A lot of things can be done with local models.
Even more things can be done without any models just as well.
Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
31–40 of 819 posts
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#32These are still at currently subsidized prices. We'll see if they think they're getting $1500/month of value when that buys significantly fewer tokens.
I understand current Codex $20 sub is worth about $480 GPT5 api credits.
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
at their scale they could also just run a large on-premise or rented (basically still cloud, but cheaper) GPU cluster and run through that. fixed costs, even license a SOTA model’s weights if you’d like
> even license a SOTA model’s weights if you’d like Yeah, I bet all labs releasing SOTA models are more than happy to remove the main way they make money and let you run it locally, especially if you're a big spender like Uber who seems very willing to throw money into the sea as an experiment.
That's going to stop eventually, and I think at that point we're going to see business models more like the major CAD providers.
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any evidence that it's not?
Yes; they ban various uses of their subscriptions but say you can do whatever if you’re paying for the API without limits
That's not evidence. Very likely though, but the only evidence we get one way or another is when they IPO.
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
at their scale they could also just run a large on-premise or rented (basically still cloud, but cheaper) GPU cluster and run through that. fixed costs, even license a SOTA model’s weights if you’d like
> even license a SOTA model’s weights if you’d like Yeah, I bet all labs releasing SOTA models are more than happy to remove the main way they make money and let you run it locally, especially if you're a big spender like Uber who seems very willing to throw money into the sea as an experiment.
[deleted]
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#36[flagged]
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#37How many more months do we need to wait, until big companies realize that flash models work just fine if you:
1) Don't ask LLMs for big changes
2) Review everything and point them in the right direction
Large models still suck at big changes, they produce questionable architecture and you still have to review the code, if your project is serious enough.
The codebase quickly become a mess, if you don't pay enough attention. Does not matter which model.
So why bother with big models, when flash models are 10x cheaper and much faster to iterate under guidance? Large models can be used for security and bug audits. Flash models work almost the same for changes under 300 LOC when you dictate how you want your code to look.
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#38$1500/mo is $18,000/seat/annum. Maybe Microsoft and Nvidia are on to something. 128 GB machines that can run local LLMs are a bargain even if priced $5-8k. Yes, tok/s is not quite there, but that's probably OK since the bottleneck really isn't the code; it's WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? How did it meaningfully impact their revenue in a positive direction?
Your last question is really important. What did they accomplish with all that spend?
I suspect there’s some mass delusion with respect to actual accomplishments as a result of LLM use. Sure, things are moving faster, but does it matter?
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> WTF did Uber build with all of that spend? WTF did anyone build with all that spend? Despite all the feel-good anecdotes about how productive folks feel using ai coding tools there's a deafening silence when it comes to actual, demonstrated efficacy. How can we be this far entrenched in these workflows and still not know whether they actually do anything useful?
I can say at least for me at a small-ish company (~40 FTE) there has been a surge in internal productivity tools. Nothing to improve the end user product directly but a lot of tools to make processes easier and less error prone. What would previously be janky internal dashboards or excel sheets are now actually nice to use tools. That said of course the maintenance cost of all that has yet to be discovered, and the R…
About the same ~40 FTE team. We're doing the same thing. Smattering of internal tools, but no net gain in external revenue. Who knows which of those tools will have any value or ppl are just doing it because it's cool now to make fancy dashboards.
OK. I guess that's good, too.
Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing
#40If you estimate 10k salary per engineer that means the moment it’s cheaper for them to hire another engineer but that doesn’t mean it’s improving productivity 15% but if 15% is the moment it stopped being better than another human we can assume 7.5%?
Probably even less because you would spend those 1500 extra per employee also if you just save 10% so 150 per employee that’s 1.5% on salary.
This is imho one of the best ranges we can assume for now how much would that be on the whole swe market?