7 ms·
Except Fable won’t be costing $100 for enterprises that will be considering the Chinese models. If $100 Claud Max subscription works for you, then great. But
by Cookingboy 1mo ago
Except Fable won’t be costing $100 for enterprises that will be considering the Chinese models.
If $100 Claud Max subscription works for you, then great.
But you have to remember your pricing is subsidized by enterprises that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each month, if not more, to Anthropic.
For those companies, a Chinese model that can cut their AI spend from $1M/month to $200k suddenly seems attractive.
And unfortunately for the American tech industry, the valuation is based off those enterprise deals, not your $100/month Claude Max subscription.
- serf 1mo ago> not your $100/month.. This is made brutally obvious by anthropics customer support for people with such accounts.
- AussieWog93 1mo agoYeah, fair. If we were talking $2,000/mo vs $200 then the maths starts looking very different.
- azinman2 1mo agoDidn’t deepseek recently announce prices will go up significantly? Right now the US dominates everyone else in actual chips in data centers. So even if deepseek etc tries to undercut, they’re very capacity limited.
- xbmcuser 1mo agoDeepseek is open weight/source ie it will be running on US servers in the US maybe by on each companies own servers.
- monster_truck 1mo agoIt's far from significant, it's partially doubled during peak hours. They could 16x it and it would still be two orders of magnitude better value than OAI's $200/mo plan. It's that good. They are far from capacity limited, and even if they were, you can rent a single MI300X from somewhere like Hot Aisle and get more tk/s than you'll be able to use.
- user43928 1mo agoHow does it compare to 5.6 Luna after the permanent 80% price cut? That one is dirt cheap at API pricing, I can't imagine quota is going to be a concern on the $200 subscription, which in my opinion easily supports full time use of 5.6 Sol on xhigh.
- monster_truck 1mo agoIt's still laughable. They blew it. I'm not sure they could even pay me to use their models at this point (and I don't mean via employment, meta and its refugees are permabanned to me). My experience over the past few months with open models has me seriously entertaining moving east. A couple of very talented friends were uttering curses upon the entire bloodline of whoever convinced them to try letting sol xhigh do serious work. Deepseek cleaned it up for a fraction of $20.
- user43928 1mo agoSince you did not compare them, I now checked myself, and it looks like Luna benchmarks about the same as DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731. The cost per task was $0.03 with DeepSeek, $0.05 with Luna. $1.23 for Sol. Tokens per second 132, 202, 70 respectively.
- re-thc 1mo ago> Didn’t deepseek recently announce prices will go up significantly? They also previously said prices will go down significantly once they get a hold of the upcoming Huawei chips (later this year). Prices are going up just because they can. It can easily come back down. They aren't strained by some IPO / VCs requiring them to 1000x their earnings.
- oceanplexian 1mo agoI don’t think the industry knows how to price this stuff. Deepseek is great (I’m running it on a RTX 6000 pro setup) but it’s nothing like Fable. It’s still strongly human-in-the-loop which is fine, until you experience how good these models can be. Think about it this way. Let’s say you could buy an LLM that gets things right 98% of the time. But there’s another LLM that’s 100x the price but gets things right 99.9% of the time. To the lay person this sounds trivial but to a serious business this intelligence gap could represent millions, or billions of dollars.
- Cookingboy 1mo agoIf that’s the case businesses would be seeing millions to billions of profit gain (or cost reduction) in the past 4 months as they went from Opus 4.6 to Fable 5. But that’s simply not the case. It’s very clear that vast majority of the business do not generate additional value from incremental intelligence gain from these models. There is a reason why Chinese open weight models are now popular even in American enterprises, because CTOs realize that they are indeed good enough.
- solenoid0937 1mo agoI work for a FAANG, and have my own personal projects for which I use the Chinese models. and the big models do indeed save/make us a lot of money. The Chinese models are not good enough for anything other than pair programming, which is just a very last-gen way of using agents. And when the big US models get better we will move with them. Until we stop seeing returns there is no "good enough", I don't know why this is so hard for HN to understand.
- Cookingboy 1mo ago>I don't know why this is so hard for HN to understand. There are businesses other than FAANG. I don't know why this is so hard for FAANG employees to understand.
- margorczynski 1mo agoIt depends on the use case. And most companies (like 90%+) do not have the coffers FAANG has and price does make a big difference.