71–80 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do not have enough H200 or Blackwell systems to server 1.6 billion people and the world so I doubt it's in any meaningful number.
I assure you, the number of people paying to use Qwen3-Max or other similar proprietary endpoints is far less than 1.6 billion.
I calculated only last weekend that my team would cost, if we would run Claude Code on retail API costs, around $200k/mo. We pay $1400/month in Max subscriptions. So that's $50k/user... But what tokens CC is reporting in their json -> a lot of this must be cached etc, so doubt it's anywhere near $50k cost, but not sure how to figure out what it would cost and I'm sure as hell not going to try.
Ask Opus to figure out how much it would cost. Lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t get past all the LLM-isms. Do people really not care about AI-slopifying their writing? It’s like learning about bad kerning, you see it everywhere.
It is certainly very obvious a lot of the time. I wonder if we revisited the automated slop detection problem we’d be more successful now… it feels like there are a lot more tells and models have become more idiosyncratic.
I calculated only last weekend that my team would cost, if we would run Claude Code on retail API costs, around $200k/mo. We pay $1400/month in Max subscriptions. So that's $50k/user... But what tokens CC is reporting in their json -> a lot of this must be cached etc, so doubt it's anywhere near $50k cost, but not sure how to figure out what it would cost and I'm sure as hell not going to try.
> Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B is a good comparison It is not. It's a terrible comparison. Qwen, deepseek and other Chinese models are known for their 10x or even better efficiency compared to Anthropic's. That's why the difference between open router prices and those official providers isn't that different. Plus who knows what open routed providers do in term quantization. They may be getting 100x better efficiency, thus the…
> That being said not all users max out their plan, These are not cell phone plans which the average joe takes, they are plans purchased with the explicit goal of software development. I would guess that 99 out of every 100 plans are purchased with the explicit goal of maxing them out.
Why? Because in my experience, the bottleneck is in shareholders approving new features, not my ability to dish out code.
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…
> The argument in this article is like comparing the cost of a Rolex to a random brand of mechanical watch on gear count I mean... rolex is overpriced brand whose cost to consumers is mainly just marketting in itself. Its production cost is nowhere close to selling price and looking at gears is fair way of evaluating that
When has production cost had anything to do with selling price?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find it likely Opus is larger. Unlikely. Amazon Bedrock serves Opus at 120tokens/sec. If you want to estimate "the actual price to serve Opus", a good rough estimate is to find the price max(Deepseek, Qwen, Kimi, GLM) and multiply it by 2-3. That would be a pretty close guess to actual inference cost for Opus. It's impossible for Opus to be something like 10x the active params as the chinese models. My guess is s…
Are you sure you can use tps as a proxy?
Comparing tps ratios- by saying a model is roughly 2x faster or slower than another model- can tell you a lot about the active param count.
I won't say it'll tell you everything; I have no clue what optimizations Opus may have, which can range from native FP4 experts to spec decoding with MTP to whatever. But considering chinese models like Deepseek and GLM have MTP layers (no clue if Qwen 3.5 has MTP, I haven't checked since its release), and Kimi is native int4, I'm pretty confident that there is not a 10x difference between Opus and the chinese models. I would say there's roughly a 2x-3x difference between Opus 4.5/4.6 and the chinese models at most.
This is such a well-written essay. Every line revealed the answer to the immediate question I had just thought of
I can’t get past all the LLM-isms. Do people really not care about AI-slopifying their writing? It’s like learning about bad kerning, you see it everywhere.
Maybe the common factor here is not having deep/sufficient knowledge on the topic being discussed? For the article I mentioned, I feel like I was less focused on the strength of the writing and more on just understanding the content.
LLMs are very capable at simplifying concepts and meeting the reader at their level. Personally, I subscribe to the philosophy of - "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, I shouldn't bother to read it".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also curious if any experts can weigh in on this. I would guess in the 1 trillion to 2 trillion range.
Try 10s of trillions. These days everyone is running 4-bit at inference (the flagship feature of Blackwell+), with the big flagship models running on recently installed Nvidia 72gpu rubin clusters (and equivalent-ish world size for those rented Ironwood TPUs Anthropic also uses). Let's see, Vera Rubin racks come standard with 20 TB (Blackwell NVL72 with 10 TB) of unified memory, and NVFP4 fits 2 parameters per btye..…
Opus is 2T-3T in size at most.
> Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B is a good comparison It is not. It's a terrible comparison. Qwen, deepseek and other Chinese models are known for their 10x or even better efficiency compared to Anthropic's. That's why the difference between open router prices and those official providers isn't that different. Plus who knows what open routed providers do in term quantization. They may be getting 100x better efficiency, thus the…
> That being said not all users max out their plan, These are not cell phone plans which the average joe takes, they are plans purchased with the explicit goal of software development. I would guess that 99 out of every 100 plans are purchased with the explicit goal of maxing them out.
if i hit the limit usually i'm not using it well and hunting around. if i'm using it right i'm basically gassed out trying to hit the limit to the max.