5 ms·
This does sound great, but the cost of tokens will prevent most companies from using agents to secure their code.
by jazz9k 7mo ago
This does sound great, but the cost of tokens will prevent most companies from using agents to secure their code.
- KetoManx64 7mo agoTokens are insanely cheap at the moment. Through OpenRouter a message to Sonnet costs about $0.001 cents or using Devstral 2512 it's about $0.0001. An extended coding session/feature expansion will cost me about $5 in credits. Split up your codebase so you don't have to feed all of it into the LLM at once and it's a very reasonable.
- lebovic 7mo agoIt cost me ~$750 to find a tricky privilege escalation bug in a complex codebase where I knew the rough specs but didn't have the exploit. There are certainly still many other bugs like that in the codebase, and it would cost $100k-$1MM to explore the rest of the system that deeply with models at or above the capability of Opus 4.6. It's definitely possible to do a basic pass for much less (I do this with autopen.dev), but it is still very expensive to exhaustively find the harder vulnerabilities.
- christophilus 7mo agoThis is where the Codex and Claude Code Pro/Max plans are excellent. I rarely run into the limits of Codex. If I do, I wait and come back and have it resume once the window has expired.
- Jcampuzano2 7mo agoClaude and Codex pro/max subs aren't supposed to be used for commercial/enterprise development so its not really an option for execs in enterprise. They need to take into account API costs. At my F500 company execs are very wary of the costs of most of these tools and its always top of mind. We have dashboards and gather tons of internal metrics on which tools devs are using and how much they are costing.
- petesergeant 7mo ago> Claude and Codex pro/max subs aren't supposed to be used for commercial/enterprise development lolwut?
- blks 7mo agoRead ToS.
- monocularvision 7mo agoI just did. Tell me where it states what you are claiming. Neither my reading (IANAL) nor ChatGPT’s reading could find such a blanket ban: https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms
- watermelon0 7mo agoFrom your link: > Non-commercial use only. You agree that you will not use our Services for any commercial or business purposes and we and our Providers have no liability to you for any loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, or loss of business opportunity. There are separate commercial terms for Team/Enterprise/API usage: https://www.anthropic.com/legal/commercial-terms https://www.anthropic.com/legal/commercial-terms
- fasterik 7mo agoI suspect you are accessing their website from a European IP address. The clause you quoted is not present for users outside of the EU/UK. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47590473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47590473
- monocularvision 7mo agoThat explains it. I don’t see it from my US IP address.
- otterley 7mo agoHow much would it have cost a human to do the same work? The question isn’t how much tokens cost; the question is how much money is saved by using AI to do it.
- skeledrew 7mo agoCompare to the cost when said vulnerabilities are exploited by bad actors in critical systems. Worth it yet?
- gmerc 7mo agoYou’d have to ignore the massive investor ROI expectations or somehow have no capability to look past “at the moment”.
- KetoManx64 7mo agoNot really. I'm fully taking advantage of these low prices while they last. Eventually the AI companies will run start running out of funny money and start charging what the models actually cost to run, then I just switch over to using the self hosted models more often and utilize the online ones for the projects that need the extra resources. Currently there's no reason for why I shouldn't use Claude Sonnet to write one time bash scripts, once it starts costing me a dollar to do so I'm going to change my behavior.
- twosdai 7mo agoI also have this feeling. But do you ever doubt it. that when the time comes we will be like the boiled frog? Where its "just so convenient" or that the reality of setting up a local ai is just a worse experience for a large upfront cost?
- iririririr 7mo agoworse. he's already boiled. probably paying way more than that one dollar per bash script with all the subscriptions he already has.
- KetoManx64 7mo agoYeah, the $20 I paid to OpenRouter about 4 months ago really cost me an arm and a leg, not sure where I'll get my next meal if I'm to be honest.
- deaux 7mo ago> Currently there's no reason for why I shouldn't use Claude Sonnet to write one time bash scripts, once it starts costing me a dollar to do so I'm going to change my behavior. This just isn't going to happen, we have open weights models which we can roughly calculate how much they cost to run that are on the level of Sonnet _right now_. The best open weights models used to be 2 generations behind, then they were 1 generation behind, now they're on par with the mid-tier frontier models. You can choose among many different Kimi K2.5 providers. If you believe that every single one of those is running at 50% subsidies, be my guest.
- ThePowerOfFuet 7mo ago>$0.001 cents $0.001 (1/10 of a cent) or 0.001 cents (1/1000 of a cent, or $0.00001)?
- Pikamander2 7mo agoOh no, here we go again https://youtube.com/watch?v=MShv_74FNWU https://youtube.com/watch?v=MShv_74FNWU
- zozbot234 7mo agoAgentic tasks use up a huge amount of tokens compared to simple chatting. Every elementary interaction the model has with the outside world (even while doing something as simple as reading code from a large codebase) is a separate "chat" message and "response", and these add up very quickly.
- epolanski 7mo agoI don't buy it. Inference cost has dropped 300x in 3 years, no reason to think this won't keep happening with improvements on models, agent architecture and hardware. Also, too many people are fixated with American models when Chinese ones deliver similar quality often at fraction of a cost. From my tests, "personality" of an LLM, it's tendency to stick to prompts and not derail far outweights the low % digit of delta in benchmark performance. Not to mention, different LLMs perform better at different tasks, and they are all particularly sensible to prompts and instructions.
- simplesocieties 7mo ago“Thing x happened in the past, therefore it will continue to happen in the future” is perhaps one of the most, if not the most pervasive human-created fallacies anywhere.
- NitpickLawyer 7mo agoTokens aren't more expensive than highly trained meatbags today. There's no way they'll be more expensive "tomorrow"...
- bigbugbag 7mo ago[flagged]
- skeledrew 7mo ago> they are and they will be Calculate the approximate cost of raising a human from birth to having the knowledge and skills to do X, along with maintenance required to continue doing X. Multiply by a reasonable scaling factor in comparison to one of today's best LLMs (ie how many humans and how much time to do Xn, vs the LLM). Calculate the cost of hardware (from raw elements), training and maintenance for said LLM (if you want to include the cost of research+software then you'll have to also include the costs of raising those who taught, mentored, etc the human as well). Consider that the human usually specializes, while the LLM touches everything. I think you'll find even a roughly approximate answer very enlightening if you're honest in your calculations.
- Synthetic7346 7mo agoBut companies don't have to bear the cost of raising a human from birth, or training them. They only pay the cost of hiring them, and that includes cost of maintenence. Add to that the fact that we can't blindly trust LLM output just yet, so we need a mearbag to review it. LLM will always be more expensive than human +LLM, until we're at a stage where we can remove the human from the loop
- skeledrew 7mo ago> But companies don't have to bear the cost of raising a human from birth, or training them. The costs do exist somewhere though, and must be paid by someone. There's no free lunch, and the human lunch is very likely far more costly than the LLM lunch. > Add to that the fact that we can't blindly trust LLM output just yet Can't blindly trust human output either. That's why there are various tiers in roles, from junior-equivalent to senior-equivalent, and the actual user of the product is always the final arbiter. There's ultimately nothing different, except that the LLM iterates on issue resolution in seconds to minutes, whereas the human equivalent takes hours to days.
- qingcharles 7mo agoI'm thinking about how much money Anthropic etc are making from intelligence services who are running Opus 4.6 on ultra high settings 24 hours a day to find these kinds of exploits and take advantage of them before others do. Expensive for me and you, but peanuts for a nation state.