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

291–300 of 819 posts

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

#291

Post by fontain »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #281
geodel wrote: post #247

> A $1,500 monthly limit per tool strikes me as a rational policy response to over-spending,... > I noted that my own token usage comes to about $1,000/month against each of Anthropic and OpenAI - which currently costs me just $100 per provider thanks to their generous subsidized plans for individual subscribers. This whole article seems to me like Multi level marketing "businesses" where 'Diamonds' have made their m…

That's just Simon Willison since LLMs came out. It's glaringly obvious that he's a paid shill.

oh come on, a paid shill?

Simon is very fascinated by AI and at times he can be a little too optimistic but he is generally balanced and his perspective evolves over time which can be seen in his writing.

Nerd who loves nerd things a little too much? Sure. Paid shill by Big LLM? Nah.

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

#292

Post by criddell »

EA-3167 wrote: post #273
Animats wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raise them, more likely. NVidia says that GPU hardware prices won't decrease until at least 2030. The world is out of fab capacity.

Seriously, they’re trying to justify trillion+ IPO’s while setting piles of money on fire, prices aren’t going DOWN.

Today's frontier models will be tomorrows low-end option. I think whatever model you are using today will be less expensive to use a year or two from now.

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

#294

Post by CuriouslyC »

SecretDreams wrote: post #195
aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An inference only platform selling good open weight model inference without the research overhead could capture a-lot of market for lower size model uses (haiky, gemeni flash). Diffusion-transformers and clever cashing can drop inference even lower, which is improving at a high rate. The biggest reason large models are un-attainable for local applications is the lack hardware with large amount of unified/graphics mem…

I agree with all of this. So my question remains the same: How are the players investing 100s of billions in buildout going to hope to make this back? Market capture looks bleak, inference looks like a race to the bottom. End users look like they could be beneficiaries. Where do the big boys go?

The American big boys are hoping to create "labor as a service" rather than sell tools. You don't hire an accountant that uses Claude, you hire Claude and it just does everything, without the visibility of current agents. They'll need to make it remote and obfuscated to protect their secret sauce from distillation and reverse engineering. It'll be really expensive, and be focused on enabling rich business types and upper managers.

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

#296

Post by Kiro »

lbrito wrote: post #237
tuesdaynight wrote: post #138

Why there are so many people that still believe that AI coding is a fad? It's something that started less than two years ago and companies are already paying thousands per seat. I know one that gives you 5k per month. Which other tool went from nothing to this level of acceptance so quickly?

That's just a non sequitur. "companies are already paying thousands per seat" has zero correlation with something being a fad or not. There are much more reasonable rationales explaining why companies are acting the way they are than "because AI coding is not a fad"

It's just silly to claim it has zero correlation.

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

#297

Post by jorl17 »

ValentineC wrote: post #162
econ wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder to what extent models should figure out which model to forward a query to. Or perhaps the big models could learn the difference between an easy and a hard question and charge accordingly? Perhaps, if it can measure complexity, even generate a quote? Small models are fine for small coding tasks but I don't see why big ones can't be broken down most of the time.

> I wonder to what extent models should figure out which model to forward a query to. Or perhaps the big models could learn the difference between an easy and a hard question and charge accordingly? This sounds like something a harness could do (and might already be doing), with work delegated to subagents running on lower-cost models.

Yes, they are all already doing this

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

#299

Post by HumanOstrich »

jmalicki wrote: post #244
Aurornis wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are data centers that use and rent out 10 year old server GPUs. They can't run larger modern models. They can't run smaller models as fast as newer servers. So their remaining market is applications where customers are okay with older, smaller models and slower performance. They have to price the service lower than competitors due to the lower performance. The older GPUs are less efficient so it costs them more…

As long as the demand for GPUs keeps increasing, there are more data centers being built to house them. When you have waitlists for many many months for Blackwell GPUs, keeping the old ones around as long as customers are willing to pay for them is great. If I as a customer have a use case for a machine learning model I developed awhile ago, so an insect identification model, I had an ML researcher/eng develop it bac…

We aren't talking about insect identification models from 2019.

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

#300

Post by genericone »

sremani wrote: post #68

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…

Typescript is also hugely represented. My projects are TS in a big way, where I have no experience with it at all.
Post reply on HN