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

Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 819 posts

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#61

Post by f311a »

devttyeu wrote: post #41
CharlieDigital wrote: post #4

$1500/mo is $18,000/seat/annum. Maybe Microsoft and Nvidia are on to something. 128 GB machines that can run local LLMs are a bargain even if priced $5-8k. Yes, tok/s is not quite there, but that's probably OK since the bottleneck really isn't the code; it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? How did it meaningfully impact their revenue in a positive direction?

If you believe a 128gb machine that is essentially DGX Spark in a laptop chassis can run models comparable to SOTA you either never ran open models on hard tasks, or you aren't scratching the surface of SOTA closed LLM capability in how you're using them.

Can you show me an example of a hard task that can't be achieved using light models? When we don't want the model to work on autopilot without reviewing the code at all. Even SOTA models will produce garbage code, if you don't guide them all the time.

Hard tasks require a lot of guidance and code reviewing, unless you are creating another throw away project where correctness, maintainability and code understanding does not matter.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#62

Post by infecto »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #4

$1500/mo is $18,000/seat/annum. Maybe Microsoft and Nvidia are on to something. 128 GB machines that can run local LLMs are a bargain even if priced $5-8k. Yes, tok/s is not quite there, but that's probably OK since the bottleneck really isn't the code; it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? How did it meaningfully impact their revenue in a positive direction?

I am wondering more and more if this becomes true as these smaller models take off. I might be old fashioned but I have yet to crack the workflows some of the hype people spout like Claude codes Boris where he and others talk about running hundreds of agents overnight.

I have still found the sweet spot for me is using LLMs but I am still in the drivers seat.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#63

Post by RugnirViking »

pier25 wrote: post #19
square_usual wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence that per-token inference prices (which is what Uber is setting a cap on) is subsidized.

AI companies have more expenses than inference.

yes, and theres no evidence that they arent (or can't) use profitable inference to subsidise those other expenses. Some companies will keep spending massively to train better models, and some other companies will not, and offer good api prices. Which will end up being used? That depends on whether the spending turns into better value models

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#64

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

darkwater wrote: post #24
CharlieDigital wrote: post #4

$1500/mo is $18,000/seat/annum. Maybe Microsoft and Nvidia are on to something. 128 GB machines that can run local LLMs are a bargain even if priced $5-8k. Yes, tok/s is not quite there, but that's probably OK since the bottleneck really isn't the code; it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? How did it meaningfully impact their revenue in a positive direction?

> it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? You can ask the same for the median 330k salary in the US for Uber Engineering... and being a bit snarky, attending Uber engineers talks here and there at a few conferences, looks like. they love to (re)invent internal tooling/platforms. That's pretty expensive on its own. EDIT: I'm not saying that Uber's engineers didn't add value to the company, they absolutely did…

> You can ask the same for the median 330k salary in the US for Uber Engineering

People DO.

It's well known that most tech companies are ran incompetently. As you say, it's not the engineers' fault.

But most projects and hiring in these companies exists to juice promotion criteria. And that, depending on perspective, these companies are either massively overstaffed or massively underproductive.

The comparison to AI spending being wasteful holds up pretty well, these are companies that readily piss away billions in pointless spending.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#65

Post by jcgrillo »

RugnirViking wrote: post #42
jcgrillo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? WTF did anyone build with all that spend? Despite all the feel-good anecdotes about how productive folks feel using ai coding tools there's a deafening silence when it comes to actual, demonstrated efficacy. How can we be this far entrenched in these workflows and still not know whether they actually do anything useful?

Imo its pretty clear that anyone who is taking the issue at least somewhat seriously knows the amount of value they provide is not non-zero. However, the problems are manifold: firstly, toolchains vary wildly, from fancy autocomplete, to engineers chatting with codebases they're unfamiliar with, to people integrating them into devops and infra, to people doing spec driven development, with a thousand philosophies inb…

I agree the most interesting use cases I've heard of are about increasing the rigor of software development practices, but there's definitely a lack of coherence in methodology.. I believe that some users and companies are successful in this effort, but the odd (and interesting!) thing is that so far we don't seem to know how to communicate how to do it successfully.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#66

Post by analognoise »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #4

$1500/mo is $18,000/seat/annum. Maybe Microsoft and Nvidia are on to something. 128 GB machines that can run local LLMs are a bargain even if priced $5-8k. Yes, tok/s is not quite there, but that's probably OK since the bottleneck really isn't the code; it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? How did it meaningfully impact their revenue in a positive direction?

18k/yr? None of the LLMs generate anything like that in value!

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#67

Post by simonw »

analognoise wrote: post #66
CharlieDigital wrote: post #4

$1500/mo is $18,000/seat/annum. Maybe Microsoft and Nvidia are on to something. 128 GB machines that can run local LLMs are a bargain even if priced $5-8k. Yes, tok/s is not quite there, but that's probably OK since the bottleneck really isn't the code; it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? How did it meaningfully impact their revenue in a positive direction?

18k/yr? None of the LLMs generate anything like that in value!

I'm definitely getting that much value out of Claude Code and Copilot.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#68

Post by sremani »

I have strong conviction that companies will now choose tech stack/programming languages based on 'tokenomics'. I am vibe coding using Clojure, a language I can read but cannot write and I never hit the usage limits even when using the latest model on Claude. I have similar experience with F#, which is a bit more verbose than clojure but absolutely beats every OOP language, Python, Typescript etc.

The reason, I use F# & Clojure is they hit JVM and CLR, two popular enterprise stacks.

In my not so humble opinion Lisp(Clojure) still remains the language of AI.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#69

Post by CharlieDigital »

simonw wrote: post #67
analognoise wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

18k/yr? None of the LLMs generate anything like that in value!

I'm definitely getting that much value out of Claude Code and Copilot.

You're a content creator; you define your revenue stream.

Uber engineers do not define their revenue stream; the product leadership team does.

$1500/mo of AI spend by engineers does not equate to revenue. They need to figure out revenue first before zeroing in on AI spend.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#70

Post by LurkandComment »

swiftcoder wrote: post #18
LurkandComment wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is market introductory pricing that hasn't factored in cost recovery. Most of it has been run on early investment with the assumption they will recover costs in the long run. The prices are subsidized across the board and they will need to go up signficantly to recover them.

Assuming this were accurate, then presumably the AI companies would be betting that inference costs come down before the bill is due - I don't see enterprises being willing to absorb another ~10x price increase for tokens (as they've just done going from subscription prices to per-token pricing)

For claude shops this was a huge hit. But lets back this up. There are some companies that haven't even built a break-even model at this price because they are funded by investment. As soon as those investors lose patience the first dominos will fall. For those who have somewhat of a business model, will it survive a price increase? The bigger question is do the base model providers have enough runway and have a way to keep going as they need to recover costs.
Post reply on HN