161–170 of 222 posts
Good thing GitHub has plenty of built-up goodwill to spend down. If they didn’t this cascade of (probably necessary but nevertheless negative for customers) changes might be the tipping point to push a lot of companies to seek other options.
This is funny, but Copilot is still an interesting case-study and (probably) failed predictor of where we are headed. We all know, and have known for a long time, that the AI labs selling dollars for a nickel are going to pull that rug, and up that price, at some point. Copilot, though, has been consistently the weakest mainstream AI coding offering. Inferior to Cursor or Windsurf at editor completions, inferior to C…
Even before yesterday, I assumed they made money via the gym model. I'd have months where I'm too busy to use my co pilot subscription in any meaningful way.
Canceling and restarting is too much of a hassle.
But with the pricing update I'd probably use up the 10$ plan within 3 days.
I don't know if anything else is integrated so we'll into GitHub though. I might keep the 10$ plan just for the occasional GitHub AI PR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'm sure the numbers are a bit inflated compared to API, but with my Claude $200/month subscription I've supposedly consumed 12,160,410,828 tokens in April for a cost of $22,733.03.
Is that taking cache hits into account?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's humorous to me that I can do the work of an AI with nothing but a coffee and an occasional sandwich and yet they talk about AI as if it's some sort of magic hack to productivity. What they don't like is paying money for the work, that's all that matters to them.
You work for sandwiches and coffee, and not for a decent salary?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I suspect the API prices are already served at prices with profitable unit economics. There is absolutely no evidence to support this.
We don’t know the models sizes, requirements, and optimisations, but we could take a guess using the infrastructure costs of the largest open weight alternatives that perform slightly worse. In my opinion, it’s a profitable kind of service. They probably don’t pay the public prices for the cloud GPUs though.
Or, as I would say if I were Bugs Bunny, “Duck Season”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anthropic makes a profit on those tokens Citation needed. Anthropic does not have public books
Their CEO is on record as saying this. You may think he's lying, but that's just your opinion; given the pricing and how it stacks relative to the pricing of inference providers of comparable open source models (who are certainly charging above cost!), I am inclined to believe Anthropic on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their CEO is on record as saying this. You may think he's lying, but that's just your opinion; given the pricing and how it stacks relative to the pricing of inference providers of comparable open source models (who are certainly charging above cost!), I am inclined to believe Anthropic on this.
Why would you believe a tech CEO who has a vested interest in the untruth but can skirt fiduciary duties by speaking cleverly.
If their CEO was just flapping his mouth without any other comparable baseline, it'd probably be different. But as the GP points out, open-weight model providers are charging comparable rates and very likely have positive profit margins. That would imply that with API pricing tokens are sold at above cost.
That cost may well be "inference only", so excludes everything apart from hardware and power. Whether that's enough to cover the enormous training costs and other overheads is a different question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their CEO is on record as saying this. You may think he's lying, but that's just your opinion; given the pricing and how it stacks relative to the pricing of inference providers of comparable open source models (who are certainly charging above cost!), I am inclined to believe Anthropic on this.
Why would you believe a tech CEO who has a vested interest in the untruth but can skirt fiduciary duties by speaking cleverly.