I have genuinely no idea what you are talking about at this point.

I said that my session would cost $12.11 at standard Anthropic prices, based on using AgentsView to calculate cost against tokens used. I further asserted that Anthropic charge enterprise customers those rates.

You kicked off a lengthy thread which I tried to follow but eventually lost track of the point you were making and/or the questions you were asking.

And now you're talking about bias and I don't know where that came from either.

▲

Ucalegon an hour ago | parent [-]

Can you prove that a single contract is paid via that rate?

Like, the token rate assumes the rate that you assert and not whats actually paid.

Do you have proof that your rate is the same from anyone else?

Your bias is that there is no idea of enterprise pricing, that you, Simon Wilson is the experience that anyone experiences, and what that is, that your experience is anything that should be validated.

▲

simonw an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Are you worried that the price for enterprises would be higher or lower than the $12.11 I quoted?

I'll grant that it could be lower if enterprises negotiate bulk discounts, though the stories I've seen suggest that's not happening, for example this one: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/anthropic-changes-pr...

I think higher prices are very unlikely. Do you think I'm wrong about that?

There are a couple of documented ways you could pay more. Anthropic charge 10% extra for "US-only inference" https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing#dat... - and you can also pay more for "fast mode", though I don't see a quoted price for Fable for that yet (just prices for Opus): https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing#fas...

▲

Ucalegon 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

>I think higher prices are very unlikely. Do you think I'm wrong about that?

Yes, I don't think you are objective, nor do I think you care about objectivity, you care about what confirms your prirors and you have issues dealing with anything past that.

Because, frankly, you do not have the ability to assess anything associated with AI. You are biased towards... and you manufactur.... but past that cool, we disagree. But 100% of who you are is supporting Anthroptic and you cannot take all of your effort to tell people why that might be wrong because...

	▲	simonw 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't understand what you mean by "objective" here. You're welcome to believe that the pricing I quoted is low and enterprise companies pay more than that, despite the abundant evidence I've provided in this thread. It sounds to me like you think I'm biased towards Anthropic, despite me highlighting how their model charged $12 for a two line CSS change due to it being "relentlessly proactive". (I also called their behavior "egregious" just yesterday: https://twitter.com/simonw/status/2064936762099789960)

▲

peteforde an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You sound very much like you need a long walk and/or a long hug.

Please go touch some grass.

	▲	Ucalegon 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Just did so, lets see what you did to touch grass.