Live data from Hacker News

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

simonwillison.net

801–810 of 819 posts

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

#801
This is madness. I bought my daily driver GPUs for $3k, and they run often 24/7 solving complex bugs and problems for me that would have previously taken months to fix. No rate limits, no censorship or refusal to work on security issues, and complete privacy. Also even when my internet is down they keep on working.

Stop giving Anthropic money and figure out how to take the same money to buy some GPUs, and physically insert them into workstations. It is not that hard, I promise.

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

#803

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?

You can and this is absolutely done for GPUs. It's often more feasible to jump to the next gen GPU at this point while the old part goes into the refurbished market. I believe China buys a lit of parts like these. You will never know how much lifetime is left in them though, as there's no history of the chip.

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

#805
post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relative to the current usage demand for tokens is effectively unlimited. If the price of tokens go down people will send more tokens to compensate. We are very very far away from a cost per token where people run out of things they want to send through an LLM.

You’re describing the issue. The problem isn’t that datacenters are under utilized, it’s that they are used to generate something that has a value going down over time, while being financed through debt with the assumption their revenue grow over time. That’s where you have a mismatch. To simplify let’s assume a given datacenter can generate a fixed number of token per second (in reality that depends on the model tok…

The value is not going down. The cost is.

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

#806
Per provider is helpful distinction. Easier to enforce limit per provider (cursor/codex/claude) rather than a unified employee tracking. And it incentivizes power users to keep trying out all options rather than sticking to one out of habit.

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

#807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two of the things you’ve listed are some of the most profitable activities in our economy.

I mean, that says a lot about the kind of crisis out current economy is in. How much longer can the United States Be a world leader when it’s primary function is social media and advertising

Advertising is huge because it's backed by a ton of very real products that people go and buy. It matters because people don't automatically have awareness of things they could find useful.

And writing code is one of the most economically productive activities you can do. Why is it controversial that a technology is good at this?

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

#808
post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is he’s not actually balanced at all. I’ve never seen him say anything negative about an AI product.

Here's my AI misuse tag: https://simonwillison.net/tags/ai-misuse/ - 54 posts My ongoing coverage of AI ethical issues: https://simonwillison.net/tags/ai-ethics/ - 308 posts I've been the loudest voice about the fundamental insecurity of LLMs for several years: https://simonwillison.net/tags/prompt-injection/ - 150 posts In https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/25/agentic-browser-securi... I said "I strongly expect that…

As someone involved in the WebExtensions Community Group who has been (slowly) trying to figure out what, if anything, we should do at the platform level around these use cases, I appreciate you raising and repeating this concern. I'd be obliged if you have any other recommended reading around this topic.

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

#809
post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally in the middle of ripping apart a vibe coded mess at work to figure out what's even worth keeping. Not fun :(

use ai to do that

Can't. It's a worse case scenario. It got vibe coded but I don't have access to AI tools to undo it. Basically the company was running a test on some tools, one engineer went ham and the thing ended up getting used, then the company decided to drop the ban hammer on the tools.

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

#810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mac is very feeble compared to the big iron that the providers run so will be much lower performance. Also many companies would prefer engineers work on the domain problems instead of working on novel LLMs.

I meant “roll your own” LLM for use not build new ones.

The Mac Studio (and DGX Spark, for that matter) aren't running SOTA-level models by a large margin. Time is money, and waiting on these half-baked solutions is a waste of them both.

Especially concerning the Mac Studio, the GPU is far too weak for enterprise-scale context prefill. You'd need 2 or 4 Studios to process 250k contexts quickly, and even then you'd get bottlenecked by the relatively slow memory bandwidth during the decode stage. It is simply terrible hardware for quick or power efficient inference.

Post reply on HN