📌 TOPINDIATOURS Hot 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

📌 TOPINDIATOURS Breaking ai: Trump’s Huge AI Project Is Running Into a Major Finan

It’s 2026, and tech companies continue to insist they need to spend staggering amounts of money on AI data centers. Yet for all of its enthusiasm over the past few years, Wall Street is finally starting to squint at the numbers.

According to new reporting by Business Insider, JPMorgan Chase is running into trouble finding investors interested in servicing billions in debt backing two of the first five Stargate data centers.

Stargate is Donald Trump’s $500 billion AI project led by tech companies Oracle and OpenAI. Its vague goal, OpenAI has explained, is to “secure American leadership in AI,” which will somehow “support the re-industrialization of the United States” and “provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies.”

But if JPMorgan — which led financial lenders through a $38 billion Stargate debt raise — is already struggling to sell the vision, that all might be easier said than done. Per BI, a person familiar with both data centers said they’re fully financed, though noted that banks and other investors are growing jittery about pouring even more money into the megaproject.

“We are hearing from market participants that in some cases, there may be banks that could be approaching the exposure levels they’re comfortable with when it comes to certain data center projects,” S&P Global Infrastructure Ratings director Dhaval Shah told BI.

That could mean trouble for Oracle, the cloud gianttapped to provide the physical infrastructure for Stargate. Back in September, S&P Global noted it was considering cutting Oracle’s credit rating — a letter-grade investors use to judge a company’s creditworthiness — below BBB.

The scale runs from AAA at the very top to D, or default, at the bottom. Anything below BBB- would place Oracle in junk-bond territory, which would significantly raise the cost to borrow more debt. In other words, Stargate may soon be seen as so risky that the financial situation behind its data centers becomes unsustainable.

To put the trouble with the two initial data centers into perspective, Trump said last year that Stargate could require as many as 20 data centers when all is said and done. If the market is already reaching its comfortable limit, it’s difficult to imagine a world where Stargate proceeds without significant revisions.

“I am very surprised these loans were even underwritten at the time,” Gil Luria, an analyst at the firm DA Davidson told BI, referring to the data centers that have been funded. “The market has indicated this is not investment-grade debt.”

More on data centers: AI Data Centers Are an Even Bigger Disaster Than Previously Thought

The post Trump’s Huge AI Project Is Running Into a Major Financial Problem appeared first on Futurism.

🔗 Sumber: futurism.com