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

111–120 of 540 posts

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#111

Post by montjoy »

It appears that they are testing using Max. For 4.7 Anthropic recognizes the high token usage of max and recommends the new xhigh mode for most cases. So I think the real question is whether 4.7 xhigh is “better” than 4.6 max.

> max: Max effort can deliver performance gains in some use cases, but may show diminishing returns from increased token usage. This setting can also sometimes be prone to overthinking. We recommend testing max effort for intelligence-demanding tasks.

> xhigh (new): Extra high effort is the best setting for most coding and agentic use cases

Ref: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt...

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#112

Post by omega3 »

Contrary to people here who feel the price increases, reduction of subscription limits etc are the result of the Anthropic models being more expensive to run than the API & subscription revenue they generate I have a theory that Anthropic has been in the enshittification & rent seeking phase for a while in which they will attempt to extract as much money out of existing users as possible.

Commercial inference providers serve Chinese models of comparable quality at 0.1x-0.25x. I think Anthropic realised that the game is up and they will not be able to hold the lead in quality forever so it's best to switch to value extraction whilst that lead is still somewhat there.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#113

Post by Someone1234 »

speedgoose wrote: post #103

The "multiplier" on Github Copilot went from 3 to 7.5. Nice to see that it is actually only 20-30% and Microsoft wanting to lose money slightly slower. https://docs.github.com/fr/copilot/reference/ai-models/suppo...

Yep, and I just made a recommendation that was essentially "never enable Opus 4.7" to my org as a direct result. We have Opus 4.6 (3x) and Opus 4.5 (3x) enabled currently. They are worth it for planning.

At 7.5x for 4.7, heck no. It isn't even clear it is an upgrade over Opus 4.6.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#114

Post by mfro »

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?

Not sure why all the other commentors are failing to mention you can spend considerably less money on an apple silicon machine to run decent local models.

Fun fact: AWS offers apple silicon EC2 instances you can spin up to test.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#115

Post by CharlesW »

omega3 wrote: post #112

Contrary to people here who feel the price increases, reduction of subscription limits etc are the result of the Anthropic models being more expensive to run than the API & subscription revenue they generate I have a theory that Anthropic has been in the enshittification & rent seeking phase for a while in which they will attempt to extract as much money out of existing users as possible. Commercial inference provide…

> Commercial inference providers serve Chinese models of comparable quality…

"Comparable" is doing some heavy lifting there. Comparable to Anthropic models in 1H'25, maybe.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#117

Post by dcrazy »

montjoy wrote: post #111

It appears that they are testing using Max. For 4.7 Anthropic recognizes the high token usage of max and recommends the new xhigh mode for most cases. So I think the real question is whether 4.7 xhigh is “better” than 4.6 max. > max: Max effort can deliver performance gains in some use cases, but may show diminishing returns from increased token usage. This setting can also sometimes be prone to overthinking. We reco…

Inserting an xhigh tier and pushing max way out has very “these go to 11” vibes.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#118

Post by ethin »

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…

I mean, the signs have been there that the costs to run and operate these models wasn't as simple as inference costs. And the signs were there (and, arguably, are still there) that it costs way, way more than many people like to claim on the part of Anthropic. So to me this price hike is not at all surprising. It was going to come eventually, and I suspect it's nowhere near over. It wouldn't surprise me if in 2-3 years the "max" plan is $800 or $2000 even.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#119

Post by [deleted] »

paulddraper wrote: post #45
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.

[deleted]

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#120

Post by sreekanth850 »

atonse wrote: post #14

Just yesterday I was happy to have gotten my weekly limit reset [1]. And although I've been doing a lot of mockup work (so a lot of HTML getting written), I think the 1M token stuff is absolutely eating up tokens like CRAZY. I'm already at 27% of my weekly limit in ONE DAY. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47799256

Iam at 22%, just two task. A bug fixing and a Scalar integration.
Post reply on HN