Live data from Hacker News

Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

simonwillison.net

581–590 of 819 posts

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#581

Just to put this in context. If every company did this, all over the world, with that same limit, we are talking about something around $45B monthly in revenue for all AI companies to share.

World bank says there are 3.7B employed humans. Putting the total addressable market at around 67T if all of us spend USD 1.5k on tokens every month. This lines up well with current forecasts from the major AI labs

Congrats, you're hired at Anthropic.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#583

> I noted that my own token usage comes to about $1,000/month against each of Anthropic and OpenAI - which currently costs me just $100 per provider thanks to their generous subsidized plans for individual subscribers. Do we know that AI providers are going to keep these per-token prices, or eventually lower them because of competition from China? Many lower-budget individuals are now moving to China open weight mode…

One aspect Paul Kedrosky mentioned recently is the concept of „duration mismatch“. The price per token goes down over time (either because the AI vendor reduces due to competition pressure, or because customers are now incentivized to use older cheaper models). But datacenters are financed through debt, with the assumption their revenue increases over time. Quoting him: „[AI vendors are] paying for a fixed cost with…

The other part of that is that while price per token may be going down, tokens per task is going up

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those companies are certainly writing more code. But It isn’t clear that they are increasing their economic productivity. It could even conceivably have the opposite effect by fueling a race to the bottom. e.g. an interesting possible canary in this coal mine is that there’s been a 200% increase in the rate of new apps appearing on Apple’s App Store, but it has not been accompanied by a 200% increase in the rate at w…

That’s great for consumers.

Not necessarily. European grocery shoppers report higher satisfaction with the shopping experience than American grocery shoppers do.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends, the SMD caps spread across the board the tiny ones do start to fail and go out of spec over time. they are a right pain to replace and hard to spot one that has gone out of spec to cause the chip to start crashing.

Can you not just move the epxensive part (the gpu itself) to a new carrier board in that situation? Also isn't most of the cost of the GPU itself the design of the board, not actually making one, esp if you can move the heat sinks around?

"just"

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#586

> I noted that my own token usage comes to about $1,000/month against each of Anthropic and OpenAI - which currently costs me just $100 per provider thanks to their generous subsidized plans for individual subscribers. Do we know that AI providers are going to keep these per-token prices, or eventually lower them because of competition from China? Many lower-budget individuals are now moving to China open weight mode…

Most sane US companies will disallow use of cloud-based Chinese AI providers, because everything including code, data, PII, etc is being sent to them.

[dead]

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So you have on one end the token revenue trending down, on the other end the training cost going up for the next frontier models, and you need to pay back your 10y debt." Not necessarily, the bond holders could simply take a massive hair cut and lose shitloads of money. On the topic of bubbles and exuberance, Jeff Bezos made the salient point that there was a massive over-invested biotech boom in the 1990s and tons…

> Stocks going down didn't un-research drugs Drugs cost pennies to manufacture after they are researched and make their way through the approval pipeline. There are many generic drug manufacturers who can work off the existing formulas. The more apt comparison is that LLMs won't be un-trained. Opus 4.8 now exists. Even if Anthropic somehow went bankrupt, that particular asset could, at the very least, be sold for pro…

Or locked away in litigation for decades… See what became of the Amiga

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#588

$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?

I agree on the basic point, but running $1500/mo's worth of SOTA local AI is non-trivial already, and that's a figure for a single seat. That's equivalent to generating at least 20 tok/s on a 24/7 basis, in fact probably quite a bit more than that (because open-weight models are vastly cheaper than proprietary ones even when served from reputable Western providers - reaching the same spend would take around 100 tok/s…

It’s non trivial now - will it get easier in 12 months though?

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One aspect Paul Kedrosky mentioned recently is the concept of „duration mismatch“. The price per token goes down over time (either because the AI vendor reduces due to competition pressure, or because customers are now incentivized to use older cheaper models). But datacenters are financed through debt, with the assumption their revenue increases over time. Quoting him: „[AI vendors are] paying for a fixed cost with…

The other part of that is that while price per token may be going down, tokens per task is going up

For ~equivalent tasks/results, or because we’re expecting more or better from tasks?

The real measure should be cost per ~equivalent task result, not cost per token nor tokens per task.

Re: Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing

#590
post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just Simon Willison since LLMs came out. It's glaringly obvious that he's a paid shill.

Genuine question: what would make me a "paid shill"? Who do you think would be paying me, and what would they expect in return?

Your unwavering praise of LLMs' performance which does not match anyone's reality?

OpenAI or Anthropic would be paying you, like they pay bot farms and other influencers, and they would expect marketing in return, which you provide in boatloads.

Your job is to be an influencer, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that this is a possibility.

Post reply on HN