Live data from Hacker News

Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

claudecodecamp.com

221–230 of 540 posts

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unreasonable part automatically labeling power as evil.

Labeling power evil is not automatic, its just making an observation of the common case. Money-backed power almost never works for the forces of good, and the people who claim they're gonna be good almost always end up being evil when they're rich and powerful enough. See also: Google.

Google is the company that created a class-less non-hierarchical internet. Everyone can get the same access to the same services regardless of wealth or personhood. Google is probably the most progressive company to ever exist, because money stops no one from being able to leverage google's products. Born in the bush of the Congo or high rise of Manhatten, you are granted the same google account with the same services. The cost of entry is just to be a human, one of the most sacrosanct pillars of progressive ideology.

Yet here they are, often considered on of the most evil companies on Earth. That's the interesting quirk.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> were fine on max before this Ya...you may be who I'm talking about though (if you're speaking from experience). If your methodology is "I used 4.6 max, so I'm going to try 4.7 max" this is fully on you - 4.7 max is not equivalent to 4.6 max, you want 4.7 xhigh. From their docs: max: Max effort can deliver performance gains in some use cases, but may show diminishing returns from increased token usage. This setting…

Sorry, in that case I misunderstood max to mean the subscription, max 20. I am on xhigh.

Ah - xhigh is probably what you want. Their docs suggest xhigh for agentic coding, though judging by their blog high should be better than 4.6 max (ymmv)

I've always used high, so maybe I should be using xhigh

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#223

The title is a misdirection. The token counts may be higher, but the cost-per-task may not be for a given intelligence level. Need to wait to see Artificial Analysis' Intelligence Index run for this, or some other independent per-task cost analysis. The final calculation assumes that Opus 4.7 uses the exact same trajectory + reasoning output as Opus 4.6. I have not verified, but I assume it not to be the case, given…

Following up on "strictly better" via plot in release announcement:

https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-...

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labeling power evil is not automatic, its just making an observation of the common case. Money-backed power almost never works for the forces of good, and the people who claim they're gonna be good almost always end up being evil when they're rich and powerful enough. See also: Google.

Google is the company that created a class-less non-hierarchical internet. Everyone can get the same access to the same services regardless of wealth or personhood. Google is probably the most progressive company to ever exist, because money stops no one from being able to leverage google's products. Born in the bush of the Congo or high rise of Manhatten, you are granted the same google account with the same service…

Lot of people and companies were responsible for that. Anyway, that says nothing about what Google has become.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#226

So intelligence has turned into a utility per Sam Altman et al., and now the same companies get to hike the price of accessing it by 20–30%, right as it’s becoming the backbone of how teams actually ship work. People are pushing out so much, so fast that last week’s output is already a blur. I’ve got colleagues who refuse to go back to writing any of this stuff by hand. And now maintaining that pace means absorbing a…

[deleted]

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#227
post #87

The title is a misdirection. The token counts may be higher, but the cost-per-task may not be for a given intelligence level. Need to wait to see Artificial Analysis' Intelligence Index run for this, or some other independent per-task cost analysis. The final calculation assumes that Opus 4.7 uses the exact same trajectory + reasoning output as Opus 4.6. I have not verified, but I assume it not to be the case, given…

Very unlikely that the article is wrong. the 4.7 intelligence bump is not that big, plus most of the token spend is in inputs/tool calls etc, much of which won't change even with this bump.

IMO, you're incorrect:

1. In my own use, since 1 Apr this month, very heavy coding:

> 472.8K Input Tokens +299.3M cached > 2.2M Output Tokens

My workloads generate ~5x more output than input, and output tokens cost 5x more per token... output dominates my bill at roughly 25x the cost of input. (Even more so when you consider cache hits!) If Opus 4.7 was more efficient with reasoning (and thus output), I'd likely save considerable money (were I paying per-token).

2. Anthropic's benchmarks DO show strictly-better (granted they are Anthropic's benchmarks, so salt may be needed) https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-...

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#228
"One session" is not a very interesting unit of work. What I am interested in is how much less work I am required to do, to get the results I want.

This is not so much about my instructions being followed more closely. It's the LLM being smarter about what's going on and for example saving me time on unnecessary expeditions. This is where models have been most notably been getting better to my experience. Understanding the bigger picture. Applying taste.

It's harder to measure, of course, but, at least for my coding needs, there is still a lot of room here.

If one session costs an additional 20% that's completely fine, if that session gets me 20% closer to a finished product (or: not 20% further away). Even 10% closer would probably still be entirely fine, given how cheap it is.

Post reply on HN