31–40 of 374 posts
Anthropic's models may be similar in parameter size to model's on open router, but none of the others are in the headlines nearly as much (especially recently) so the comparison is extremely flawed.
The argument in this article is like comparing the cost of a Rolex to a random brand of mechanical watch based on gear count.
By the way, one of the charts in the article shows that Opus 4.6 is 10x costlier than Kimi K2.5. I thought there was no moat in AI? Even being 10x costlier, Anthropic still doesn't have enough compute to meet demand. Those "AI has no moat" opinions are going to be so wrong so soon.
So no, Claude would not be getting NEARLY as much usage as it's currently getting if it weren't for the $100/$200 monthly subscription. You're comparing Kimi to the price that most people aren't paying.
Was anyone under the impression that it does? Serious question. I've never heard that, personally.
[1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropic-is-bleeding-out/ [2] https://www.wheresyoured.at/costs/
How confident are you in the opus 4.6 model size? I've always assumed it was a beefier model with more active params that Qwen397B (17B active on the forward pass)
Even if it's larger, OpenRouter has DeepSeek v3.2 (685B/37B active) at $0.26/0.40 and Kimi K2.5 (1T/32B active) at $0.45/2.25 (mentioned in the post).
42 tps for Claude Opus 4.6 https://openrouter.ai/anthropic/claude-opus-4.6
143 tps for GLM 4.7 (32B active parameters) https://openrouter.ai/z-ai/glm-4.7
70 tps for Llama 3.3 70B (dense model) https://openrouter.ai/meta-llama/llama-3.3-70b-instruct
> I'm fairly confident the Forbes sources are confusing retail API prices with actual compute costs Aren't they losing money on the retail API pricing, too? > ... comparisons to artificially low priced Chinese providers... Yeah, no this article does not pass the sniff test.
No, they aren't, and probably neither is anyone else offering API pricing. And Anthropic's API margins may be higher than anyone else.
For example, DeepSeek released numbers showing that R1 was served at approximately "a cost profit margin of 545%" (meaning 82% of revenue is profit), see my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46663852
Was anyone under the impression that it does? Serious question. I've never heard that, personally.
I mean, the very first paragraph of TFA is describing who is under that impression. Literally the first sentence: > My LinkedIn and Twitter feeds are full of screenshots from the recent Forbes article on Cursor claiming that Anthropic's $200/month Claude Code Max plan can consume $5,000 in compute.
So the article's title is obviously sensationalized.
If Anthropic's compute is fully saturated then the Claude code power users do represent an opportunity cost to Anthropic much closer to $5,000 then $500. Anthropic's models may be similar in parameter size to model's on open router, but none of the others are in the headlines nearly as much (especially recently) so the comparison is extremely flawed. The argument in this article is like comparing the cost of a Rolex…
If Anthropic's compute is fully saturated then the Claude code power users do represent an opportunity cost to Anthropic much closer to $5,000 then $500. Anthropic's models may be similar in parameter size to model's on open router, but none of the others are in the headlines nearly as much (especially recently) so the comparison is extremely flawed. The argument in this article is like comparing the cost of a Rolex…
Are Anthropic currently unable to sell subscriptions because they don’t have capacity?
How confident are you in the opus 4.6 model size? I've always assumed it was a beefier model with more active params that Qwen397B (17B active on the forward pass)
Also curious if any experts can weigh in on this. I would guess in the 1 trillion to 2 trillion range.
Of course, intense sparsification via MoE (and other techniques ;) ) lets total model size largely decouple from inference speed and cost (within the limit of world size via NVlink/TPU torrus caps)
So the real mystery, as always, is the actual parameter count of the activated head(s). You can do various speed benchmarks and TPS tracking across likely hardware fleets, and while an exact number is hard to compute, let me tell you, it is not 17B or anywhere in that particular OOM :)
Comparing Opus 4.6 or GPT 5.4 thinking or Gemini 3.1 pro to any sort Chinese model (on cost) is just totally disingenuous when China does NOT have Vera Rubin NVL72 GPUs or Ironwood V7 TPUs in any meaningful capacity, and is forced to target 8gpu Blackwell systems (and worse!) for deployment.
How confident are you in the opus 4.6 model size? I've always assumed it was a beefier model with more active params that Qwen397B (17B active on the forward pass)
Yeah that's a massive assumption they're making. I remember musk revealed Grok was multiple trillion parameters. I find it likely Opus is larger. I'm sure Anthropic is making money off the API but I highly doubt it's 90% profit margins.