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

61–70 of 540 posts

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#61

Post by giwook »

devmor wrote: post #58
giwook wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and I'm also quite skeptical that Anthropic will be able to remain true to its initial, noble mission statement of acting for the global good once they IPO. At that point you are beholden to your shareholders and no longer can eschew profit in favor of ethics. Unfortunately, I think this is the beginning of the end of Anthropic and Modei being a company and CEO you could actually get behind and believe that…

Skeptical is a light way to put it. It is essentially a forgone conclusion that once a company IPOs, any veil that they might be working for the global good is entirely lifted. A publicly traded company is legally obligated to go against the global good.

Fair point.

Call me an optimist, but I'm still holding out hope that Amodei is and still can do the right thing. That hope is fading fast though.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#62

Post by _fat_santa »

A question I've been asking alot lately (really since the release of GPT-5.3) is "do I really need the more powerful model"?

I think a big issue with the industry right now is it's constantly chasing higher performing models and that comes at the cost of everything else. What I would love to see in the next few years is all these frontier AI labs go from just trying to create the most powerful model at any cost to actually making the whole thing sustainable and focusing on efficiency.

The GPT-3 era was a taste of what the future could hold but those models were toys compare to what we have today. We saw real gains during the GPT-4 / Claude 3 era where they could start being used as tools but required quite a bit of oversight. Now in the GPT-5 / Claude 4 era I don't really think we need to go much further and start focusing on efficiency and sustainability.

What I would love the industry to start focusing on in the next few years is not on the high end but the low end. Focus on making the 0.5B - 1B parameter models better for specific tasks. I'm currently experimenting with fine-tuning 0.5B models for very specific tasks and long term I think that's the future of AI.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#63

Post by snek_case »

giwook wrote: post #52
snek_case wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're also getting closer to IPO and have a growing user base. They can't justify losing a very large number of billions of other people's money in their IPO prospectus. So there's a push for them to increase revenue per user, which brings us closer to the real cost of running these models.

I agree, and I'm also quite skeptical that Anthropic will be able to remain true to its initial, noble mission statement of acting for the global good once they IPO. At that point you are beholden to your shareholders and no longer can eschew profit in favor of ethics. Unfortunately, I think this is the beginning of the end of Anthropic and Modei being a company and CEO you could actually get behind and believe that…

I think the pivot to profit over good has been happening for a long time. See Dario hyping and salivating over all programming jobs disappearing in N months. He doesn't care at all if it's true or not. In fact he's in a terrible position to even understand if this is possible or not (probably hasn't coded for 10+ years). He's just in the business of selling tokens.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#64

Post by watsonL1F7 »

namnnumbr wrote: post #56

The title is a misdirection. The token counts may be higher, but the cost-per-task may not be for a given intelligence level. Need to wait to see Artificial Analysis' Intelligence Index run for this, or some other independent per-task cost analysis. The final calculation assumes that Opus 4.7 uses the exact same trajectory + reasoning output as Opus 4.6. I have not verified, but I assume it not to be the case, given…

[dead]

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#65

Post by beej71 »

News like this always makes me wonder about running my own model, something I've never done. A couple thousand bucks can get you some decent hardware, it looks like, but is it good for coding? What is your all's experience?

And if it's not good enough for coding, what kind of money, if any, would make it good enough?

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#66

Post by adaptive_loop »

Every time a new model comes out, I'm left guessing what it means for my token budget in order to sustain the quality of output I'm getting. And it varies unpredictably each time. Beyond token efficiency, we need benchmarks to measure model output quality per token consumed for a diverse set of multi-turn conversation scenarios. Measuring single exchanges is not just synthetic, it's unrealistic. Without good cost/quality trade-off measures, every model upgrade feels like a gamble.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#67

Post by aray07 »

beej71 wrote: post #65

News like this always makes me wonder about running my own model, something I've never done. A couple thousand bucks can get you some decent hardware, it looks like, but is it good for coding? What is your all's experience? And if it's not good enough for coding, what kind of money, if any, would make it good enough?

i think the new qwen models are supposed to be good based on some the articles that i read

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#68

Post by taosx »

Claude seems so frustrating lately to the point where I avoid and completely ignore it. I can't identify a single cause but I believe it's mostly the self-righteousness and leadership that drive all the decisions that make me distrust and disengage with it.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#69

Post by estearum »

taosx wrote: post #68

Claude seems so frustrating lately to the point where I avoid and completely ignore it. I can't identify a single cause but I believe it's mostly the self-righteousness and leadership that drive all the decisions that make me distrust and disengage with it.

using dumber models to own the libs

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#70

Post by aray07 »

lacoolj wrote: post #50

This is probably an adjacent result of this (from anthropic launch post): > In Claude Code, we’ve raised the default effort level to xhigh for all plans. Try changing your effort level and see what results you get

effort level is separate from tokenization. Tokenization impacts you the same regardless.

I find 5 thinking levels to be super confusing - I dont really get why they went from 3 -> 5

Post reply on HN