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

511–520 of 540 posts

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#511

Post by AshamedBadger56 »

iainmerrick wrote: post #292
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…

That sounds very plausible. But it implies they could offer even higher performance models at much higher costs if they chose to; and presumably they would if there were customers willing to pay. Is that the case? Surely there are a decent number of customers who’d be willing to pay more, much more, to get the very best LLMs possible. Like, Apple computers are already quite pricey -- $1000 or $2000 or so for a decent…

> As of right now that's basically Mythos. If the rumors are true, it's a 10 trillion parameter model which is QUITE a bit larger than other models. If so, I'd suspect the main reason it has a super limited roll out is that they can't afford to run it at scale yet.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#512

Post by WithinReason »

d0100 wrote: post #307
bwat49 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in copilot I find it hard to justify using opus at even 3x vs just using GPT 5.4 high at 1x

I went from plan with opus, implement with claude, to simply plan and implement with GPT 5.4 It's a very good model for a very good price

What is "claude"?

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#513

Post by boredatoms »

lbreakjai wrote: post #281
fragmede wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That post doesn't address the human factor of cost, and I don't mean that in a good way. Even if AI costs more than a human, it's tireless, doesn't need holidays, is never going to have to go to HR for sexual harassment issues, won't show up hungover or need an advance to pay for a dying relative's surgery. It can be turned on and off with the flip of a switch. Hire 30 today, fire 25 of them next week. Spin another 5…

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…

Its countered by competitors for inference. You could locally host a model and have your cost be fixed by your infra costs

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#514

Post by truetraveller »

aenis wrote: post #351
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…

That. We already shipped 3 things this year built using Claude. The biggest one was porting two native apps into one react native app - which was originally estimated to be a 6-7 month project for a 9 FTE team, and ended up being a 2 months project with 2 people. To me, the economic value of a claude subscription used right is in the range of 10-40k eur, depending on the type of work and the developer driving it. If…

Your estimate of "6-7 month project for a 9 FTE team" was probably waaay off. I mean, what is this mobile app? Without even seeing your app, I would say 2 months TOPS with 2 devs. So, the "AI" version is really not that much better, and probably even worse.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#515

Post by slopinthebag »

killingtime74 wrote: post #433
slopinthebag wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

It's not just about cost, it's about having the control, stability, and autonomy of on-prem. Plus you can probably repurpose that compute when employees are out of the office.

Anyways, I'm just saying it's not so simple ;)

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#516

Post by Salgat »

Aurornis wrote: post #157
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…

> 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. I think we're reaching the point where more developers need to start right-sizing the model and effort level to the task. It was easy to get comfortable with using the best model at the highest setting for every…

The problem is that without a lot of human involvement (which is even more expensive), even the best still make a lot of mistakes.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#517

Post by paulddraper »

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…

Claude is far more than $200/month if you use their Enteprise plan.

The $200/month is an individual subscription.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#518

Post by chickensong »

Aurornis wrote: post #157
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…

> 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. I think we're reaching the point where more developers need to start right-sizing the model and effort level to the task. It was easy to get comfortable with using the best model at the highest setting for every…

I'd be fine with right-sizing the model and effort if there was any semblance of reasoning stability. I thought we were getting there a couple months ago, but last night Opus couldn't even insert a new item in a numbered list without getting confused and ending up with a duplicate item and the wrong number order.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#519

Post by chickensong »

jpalawaga wrote: post #198
Aurornis wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think we're reaching the point where more developers need to start right-sizing the model and effort level to the task. It was easy to get comfortable with using the best model at the highest setting for every…

Except developers can’t even do that. Estimation of any not-small task that hasn’t been done before is essentially a random guess.

We should lean on the LLMs to do estimation. Claude loves to estimate that a plan will take two weeks, then implements the whole thing in 45 minutes.

Re: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs

#520

Post by smt88 »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #497
whalesalad wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! I genuinely got a LOT of shit done with Opus 4.6 "pre nerf" with regular old out-of-the-box config, no crazy skills or hacks or memory tweaks or anything. The downfall is palpable. Textbook rugpull.

There was no nerf - this meme needs to die.

What exactly happened then? How did we all have this collective hallucination?
Post reply on HN