5 ms·
How is it misleading if this would be the consumer's cost? Eventually Codex's subscription subsidization will diminish to near-zero, like the rest of the provi
by MattDaEskimo 5mo ago
How is it misleading if this would be the consumer's cost?
Eventually Codex's subscription subsidization will diminish to near-zero, like the rest of the providers.
It's extremely important that people understand how expensive these models currently are. Even $300k in raw API costs is alarming for the output.
- namenotrequired 5mo ago> How is it misleading if this would be the consumer's cost? Because it does not say “equivalent of”, it literally says he spent money that he did not spend
- mathgeek 5mo agoThis. If I go up to my boss and say “I spent $10000 but it only cost us $1000” then I spent $1000.
- stavros 5mo agoDepends on elasticity, if you could have easily sold that $1000 worth of product and made $10k, then you spent $10k.
- namenotrequired 5mo agoNo. Then you missed the opportunity to make 9k.
- lbrito 5mo agoIf anything it cost more than the title, because customer costs are wildly subsidized. So yeah its misleading but in the other direction.
- overfeed 5mo agoInference is highly marked up. Total costs including training may be subsidized (,in a sense since the AI companies are widely reported to not break even as yet)
- pama 5mo agoPeter shows the near-term future. Raw API consumer price cost is arbitrary. (The frontier labs can put a 100x markup to cover other operational expenses.) The true cost of inference with same-capability models keeps dropping at dizzying rates, especially at the data-center batch size. (Due to both NVidia hardware and algorithmic changes.) So the developments that Peter can achieve today with internal support from OpenAI will be doable by anyone in a few years without breaking the bank.
- vrganj 5mo agoBut.... why? Like I read his thing on how he spends the tokens [0] and it sounds like satire. He has agents write shitty code for features other agents think other people want, then has it reviewed by other agents in hopes of catching bugs that the first agent put there, then has some more agents try to find security bugs in the now double-agented code to make it triple-agented and at the end of the day, he spent a shitton of tokens, probably emitted enough carbon to heat our planet by another degree, and has a feature nobody really asked for that might or might not work. He then has the sense of humor to call this grotesque process "incredibly lean". What's the point in all of this? What problems is this solving? Who's benefiting? [0] https://xcancel.com/steipete/status/2055405041843052792 https://xcancel.com/steipete/status/2055405041843052792
- MagicMoonlight 5mo ago[flagged]
- shimman 5mo agoIf history is anything to go by, he'll likely lead YC within the decade.
- simianwords 5mo agoI don't understand how he is a scam artist. Lots of people are using the things he built. TBH this kind of rhetoric is a bit degrading experience on this website
- polski-g 5mo agoWe know how expensive the (Chinese) models are to run, because there are a hundred inference providers selling them cheaply and competitively. The money going to the American model companies is not going to their hosting costs.