15 ms·
OpenAI dropped the price of o3 by 80%
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- minimaxir 1y ago...how? I'd understand a 20-30% price drop from infra improvements for a model as-is, but 80%? I wonder if "we quantized it lol" would classify as false advertising for modern LLMs.
- tofof 1y agoPresumably because the price was about 5x higher to begin with than any the competitors at the same tier of performance? Perhaps it's better to get paid anything at all than to just lose 100% of the customers.
- drexlspivey 1y agoDeepseek made a few major innovations allowing them to achieve major compute efficiency and then published them. My guess is that OpenAI just implemented these themselves.
- vitaflo 1y agoWouldn’t surprise me. And even with this price cut it’s still 4x more expensive than Deepseek R1 is.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ilaksh 1y agoMaybe because they also are releasing o3-pro.
- MallocVoidstar 1y agoNote that they have not actually dropped the price yet: https://x.com/OpenAIDevs/status/1932463601119637532 https://x.com/OpenAIDevs/status/1932463601119637532 > We’ll post to @openaidevs once the new pricing is in full effect. In $10… 9… 8… There is also speculation that they are only dropping the input price, not the output price (which includes the reasoning tokens).
- sunaookami 1y agoI think that was a joke. New pricing is already in place: Input: $2.00 / 1M tokens Cached input: $0.50 / 1M tokens Output: $8.00 / 1M tokens https://openai.com/api/pricing/ https://openai.com/api/pricing/ Now cheaper than gpt-4o and same price as gpt-4.1 (!).
- rvnx 1y agoIt is slower though
- MallocVoidstar 1y agoNo, people had tested it after Altman's announcement and had confirmed that they were still being billed at the original price. And I checked the docs ~1h after and they still showed the original price. The speculation of only input pricing being lowered was because yesterday they gave out vouchers for 1M free input tokens while output tokens were still billed.
- runako 1y ago> Now cheaper than gpt-4o and same price as gpt-4.1 (!). This is where the naming choices get confusing. "Should" o3 cost more or less than GPT-4.1? Which is more capable? A generation 3 of tech intuitively feels less advanced than a 4.1 of a (similar) tech.
- jacob019 1y agoDo we know parameter counts? The reasoning models have typically been cheaper per token, but use more tokens. Latency is annoying. I'll keep using gpt-4.1 for day-to-day.
- teaearlgraycold 1y agoPersonally I've found these bigger models (o3/Claude 4 Opus) to be disappointing for coding.
- apwell23 1y agoi found them all disappointing in their own ways. Atleast deepseek models actually listen to what i say instead of ignoring me doing their own thing like a toddler.
- rvnx 1y agoOpus is really great but through Claude Code. If you used Cursor or RooCode it could be normal that you get disappointed
- bitpush 1y agoThis matches my experience, but cant explain it. Do you know what's going on?
- eunoia 1y agoMy understanding is context size. Companies like Cursor are trying to minimize the amount of context sent to the models to keep their own costs down. Claude Code seems to send a lot more context with every request and that seems to make the difference.
- supermdguy 1y agoJust guessing, but the new Opus was probably RL tuned to work better with Claude Code's tool calls
- jedisct1 1y agoI got the opposite experience. Not with Opus (too expensive), but with Sonnet. I got things done way more efficiently when using Sonnet with Roo than with Claude Code.
- 1y ago
- behnamoh 1y agohow do we know it's not a quantized version of o3? what's stopping these firms from announcing the full model to perform well on the benchmarks and then gradually quantizing it (first at Q8 so no one notices, then Q6, then Q4, ...). I have a suspicion that's how they were able to get gpt-4-turbo so fast. In practice, I found it inferior to the original GPT-4 but the company probably benchmaxxed the hell out of the turbo and 4o versions so even though they were worse models, users found them more pleasing.
- esafak 1y agoAre there any benchmarks that track historical performance?
- behnamoh 1y agogood question, and I don't know of any, although it's a no brainer that someone should make it. a proxy to that may be the anecdotal evidence of users who report back in a month that model X has gotten dumber (started with gpt-4 and keeps happening, esp. with Anthro and OpenAI models). I haven't heard such anecdotal stories about Gemini, R1, etc.
- SparkyMcUnicorn 1y agoAider has one, but it hasn't been updated in months. People kept claiming models were getting worse, but the results proved that they weren't.
- esafak 1y agohttps://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/by-release-date.html https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/by-release-date.html
- __mharrison__ 1y agoUpdated yesterday... https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/ https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/
- visiondude 1y agoalways seemed to me that efficient caching strategies could greatly reduce costs… wonder if they cooked up something new
- xmprt 1y agoHow are LLMs cached? Every prompt would be different so it's not clear how that would work. Unless you're talking about caching the model weights...
- koakuma-chan 1y agoA lot of the prompt is always the same: the instructions, the context, the codebase (if you are coding), etc.
- amanda99 1y agoYou would use a KV cache to cache a significant chunk of the inference work.
- biophysboy 1y agoDo you mean that they provide the same answer to verbatim-equivalent questions, and pull the answer out of storage instead of recalculating each time? I've always wondered if they did this.
- koakuma-chan 1y agoThe prompt may be the same but the seed is different every time.
- biophysboy 1y agoCould you not cache the top k outputs given a provided input token set? I thought the randomness was applied at the end by sampling the output distribution.
- 1y ago
- candiddevmike 1y agoIt's going to be a race to the bottom, they have no moat.
- rvnx 1y agoEspecially now that they are second in the race (behind Anthropic) and lot of free-to-download and free-to-use models are now starting to be viable competitors. Once new MacBooks and iPhones have enough memory onboard this is going to be a disaster for OpenAI and other providers.
- aerhardt 1y agoOpenAI are second in the race to Anthropic in some benchmarks (maybe?), but OpenAI still dwarves Anthropic in distribution and popularity.
- ratedgene 1y agoThat's slowly changing. I know some relatively non-tech savvy young people using things like Claude for various reasons, so people are exploring options.
- jstummbillig 1y agoVery, very slowly. OpenAI vs Anthropic on Google Trends https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=%2Fg%2F11csrrqr2z,%2Fg%2F11bxc656v6&hl=en https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=... ChatGPT vs Claude on Google Trends https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=Claude,%2Fg%2F11khcfz0y2&hl=en https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=...
- rvnx 1y agoThis is such a big difference, thank you for sharing it, I didn't expect the gap to be _that_ huge
- 1y ago
- ninetyninenine 1y agoYou know. because LLMs can only be built by corporations... but because they're so easy to build, I see the price going down massively thanks to competition. Consumers benefit because all the companies are trying to out run each other.
- codr7 1y agoAnd then they all go out of business, since models cost a fortune to build, and their fan club is left staring at their computers trying to remember how to do anything without getting it served on a silver plate.
- merth 1y agoInvestors pouring money, its probably impossible to go out of business, at least for the big ones, until investors realise this is wrong hill to die on.
- codr7 1y agoWhich they will eventually; so the point stands, no matter how unpopular with the AI excusers out there.
- wrsh07 1y agoI expect they don't go out of business: at worst they don't start their next training run quite as aggressively and instead let their new very good model be profitable for a minute Many many companies are currently thrilled to pay the current model prices for no performance improvement for 2-3 years We still have so many features to build on top of current capabilities
- croes 1y agoEasy doesn’t mean cheap. They need lots of energy and customers don’t pay much, if they pay at all
- briian 1y ago
- koakuma-chan 1y agoOpenAI dropped the price by so much that the server also went down.
- pbasista 1y agoIs the price drop really the reason for their recent outage? Or is the price drop an attempt to cover up bad news about the outage with news about the price drop?
- johanyc 1y ago> Or is the price drop an attempt to cover up bad news about the outage with news about the price drop? This makes no sense. No way a global outage will get less coverage than the price drop. Also the earliest sign of price drop is this tweet 20 hrs ago (https://x.com/OpenAIDevs/status/1932248668469445002 https://x.com/OpenAIDevs/status/1932248668469445002), which is earlier than the earliest outage reports 13hrs ago on https://downdetector.com/status/openai/ https://downdetector.com/status/openai/
- koakuma-chan 1y ago> No way a global outage will get less coverage than the price drop. Have you seen today's outage on any news outlet? I have not. Is there an HN thread?
- johanyc 1y agohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/06/10/chatgpt-outage-openais-fix-applied-as-degraded-performance-affects-chatbot/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/06/10/chatgpt-o...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- biophysboy 1y agoI don't know if this is OpenAI's intention, but the little message "you've reached your usage limit!" is actively disincentivizing me from subscribing. For my purposes, the free model is more than good enough; the difference before and after is negligible. I honestly wouldn't pay a dollar. That said, I'm absolutely willing to hear people out on "value-adds" I am missing out on; I'm not a knee-jerk hater (For context, I work with large, complex & private databases/platforms, so its not really possible for me to do anything but ask for scripting suggestions). Also, I am 100% expecting a sad day when I'll be forced to subscribe, unless I want to read dick pill ads shoehorned in to the answers (looking at you, YouTube). I do worry about getting dependent on this tool and watching it become enshittified.
- Traubenfuchs 1y ago> "you've reached your usage limit!" Just switch to a competitors free offering. There are enough to cycle through not to be hindered by limits. I wonder how much money I have cost those companies by now? How anyone believes there is any moat for anyone here is beyond me.
- wrsh07 1y agoI expect the answer is <$1 as someone who shares a discord server with a friend where we egregiously ping the models
- wrsh07 1y agoo3 is so good it's worth paying for a minute (just for plus) just to see what it's like I've never used anything like it. I think new Claude is similarly capable
- lvl155 1y agoGoogle has been catching up. Funny how fast this space is evolving. Just a few months ago, it was all about DeepSeek.
- bitpush 1y agoMany would say Google's Gemini models are SOTA, although Claude seems to be doing well with coding tasks.
- snarf21 1y agoGemini has been better than Claude for me on a coding project. Claude kept telling me it update some code but the update wasn't in the output. Like, I had to re-prompt just for updated output 5 times in a row.
- jacob019 1y agoI break out Gemini 2.5 pro when Claude gets stuck, it's just so slow and verbose. Claude follows instructions better and seems to better understand it's role in agentic workflows. Gemini does something different with the context, it has a deeper understanding of the control flow and can uncover edge case bugs that Claude misses. o3 seems better at high level thinking and planning, questioning if it should it be done and whether the challenge actually matches the need. They're kind of like colleagues with unique strengths. o3 does well with a lot of things, I just haven't used it as much because of the cost. Will probably use it more now.
- johan914 1y agoI have been using Google’s models the past couple months, and was surprised to see how sycophantic chatGPT is now. It’s not just at the start or end of responses, it’s interspaced within the markdown, with little substance. Asking it to change its style makes it overuse technical terms.
- resource_waste 1y agoDeepseek was exciting because you could download their model. They are seemingly 3rd place and have been since Gemini 2.5.
- lxgr 1y agoIs there also a corresponding increase in weekly messages for ChatGPT Plus users with o3? In my experience, o4-mini and o4-mini-high are far behind o3 in utility, but since I’m rate-limited for the latter, I end up primarily using the former, which has kind of reinforced the perception that OpenAI’s thinking models are behind the competition altogether.
- el_benhameen 1y agoMy usage has also reflected the pretty heavy rate limits on o3. I find o4-mini-high to be quite good, but I agree that I would much rather use o3. Hoping this means an increase in the limits.
- sagarpatil 1y agoBefore: 50 messages per week Now: 100 messages per week
- lxgr 1y agoThat’s already been the case for a few weeks though, right? and it’s up from 50, whereas a price reduction by 80% would correspond to 5x the quota extrapolating linearly.
- johnnyApplePRNG 1y agoAgreed 100% o3 is great but the rate limit window and the quota itself both render it almost useless for more than one off fixes. It's great with those, however!
- sunaookami 1y ago200 per week now: https://x.com/kevinweil/status/1932565467736027597 https://x.com/kevinweil/status/1932565467736027597
- coffeecoders 1y agoDespite the popular take that LLMs have no moat and are burning cash, I find OpenAI's situation really promising. Just yesterday, they reported an annualized revenue run rate of 10B. Their last funding round in March valued them at 300B. Despite losing 5B last year, they are growing really fast - 30x revenue with over 500M active users. It reminds me a lot of Uber in its earlier years—fast growth, heavy investment, but edging closer to profitability.
- rgavuliak 1y agoI don't think the no moat approach makes sense. In a world where more an more content and interaction is done with and via LLMs, the data of your users chatting with your LLM is a super valuable dataset.
- bitpush 1y agoThe problem is your costs also scale with revenue. Ideally you want to have control costs as you scale (the first you build is expensive, but as you make more your costs come down). For OpenAI, the more people use the product, the same you spend on compute unless they can supplement it with another ways of generating revenue. I dont unfortunately think OpenAI will be able to hit sustained profitability (see Netflix for another example)
- Legend2440 1y ago>(see Netflix for another example) Netflix has been profitable for over a decade though? They reported $8.7 billion in profit in 2024.
- amazingamazing 1y agoThey increased prices and are not selling a pure commodity tho
- aizk 1y ago> sustained profitability (see Netflix for another example) What? Netflix is incredibly profitable.
- seydor 1y agowhen the race to the bottom reaches the bottom, the foundation model companies will be bought by ... energy companies. You 'll be paying for AI with your electricity bill
- paxys 1y agoIt'll be the opposite. Large tech companies are already running their own power plants.
- andyferris 1y agoYes - it’s common in traditional industries too. In my home town the aluminum refinery bought the power station to improve reliability (I should add - through upgrades not screwing over the rest of the power users).
- unraveller 1y agoI have no moat and I must make these GPUs scream.
- blueblisters 1y agoThis is the best model out there, priced level or lesser than Claude and Gemini They’re not letting the competition breathe
- Davidzheng 1y agoGemini is close (if not better) so it just makes sense no? o3-pro might be ahead of pack tho
- blueblisters 1y agoo3 does better especially if you use the api (not ChatGPT)
- dorianjp 1y agoappreciate this, the faster we get to cheap commoditization, the better
- ramesh31 1y agoAnthropic will need to follow suit with Opus soon. It is simply too expensive for anything by an order of magnitude.
- sagarpatil 1y agoHave they ever decreased the price in the past? I don’t remember.
- madebywelch 1y agoThey could drop the price 100% and I still wouldn't use it, so long as they're retaining my data.
- simonw 1y agoSounds like you want their Zero Data Retention plan: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/your-data#zero-data-retention https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/your-data#zero-data-... (It's "contact us" pricing, so I have no idea how much that would set you back. I'm guessing it's not cheap.)
- scudsworth 1y agoit doesn't seem like this would supercede a court order
- tech234a 1y agoActually it does according to https://openai.com/index/response-to-nyt-data-demands/ https://openai.com/index/response-to-nyt-data-demands/
- otterley 1y agoThe court order doesn't require OpenAI to modify their software. ZDR is implemented through a separate API with separate endpoints that never retained data in the first place.
- sschueller 1y agoHas anyone noticed that OpenAI has become "lazy"? When I ask questions now it will not give me a complete file or fix. Instead it tells me what I should do and I need to ask a second or third time to just do the thing I asked. I don't see this happening with for example deepseek. Is it possible they are saving on resources by having it answer that way?
- tedsanders 1y agoYeah, our models are sometimes too lazy. It’s not intentional, and future models will be less lazy. When I worked at Netflix I sometimes heard the same speculation about intentionally bad recommendations, which people theorized would lower streaming and increase profit margins. It made even less sense there as streaming costs are usually less than a penny. In reality, it’s just hard to make perfect products! (I work at OpenAI.)
- ukblewis 1y agoPlease be careful about the alternative. I’ve seen o3 doing excessive tool calls and research for relatively simple problems.
- Hard_Space 1y agoAfter the last few weeks, where o3 seems desperate to do tool searches or re-crunch a bad gen even though I only asked a question about it, I assumed that the policy is to burn through credits at the fastest possible rate. With this price change, I don't know what's happening now...
- Nextgrid 1y agoAre they actually profitable? A policy to burn through credits only makes sense if they're making a profit on each token - otherwise it would be counterproductive.
- jillesvangurp 1y ago
- polskibus 1y agoIs this a reaction to Apple paper showing that reasoning models don’t really reason?
- anothermathbozo 1y agoWhy would that be?
- dragandj 1y agoIf these kids could read, they would be very upset.
- nikcub 1y agofyi the price drop has been updated in Cursor: https://x.com/cursor_ai/status/1932484008816050492 https://x.com/cursor_ai/status/1932484008816050492
- BeetleB 1y agoWhy does OpenAI require me to verify my "organization" (which requires my state issued ID) to use o3?
- bearjaws 1y agoPrevent Deepseek R2 being trained on it
- piskov 1y agoIf only there were people with multiple passports or, I don’t know, Kyrgyzstan. How exactly will passport check prevent any training? At most this will block API access to your average Ivan, not a state actor
- BeetleB 1y agoYeah, I just don't see myself using o3 when I have Gemini-2.5 Pro. I don't recall if Google Cloud verified my ID in the past, though. Still, no need to let yet another organization have my data if I'm not getting something better in return.
- jjani 1y ago> I don't recall if Google Cloud verified my ID in the past, though It generally does not. No idea if there are edge cases where it does, but that's definitely not the norm for the average user.
- ivanmontillam 1y agoI'm an average Ivan, and I got access.
- yyhhsj0521 1y agoIt's most likely for regulation compliance, instead of a sincere attempt to block anyone from training on them.
- OutOfHere 1y agoo3 is very much needed in VSCode GitHub CoPilot for Ask/Edit/Agent modes. It is sorely missing there.
- janstice 1y agoSure is - and o3 is missing from the OpenAI models that Azure is serving, which I suspect isn’t a coincidence - if OpenAI has some secret sauce that lets them undercut resellers this might shake up agreements for a bit.
- alliao 1y agoit used to take decades of erosion to make google search a hot mess, now that everything's happening in light speed, we get days for AI models to decay to the point of hot mess again..
- godelski 1y agoFor those wondering Yesterday: Today ------------- ------------- Price Price Input: Input: $10.00 / 1M tokens $2.00 / 1M tokens Cached input: Cached input: $2.50 / 1M tokens $0.50 / 1M tokens Output: Output: $40.00 / 1M tokens $8.00 / 1M tokens https://archive.is/20250610154009/https://openai.com/api/pricing/#selection-1053.0-1095.18 https://archive.is/20250610154009/https://openai.com/api/pri... https://openai.com/api/pricing/ https://openai.com/api/pricing/
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- JojoFatsani 1y agoO3 is really good. I haven’t had the same results with o4 unfortunately
- 34679 1y agoI'd like to offer a cautionary tale that involves my experience after seeing this post. First, I tried enabling o3 via OpenRouter since I have credits with them already. I was met with the following: "OpenAI requires bringing your own API key to use o3 over the API. Set up here: https://openrouter.ai/settings/integrations https://openrouter.ai/settings/integrations" So I decided I would buy some API credits with my OpenAI account. I ponied up $20 and started Aider with my new API key set and o3 as the model. I get the following after sending a request: "litellm.NotFoundError: OpenAIException - Your organization must be verified to use the model `o3`. Please go to: https://platform.openai.com/settings/organization/general https://platform.openai.com/settings/organization/general and click on Verify Organization. If you just verified, it can take up to 15 minutes for access to propagate." At that point, the frustration was beginning to creep in. I returned to OpenAI and clicked on "Verify Organization". It turns out, "Verify Organization" actually means "Verify Personal Identity With Third Party" because I was given the following: "To verify this organization, you’ll need to complete an identity check using our partner Persona." Sigh I click "Start ID Check" and it opens a new tab for their "partner" Persona. The initial fine print says: "By filling the checkbox below, you consent to Persona, OpenAI’s vendor, collecting, using, and utilizing its service providers to process your biometric information to verify your identity, identify fraud, and conduct quality assurance for Persona’s platform in accordance with its Privacy Policy and OpenAI’s privacy policy. Your biometric information will be stored for no more than 1 year." OK, so now, we've gone from "I guess I'll give OpenAI a few bucks for API access" to "I need to verify my organization" to "There's no way in hell I'm agreeing to provide biometric data to a 3rd party I've never heard of that's a 'partner' of the largest AI company and Worldcoin founder. How do I get my $20 back?"
- 34679 1y agoFollow-up. I pasted the above into ChatGPT because I genuinely wanted to know how to get my 20 bucks back. That request is in and they say I'll get a response in 2-3 days. I then asked it "What are the potential risks of agreeing to their terms?" Here's the response: Agreeing to Persona’s terms, especially for biometric identity verification, involves both privacy and long-term data security risks. Here’s a clear breakdown of the main risks you should be aware of: 1. Biometric Data Collection Risk: Biometric identifiers (like facial recognition, voiceprints, etc.) are extremely sensitive and irreplaceable if compromised. What they collect: Persona may collect a selfie, video, and metadata, and extract biometric templates from those for facial comparison and liveness detection. If leaked or abused: Unlike passwords, you can't change your face. A future data breach or misuse could lead to permanent identity compromise. 2. Data Storage & Retention Risk: Persona says biometric data is kept for up to one year, but: You’re relying on their internal policies, not a legal guarantee. There’s no technical detail on how securely it’s stored or whether it’s encrypted at rest. Worst-case scenario: Poorly secured biometric templates could be stolen, reused, or matched against other data sets by bad actors or governments. 3. Third-Party Sharing and Surveillance Risks Risk: Your biometric and ID data may be shared with subprocessors (partners/vendors) that you haven’t explicitly vetted. Persona may transfer your data to cloud providers (like AWS, GCP), verification specialists, or fraud prevention services. Depending on jurisdiction, data could be subject to subpoenas, surveillance laws, or government backdoors (especially in the U.S.). 4. Consent Ambiguity & Future Use Risk: The fine print often includes vague consent for "quality assurance", "model improvement", or "fraud detection". This opens the door to retraining algorithms on your biometric data—even if anonymized, that's still a use of your body as data. Their privacy policy may evolve, and new uses of your data could be added later unless you opt out (which may not always be possible). Should You Agree? Only if: You absolutely need the service that requires this verification. You’re aware of the privacy tradeoff and are okay with it. You trust that Persona and its partners won’t misuse your biometric data—even a year down the line. If you’re uneasy about this, you’re not alone. Many developers and privacy advocates refuse to verify with biometrics for non-critical services, and companies like OpenAI are increasingly facing criticism for requiring this.
- stevev 1y agoIt was only a matter of time considering Deepseek R1’s recent release. OpenAI’s competitor is an open-source product that offers similar quality at a tenth of the cost. Now they’re just trying to prevent customers from leaving.
- mrcwinn 1y agoOnly at HN can the reaction to an 80% price drop be a wall of criticism.
- alternatex 1y ago"80% price drop" is just a title. The wall of criticism is for the fine-print.
- xboxnolifes 1y agoThe wall of criticism is all wild speculation, not fine print.
- beering 1y agoWhat in the fine print are we criticising? Most of the negative comments make no reference to any fine print on their website.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- man4 1y ago[dead]
- sagarpatil 1y agoMeanwhile Apple: Liquid Glass
- boyka 1y ago80%? So this is either same Trump style "art of the deal" with setting unreasonable pricing in the first place or desperately needing customers?
- mythz 1y agoI've been turned off with OpenAI and have been actively avoiding using any of their models for a while, luckily this is easy to do given the quality of Sonnet 4 / Gemini Pro 2.5. Although I've always wondered how OpenAI could get away with o3's astronomical pricing, what does o3 do better than any other model to justify their premium cost?
- jstummbillig 1y agoIt's just a highly unoptimized space. There is very little market consolidation at this point, everyone is trying things out that lead to wildly different outcomes and processes and costs, even though in the end it's always just a bunch of utf-8 characters. o3 was probably just super expensive to run, and now, apparently, it's not anymore and can beat sonnet/opus 4 on pricing. It's fairly wild.
- jsnider3 1y agoVery few customers pick the model based on cost, for many ChatGPT is the only one they know of.
- hu3 1y ago> Very few customers pick the model based on cost. What? 3 ou of 4 companies I consulted for that started using AI for coding marked cost as an important criteria. The 4th one has virtually infinite funding so they just don't care.
- jsnider3 1y ago> 3 out of 4 companies I consulted for that started using AI for coding marked cost as an important criteria. And those aren't average customers.
- monster_truck 1y agoCurious that the number of usages for plus users remained the same. I don't think they're actually doing anything material to lower the cost by a meaningful amount. It's just margin they've always had, and they cut it because magistral is pretty incredible for being completely free
- cylinderthought 1y agogroq is better
- jsnider3 1y agoNo.
- ucha 1y agoCan we know for sure that the price drop is accompanied by a change in the model such as quantization? On twitter, some people say that some models perform better at night when there is a less demand which allows them to serve a non-quantized model. Since the models are only available through API and there is no test to check which version of the model is served, it's hard to know what we're buying...