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

121–130 of 540 posts

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#121

Post by CharlesW »

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

> I'm already at 27% of my weekly limit in ONE DAY.

Ouch, that's very different than experience. What effort level? Are you careful to avoid pushing session context use beyond 350k or so (assuming 1m context)?

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#123

Post by omega3 »

CharlesW wrote: post #115
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.

Benchmarks suggests they are comparable: https://artificialanalysis.ai/?models=claude-opus-4-6-adapti...

But let's say for the sake of discussion Opus is much better - still doesn't justify the price disparity especially when considering that other models are provided by commercial inference providers and anthropics is inhouse.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#124

Post by efficax »

ZeroCool2u wrote: post #71
_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…

Whenever we get the locally runnable 4k models things are going to get really awkward for the big 3 labs. Well at least Google will still have their ad revenue I guess.

If the apple silicon keeps making the gains it makes, a mac studio with 128gb of ram + local models will be a practical all-local workflow by say 2028 or 2030. OpenAI and Anthropic are going to have to offer something really incredible if they want to keep subscription revenue from software developers in the near future, imo

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#125

Post by yuanzhi1203 »

We noticed this two weeks ago where we found some of our requests are unexpected took more tokens than measured by count_tokens call. At the end they were Anthropic's A/B testing routing some Opus 4.6 calls to Opus 4.7.

https://matrix.dev/blog-2026-04-16.html (We were talking to Opus 4.7 twelve days ago)

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#126

Post by [deleted] »

_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…

[deleted]

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#128

Post by fkealy »

_fat_santa wrote: post #62

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 ac…

I agree, and yet here i am using it... However, I think the industry IS going multiple directions all at once with smaller models, bigger models etc. I need to try out Google's latest models but alas what can one person do in the face of so many new models...

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#129

Post by levocardia »

_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…

Depends a lot on the task demands. "Got 95% of the way to designing a successful drug" and "Got 100% of the way" is a huge difference in terms of value, and that small bump in intelligence would justify a few orders of magnitude more in cost.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#130

Post by blurbleblurble »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #95
ZeroCool2u wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever we get the locally runnable 4k models things are going to get really awkward for the big 3 labs. Well at least Google will still have their ad revenue I guess.

Given how little claude usage they've been giving us on the "pro" plan lately, I've started doing more with the various open Qwen3.* models. Both Qwen3-coder-next and Qwen3.5-27b have been giving me good results and their 3.6 models are starting to be released. I think Anthropic may be shooting themselves in the foot here as more people start moving to local models due to costs and/or availability. Are the Qwen model…

I was thinking the exact same thing just now as I load up qwen3.6 into hermes agent and all while fantasizing that it will replace opus 4.7. It might not actually but seems like we're on the verge of that.

Lately I've been wondering too just how large these proprietary "ultra powerful frontier models" really are. It wouldn't shock me if the default models aren't actually just some kind of crazy MoE thing with only a very small number of active params but a huge pool of experts to draw from for world knowledge.

Post reply on HN