Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

claudecodecamp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 540 posts

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#41

Post by rvz »

mikert89 wrote: post #33

The compute is expensive, what is with this outrage? People just want free tools forever?

> The compute is expensive, what is with this outrage?

Gamblers (vibe-coders) at Anthropic's casino realising that their new slot machine upgrade (Claude Opus) is now taking 20%-30% more credits for every push of the spin button.

Problem is, it advertises how good it is (unverified benchmarks) and has a better random number generator but it still can be rigged (made dumber) by the vendor (Anthropic).

The house (Anthropic) always wins.

> People just want free tools forever?

Using local models are the answer to this if you want to use AI models free forever.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#43

Post by aray07 »

_pdp_ wrote: post #29

IMHO there is a point where incremental model quality will hit diminishing returns. It is like comparing an 8K display to a 16K display because at normal viewing distance, the difference is imperceptible, but 16K comes at significant premium. The same applies to intelligence. Sure, some users might register a meaningful bump, but if 99% can't tell the difference in their day-to-day work, does it matter? A 20-30% cost…

yeah thats is my biggest issue - im okay with paying 20-30% more but what is the ROI? i dont see an equivalent improvement in performance. Anthropic hasnt published any data around what these improvements are - just some vague “better instruction following"

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#45

Post by paulddraper »

louiereederson wrote: post #10

LLMs exist on a logaritmhic performance/cost frontier. It's not really clear whether Opus 4.5+ represent a level shift on this frontier or just inhabits place on that curve which delivers higher performance, but at rapidly diminishing returns to inference cost. To me, it is hard to reject this hypothesis today. The fact that Anthropic is rapidly trying to increase price may betray the fact that their recent lead is a…

> The fact that Anthropic is rapidly trying to increase price may betray the fact that their recent lead is at the cost of dramatically higher operating costs.

Or they are just not willing to burn obscene levels of capital like OpenAI.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#46

Post by Yukonv »

Some broad assumptions are being made that plans give you a precise equivalent to API cost. This is not the case with reverse engineering plan usage showing cached input is free [0]. If you re-run the math removing cached input the usage cost is ~5-34% more. Was the token plan budget increase [1] proportional to account for this? Can’t say with certainty. Those paying API costs though the price hike is real.

[0] https://she-llac.com/claude-limits

[1] https://xcancel.com/bcherny/status/2044839936235553167

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#48

Post by aray07 »

stefan_ wrote: post #28

I don't know anything about tokens. Anthropic says Pro has "more usage*", Max has 5x or 20x "more usage*" than Pro. The link to "usage limits" says "determines how many messages you can send". Clearly no one is getting billed for tokens.

anthropic’s pricing is all based on token usage

https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing

So if you are generating more tokens, you are eating up your usage faster

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#49

Post by encoderer »

In my “repo os” we have an adversarial agent harness running gpt5.4 for plan and implementation and opus4.6 for review. This was the clear winner in the bake-off when 5.4 came out a couple months ago.

Re-ran the bake-off with 4.7 authoring and… gpt5.4 still clearly winning. Same skills, same prompts, same agents.md.

Post reply on HN