3 ms·

AI revenue has been going up while the cost per token has been rapidly falling. The Jevons paradox applies here. The cheaper software is, the more software is w

AI revenue has been going up while the cost per token has been rapidly falling. The Jevons paradox applies here. The cheaper software is, the more software is written. There is not a finite demand for software.

rafaelmn 5mo ago
> AI revenue has been going up while the cost per token has been rapidly falling Every model release now has been straight price increases since what GPT 4 ? When was the last time a new flagship model decreased prices compared to the previous one ?
- baq 5mo ago
  token efficiency
  - chillfox 5mo ago
    Not seeing that either, tried really using Opus 4.7 today, and it ended up at $50 for the same kida thing that came out to $25 last week with Opus 4.6.
    - baq 5mo ago
      each model is different and nothing should be taken for granted, run your evals for your use cases. I'm not using Opus 4.7 for almost anything. I've seen very good improvements in GPTs since 5.2 and Opus 4.5 to 4.6 was quite an upgrade.
  - wesammikhail 5mo ago
    Models consume more tokens than ever for the same tasks.
- dktp 5mo ago
  Opus 4.5 became significantly cheaper directly per token
  - rafaelmn 5mo ago
    You are right I forgot about that ! I think my point still stands - price per token is not decreasing for frontier capabilities, in fact it's increasing.
    - radu_floricica 5mo ago
      This only means the frontier is growing faster than the price is decreasing. It's just the sum of two separate tendencies, and has little predictive value. TBH, I'm ok with this tradeoff - higher capability at slightly higher cost is perfectly fine.
- jstummbillig 5mo ago
  1. GPT 4 has gotten 6x cheaper over it's evolution (from initial release to Turbo to 4o). Maybe you meant "Only since 4o and only since its final release". Alas. 2. We are not interested in how different model naming schemes relate to prices, we are interested in the capabilities. So if you want to learn something about price development you need comparative levels of capabilities, and then look at the prices. 4o is not comparable to 5.5 in the first regard. It is (according to the benchmarks) maybe more comparable to current 5 nano - which is 98% cheaper.
lompad 5mo ago
This is conjecture. There is a reason both openai and anthropic refuse to comment on inference costs. If it were falling so much, they would use it to brag. I really don't understand why so many people keep repeating it without any actual data for the frontier models. Apart from that, I'm not sure if focusing on tokens is even a good idea, because they are so different from model to model. I'd almost consider them a red herring now. We could look at tasks instead. Is there anything even remotely suggesting that your typical task you give an LLM now costs less in inference than before?
vb-8448 5mo ago
I, and I guess basically everyone here, don't have access to OAI or Anthropic books, and it's really difficult to disprove your statements but: - AI revenue going up & cost/token are not related metrics, at least not in the way you are assuming - basically all players (except OAI for the moment) struggling with capacity and/or reducing-dismissing subscription based solutions in favour of pay-per-use. If token cost/token was falling, we would see quite the opposite.

rafaelmn 5mo ago

> AI revenue has been going up while the cost per token has been rapidly falling Every model release now has been straight price increases since what GPT 4 ? When was the last time a new flagship model decreased prices compared to the previous one ?

baq 5mo ago
token efficiency
- chillfox 5mo ago
  Not seeing that either, tried really using Opus 4.7 today, and it ended up at $50 for the same kida thing that came out to $25 last week with Opus 4.6.
  - baq 5mo ago
    each model is different and nothing should be taken for granted, run your evals for your use cases. I'm not using Opus 4.7 for almost anything. I've seen very good improvements in GPTs since 5.2 and Opus 4.5 to 4.6 was quite an upgrade.
- wesammikhail 5mo ago
  Models consume more tokens than ever for the same tasks.
dktp 5mo ago
Opus 4.5 became significantly cheaper directly per token
- rafaelmn 5mo ago
  You are right I forgot about that ! I think my point still stands - price per token is not decreasing for frontier capabilities, in fact it's increasing.
  - radu_floricica 5mo ago
    This only means the frontier is growing faster than the price is decreasing. It's just the sum of two separate tendencies, and has little predictive value. TBH, I'm ok with this tradeoff - higher capability at slightly higher cost is perfectly fine.
jstummbillig 5mo ago
1. GPT 4 has gotten 6x cheaper over it's evolution (from initial release to Turbo to 4o). Maybe you meant "Only since 4o and only since its final release". Alas. 2. We are not interested in how different model naming schemes relate to prices, we are interested in the capabilities. So if you want to learn something about price development you need comparative levels of capabilities, and then look at the prices. 4o is not comparable to 5.5 in the first regard. It is (according to the benchmarks) maybe more comparable to current 5 nano - which is 98% cheaper.

lompad 5mo ago

This is conjecture. There is a reason both openai and anthropic refuse to comment on inference costs. If it were falling so much, they would use it to brag. I really don't understand why so many people keep repeating it without any actual data for the frontier models. Apart from that, I'm not sure if focusing on tokens is even a good idea, because they are so different from model to model. I'd almost consider them a red herring now. We could look at tasks instead. Is there anything even remotely suggesting that your typical task you give an LLM now costs less in inference than before?

vb-8448 5mo ago

I, and I guess basically everyone here, don't have access to OAI or Anthropic books, and it's really difficult to disprove your statements but: - AI revenue going up & cost/token are not related metrics, at least not in the way you are assuming - basically all players (except OAI for the moment) struggling with capacity and/or reducing-dismissing subscription based solutions in favour of pay-per-use. If token cost/token was falling, we would see quite the opposite.