>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 an hour 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)

	▲	Ucalegon 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What you are saying is bullshit and what you are saying when it comes to the unit cost per token is based off of pro-athropic or OAI. Nothing you are saying, outside of what you are doing for OAI or Anthropic is true or trustworthy. You, as a human being, are a propagandist for AI. Do you question for what I think about you or the objectivity, or lack there of, for you are, your pelican riding a bicycle, and what that means for every one else besides you? Also, when it comes to tokens, who's tokens? You tokens, you paying for that shit? Is it worth it?