm on-track reach my weekly reset with room to spare, but yesterday I ran into a session limit. I switched down to Sonnet 5 for the next session, but performance benefit of Sonnet 5.5 is a compelling alternative for managing session limits.

One reason might be that Sonnet tends to be a lot faster, so since its almost as smart as opus maybe you use it to get work done quicker. In latency terms not throughput.

I understand the point that you are making but why do we have to fulfill the supply just as much as demand. There is a demand frenzy going on right now with still being substantially subsidized.

Why do we have to burn tokens just for the sake of it if we aren't finding any actual productive use of them?

> And this might slow down the funding enough that they never reach escape velocity with the training run scaling. But we'll see.

I would consider this to be good rather than bad, or just neutral...? Given the past record of these companies, I wouldn't try to wish them luck for reaching escape velocity, as if I feel like perhaps it can have more net harm than positive.

And especially so if you are already suggesting that current models are good enough for your work already. More improvements or escape velocity might not really translate anywhere to the actual work that you are doing economically but it could translate into a more consolidated form of wealth and control.

I am imagining that your workload is quite complicated and that, the AI being good enough means that it is most likely good "enough" for other use cases as well (that "enough" is doing quite some heavy weight lifting here)

So what is the point of advancing further to reach escape velocity. The good argument (for the sake of neutrality) that i see is are advances within science but that's kinda about it whereas the downsides of p(doom) as many are now genuinely suggesting is more terrifying.

Perhaps it can be worth it to ask, shall we stop or just stopping and asking what's the point. A form of self introspection on what these companies ideals actually wanted when they were formed and if they have completed it or not, but I suppose when trillions of dollars depend on you, you do have some incentives to not stop. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out.

  More concurrency than that isn't really practical for me if I want to retain some semblance of understanding.

[flagged]