📌 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: Hollywood Is Lying to Everyone About How Much AI They

Is Hollywood “cooked”? Do video generating AI models mean its “over” for filmmakers? The jury’s out on that. But according to one Hollywood insider, the whole industry is “lying” about how much AI they’re using.

“The thing with AI right now in Hollywood: Everyone’s lying just a little bit,” Janice Min, a former editor of Hollywood Reporter and CEO of cinema industry media group Ankler Media, told Business Insider in a new interview.  “Studios are lying about how much they’re using it.”

When the interviewer asked if that meant studios are using AI more or using it less, she clarified: “Using it more.”

“Companies are lying about the capability of their products. And for creative people, they’re lying about the fact that they’re not using it,” Min continued. “I dare you to find a screenwriter who is staring at a blank page and not talking to Claude or ChatGPT at the same time.”

Last year, the Oscar-winning film “The Brutalist” became the center of controversy after its director Brady Corbet confirmed that AI was used to help enhance the Hungarian accents of lead actors Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones. But according to Min, this wasn’t an exceptional case.

“This year, it is crickets,” she said of the lack of AI controversy. “Even the Academy, the most precious, legacy-protecting institution in Hollywood, has not come out in a really firm way about AI. They basically have a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I would say with some certainty that every single best picture nominee this year has used AI in its production process.”

It’s worth taking these claims with some skepticism. To be sure, Hollywood studios are probably using some form of “AI” in post-production, especially in applications like visual effects. But AI could describe a multitude of tools that aren’t necessarily generative AI, and are merely powerful algorithms that have been around long before ChatGPT and image or video generators became a phenomenon. 

Artists also tend to be ardently against AI, perhaps more so than any other field or demographic. AI protections were a major factor in the 2023 strikes led by actors and screenwriters that were some of the longest in Hollywood history. That makes it hard to believe that most screenwriters are using AI chatbots.

Moreover, it’s the same alarmist narratives being pushed by AI boosters, who see it as a cause of celebration rather than concern. Every minute there’s a new AI-generated video being cranked out with the video generator du jour — right now it’s Seedance 2.0 — featuring deepfaked celebrities, usually accompanied with the common refrain that “Hollywood is cooked.” 

But like many displays in the AI industry, many of these tend to be theater. That viral AI video of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt fighting on a rooftop that had credulous Marvel screenwriters quivering in their boots and AI bros prematurely dancing on actors’ graves? It turned out to just be a digital reskin of a video of two flesh and blood humans fighting in front of a green screen. The only thing that’s “cooked,” maybe, are the brains of people that believe every claim that comes out of AI circles.

More on AI: OpenAI’s Hardware Device Just Leaked, and You Will Cringe

The post Hollywood Is Lying to Everyone About How Much AI They’re Using, Says Consummate Hollywood Insider appeared first on Futurism.

🔗 Sumber: futurism.com