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

431–440 of 540 posts

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#431

Post by vidarh »

noosphr wrote: post #409
bornfreddy wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By continuously testing competitors and local LLMs? The reason for rising prices is that they (Anthropic) probably realized that they have reached a ceiling of what LLMs are capable of, and while it's a lot, it is still not a big moat and it's definitely not intelligence.

Anything but the simplest tooling is not transferable between model generations, let alone completely different families.

It's not that hard to make it generic. It does take a little work, but really it boils down to figuring out how to make things work with the "dumbest" model in your set.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#432

Post by nl »

louiereederson wrote: post #10

LLMs exist on a logaritmhic performance/cost frontier. It's not really clear whether Opus 4.5+ represent a level shift on this frontier or just inhabits place on that curve which delivers higher performance, but at rapidly diminishing returns to inference cost. To me, it is hard to reject this hypothesis today. The fact that Anthropic is rapidly trying to increase price may betray the fact that their recent lead is a…

This is a bad take. It's not really wrong in the sense that yes higher performance does cost more.

But it ignores completely the fact that the same intelligence is dropping by an order of magnitude (at least) every 12 months.

GPT o1 launched at $600/M output tokens and GPT4.5 launched at $150/M.

Opus 4.7 is $25/M for more intelligence

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#433

Post by killingtime74 »

slopinthebag wrote: post #414
QuiEgo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not be surprised at all, a $1,000/mo tool that makes your $20,000/mo engineer a lot more productive is an easy sell. I’m guessing we’re gonna have a world like working on cars - most people won’t have expensive tools (ex a full hydraulic lift) for personal stuff, they are gonna have to make do with lesser tools.

What about when there is a $100/month tool that makes your engineer 90% as productive as they were on the $1000/mo tool? What if that tool is something you can run on prem, and over time make the investment back? It's not so simple.

If your company is making $1 mil per employee per year, then 10% is 100k. Even at 500k employee or lesseer numbers it's almost always better to buy the $1000/month tool (break even is a measly $108k revenue per employee per year)

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#434

Post by thiht »

Ifkaluva wrote: post #427
tabbott wrote: post #268

I find it interesting that folks are so focused on cost for AI models. Human time spent redirecting AI coding agents towards better strategies and reviewing work, remains dramatically more expensive than the token cost for AI coding, for anything other than hobby work (where you're not paying for the human labor). $200/month is an expensive hobby, but it's negligible as a business expense; SalesForce licenses cost fa…

$200 a month is not what the BigTechs are talking about. They are talking about every IC becomes an EM, managing teams of agents. Did you see the leak of Meta’s token consumption? That’s waaay more than you can get for a small $200 a month plan.

> IC becomes an EM

What?

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#435

Post by pizza »

noosphr wrote: post #409
bornfreddy wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By continuously testing competitors and local LLMs? The reason for rising prices is that they (Anthropic) probably realized that they have reached a ceiling of what LLMs are capable of, and while it's a lot, it is still not a big moat and it's definitely not intelligence.

Anything but the simplest tooling is not transferable between model generations, let alone completely different families.

For most tasks, at some future date, isn't there going to be some ambient baseline of capabilities you can get per $/tok, starting at ~0 for OSS models, such that eventually all tooling gets trivially transferable?

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#436

Post by pmontra »

kamma4434 wrote: post #426
lbreakjai wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost to hire a human is highly predictable. The cost of AI isn't. I, as a human, need food and shelter, which puts a ceiling to my bargaining power. I can't withdraw my labour indefinitely. The power dynamics are also vastly against me. I represent a fraction of my employer's labour, but my employer represents 100% of my income. That dynamic is totally inverted with AI. You are a rounding error on their revenue s…

> How do you budget an workforce that could turn 20% more expensive overnight? Like, say, oil or DRAMs?

Exactly. Big headaches. It doesn't happen to the salaries of the employees of the companies affected by those price hikes. That's the point.
Post reply on HN