4 ms·
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed by the price. Claude 3.5 Haiku was $0.8/$4, 4.5 Haiku is $1/$5. I was hoping Anthropic would introduce something price-competitive
by simonw 1y ago
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed by the price. Claude 3.5 Haiku was $0.8/$4, 4.5 Haiku is $1/$5.
I was hoping Anthropic would introduce something price-competitive with the cheaper models from OpenAI and Gemini, which get as low as $0.05/$0.40 (GPT-5-Nano) and $0.075/$0.30 (Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite).
- odie5533 1y agoThere's probably less margin on the low end, so they don't want to focus on capturing it.
- dr_dshiv 1y agoMargin? Hahahahaha
- odie5533 1y agoInference is profitable.
- reppap 1y agoIf you completely ignore inference revenue needing to offset training costs. Is inference still profitable if you account for the amortized training cost?
- yunwal 1y ago> If you completely ignore inference revenue needing to offset training costs. This is what people mean when they say margin. When you buy a pair of shoes, the margin is price/(materials+labor), and doesn’t include the price of the factory or the store they were bought in
- simonw 1y agoNot for the big labs, who are engaged in an astonishingly competitive buildout right now. There are a bunch of companies who offer inference against open weight models trained by other people. They get to skip the training costs.
- bobxmax 1y ago[dead]
- diwank 1y agoI am a bit mind boggled by the pricing lately, especially since the cost increased even further. Is this driven by choices in model deployment (unquantized etc) or simply by perceived quality (as in 'hey our model is crazy good and we are going to charge for it)?