The current top comment in https://lobste.rs/s/ua1gxl/glm_5_2_coming_ai_margin_collapse correctly zoomed into cached input tokens, but landed on the opposite conclusion:

> That is, for your $100/month fee, you get $3600 equivalent of API usage. This is presumably because Anthropic has figured out some clever things to do with model routing and input caching, and also can subsidize with investor money and take a hit on their operating margins.

My take: this is exactly what Anthropic wants everyone to think. In reality, 90% of that $3600 are for cached input tokens, that can be made to cost next to nothing, as shown by DeepSeek.

▲

throwdbaaway a day ago | parent [-]

While we are all speculating, Boris kindly provided some guidance in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47880089

> The challenge is: when you let a session idle for >1 hour, when you come back to it and send a prompt, it will be a full cache miss, all N messages. We noticed that this corner case led to outsized token costs for users. In an extreme case, if you had 900k tokens in your context window, then idled for an hour, then sent a message, that would be >900k tokens written to cache all at once, which would eat up a significant % of your rate limits, especially for Pro users.

Using the current Opus pricing, that pre-lunch 900k tokens should roughly consist of:

720k input tokens = 0.72 x $5 = $3.6

180k output tokens = 0.18 x $25 = $4.5

900k 1h cached writes = 0.9 x $10 = $9

500M cached input tokens = 500 x $0.5 = $250

$267.1 in total, with 93.6% from cached input tokens. The portion that requires GPU compute is about 3% of the total.

Post-lunch, the 900k tokens should consist of:

900k input tokens = 0.9 x $5 = $4.5

900k 1h cached writes = 0.9 x $10 = $9

So Anthropic is fine with the $267.1 accumulated over 3~4 hours before lunch, but not fine with the $13.5 incurred immediately after lunch. Why?

The only plausible explanation is that the actual cost of caching is way less than the API pricing. If you use a coding plan, Anthropic doesn't really care about your cached input tokens usage. Indeed they want you to show your ccusage screenshots. On the other hand, if you pay by API tokens, the margin is huge for cached input tokens.

Only when you do something that requires a lot of FLOPs, e.g. the post-lunch 900k input tokens, the cost becomes real.

▲

nl 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wouldn't be too fixated on the specific numbers in that post.

Anthropic was extremely capacity constrained at that point. They still are but not to that extent.

I'd note that OpenAI offers 24 hour caching. I'd be surprised if Anthropic hasn't optimised their caching for Claude code too.

SemiAnalysis recently posted that their actual Opus usage works out at $0.99 because of caching.

The principles remain though.

▲

Roark66 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Recently I started getting messages from Clause Code (on a plan). "You're restoring an old session are you sure you don't want to compress the context? This will use a substantial amount of your usage quota"

So it seems they do care.

	▲	throwdbaaway 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's exactly what I said. They do care when FLOPs are involved. Restoring an old session with 900k tokens will require a lot of FLOPs to reprocess the 900k token. Meanwhile, they don't really care if you use hundreds of millions of cached input tokens, which doesn't consume any FLOP.