> There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

Analysts like Semi-Analysis have done a lot of modeling and estimates on the topic.

But two can play this game: There is absolutely no evidence to support that API prices do not have profitable unit economics.

▲

Khalos a day ago | parent [-]

I'm not familiar with that analysis, its accuracy, or its evidence. I would be surprised by this given it seems like providers are still in the growth phase.

Typically the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

▲

Aurornis a day ago | parent | next [-]

https://semianalysis.com/

They have some of the best publicly available analysis on these topics. The full details and numbers are hidden behind the institutional accounts which are priced for investors (not something you sign up for personally) but they're generous with what they send out in their newsletter.

If you're not familiar with resources like this I could understand how you'd assume that the providers are hemorrhaging money on inference costs, because that is that story that gets parroted around spaces like Hacker News.

You could ignore all of that, though, and go check OpenRouter to see how much providers are selling high parameter count models. They're not entirely at the level of the SOTA models, but the biggest open weight models are not that far behind in complexity either. They're being sold an order of magnitude cheaper than what you pay for the APIs from the major players. We don't know exactly how big the major models are, but it's unlikely that they're more than 10X more compute intensive from the leaks we do have.

▲

joshuastuden a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	Aurornis 21 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you’re demanding rigorous proof for only one side of an argument while assuming the other side must be true, you’re not interested in honest debate. The cost of AI inference has been a heavily analyzed topic. I trust the professional analysts much more than the casual Hacker News commenter claiming they’re losing money per token because they’re repeating what they heard some other Hacker News commenter say
	▲	JohnHaugeland 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		the claim that they suspect something is adequately backed up by saying “i suspect this” nobody needs to prove their suspicions

▲

JohnHaugeland 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

there is no burden of proof on someone who says “i suspect”