cd /news/ai-tools/amped-up · home topics ai-tools article
[ARTICLE · art-90054] src=sebastiandedeyne.com ↗ pub= topic=ai-tools verified=true sentiment=↑ positive

Amped up

Developer Adam Wathan predicts that within six months, AI coding models will become commoditized, comparing them to gas at a gas station. Amp, an AI coding tool, has switched its default model from Opus to Sol without user complaints, and now supports ChatGPT subscriptions, reducing usage costs. The author praises Amp's user experience and cloud-based Orbs setup, while noting a preference for faster feedback over excessive verification.

read2 min views1 publishedAug 10, 2026

I’ve switched to Amp full time for all of my build things needs. I used to swing between Claude Code, Codex, and Amp. Amp was always my favorite, but the usage pricing was too restricting to have it as my default.

I didn’t want to commit to one model/provider to get an understanding what their strengths and weaknesses are. Sure, there were some differences. I preferred Codex over Claude for UI tasks, and Claude over Codex for heavy thinking. But with the latest iterations of Opus & GPT? The differences are fading away.

Quoting Adam Wathan: “Feels like we’re about 6 months away from a token is a token is a token. Just gas at the gas station.” Amp switched their default model from Opus to Sol overnight without saying anything. No one complained. I’m at a point where I don’t care about which model I’m using. I do care about the user experience, and Amp is way ahead the competition there.

I love Amp for it’s clarity (both in output language and UI) and that it just works. I don’t feel like I need to spend time configuring it too much to use it. Amp also got me into running agents in the cloud, because their Orbs setup make it seamless.

As of last month, you can use your ChatGPT subscription in Amp. This gets rid of most usage costs (you only pay when Amp decides to use a non-OpenAI model, which is rare).

My biggest gripe with Amp (although I’ve heard about this problem with LLMs in general) is the obsession with verification. When you’re throwing a task at your agent this is a good thing. But when you’re having a back-and-forth coding session it can be a nuisance. Do I have to wait on an end-to-end test suit and compiler check because I asked to change the emoji in the footer? I prefer fast feedback from the agent since 90% of the time the verification turns out to be all clear. And if it isn’t, CI stands ready as the last line of defense.

This seems to have improved since I’ve set up my Amp-specific AGENTS.md

:

  • Only run tests, typechecks, verifications, etc. when working on big chunks of work, not small tasks like updating display values.
  • Don’t add unit tests for local presentational changes, like renaming a label in a specific form, or reordering table columns.

Amp is the first harnass to give me a coding experience in the new age that makes me want to be there. My next step? Drop the decade-old habit of defaulting to local developmen. Orbs, orbs, orbs.

── more in #ai-tools 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @amp 3 stories trending now
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/amped-up] indexed:0 read:2min 2026-08-10 ·