|
| ▲ | kibwen 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The evidence is that quotas exist, as seen here, and are low enough that people are hitting them regularly. When was the last time you hit your quota of Google searches? When was the last time you hit your quota of StackOverflow questions? When was the last time you hit your quota of YouTube videos? Any service will rate limit abuse, but if abuse is indistinguishable from regular use from the provider's perspective, that's not a good sign. |
| |
| ▲ | jerf 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's also kind of interesting that they don't think they can do what an economy would normally do in this situation, which is raise prices until supply matches. Shortages generally imply mispricing. There's a lot of angles you take from that as a starting point and I'm not confident that I fully understand it, so I'll leave it to the reader. | |
| ▲ | caminante 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Great point. The parent's argument is that the marginal cost of inference is minimal. However, the fundamental flaw is that he's separating inference from the high cost frontier models. It's a cross-subsidy that can't be ignored. | | |
| ▲ | bachmeier 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Without any insider knowledge on the economics of these companies, I suspect it's that the amount of infrastructure you have to build is determined by peak usage rather than average usage. If peak usage is much higher for a small part of one day a week (say on Monday morning as software developers across the US get back to work) the cost of fulfilling demand at all times can be insane. That's why companies are implementing batch/standard/priority pricing for the API. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | weakfish 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This article convinced me otherwise https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-subprime-ai-crisis-is-here/ |
| |
|
| ▲ | scrollop 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The majority of accounts are free - these are profitable? IMO they need as many users before their IPO - then the changes will really begin. |
|
| ▲ | quikoa 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Inference for API or subscriptions? There is a massive price difference between the two. |
|
| ▲ | wesammikhail 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| source? |
| |
| ▲ | KaoruAoiShiho 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | After googling https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1psesym/openai... | | |
| ▲ | wesammikhail 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've seen sources like this before. It's all hearsay and promo. I was asking for any publicly available verifiable information regarding the cost of inference at scale. I haven't seen any such info personally which is why I asked. I'm dying to see S-1 filing for Anthropic or OpenAI. I don't actually think inference is as cheap as people say if you consider the total cost (hardware, energy, capex, etc) | | |
| ▲ | KaoruAoiShiho 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well they're not public yet so you'll have to put up with rumors. But the numbers are available for companies like DeepSeek say they have an 80% profit margin, so it stands to reason OAI etc would do similar numbers considering they charge much more. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | AFAIK, 1. the 80% margin from 2025 was theoretical, 2. they're relying on distillation/synthetic data for training, 3. and have been very opaque about cross-subsidization of R&D with their models. The distillation alone adds a big asterisk for comparisons. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | caminante 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >OpenAI's compute margin, referring to the share of revenue excluding the costs of running its AI models for paying users Huh? The reddit summary comment makes no sense. How are they getting revenues without ads or paying customers? "After" makes more sense. FTA: >The company has yet to show a profit and is searching for ways to make money to cover its high computing costs and infrastructure plans. |
|
|
