|
| ▲ | leecommamichael 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes, almost all work people share which seeks to measure the capabilities and differences of models needs to get more precise. We are clamoring to say something meaningful about these things. |
|
| ▲ | kevincox 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But even that isn't the whole story because the models can produce wildly amount of thinking output as well as regular output for a similar query. Sometimes you can take a cheap model and have it think a ton or an expensive model that thinks little and get similar results. But the number of tokens generated will be wildly different. |
|
| ▲ | whodatbo1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A better metric is price per byte. Most thinking traces, prompts, skills are in plain English, which is roughly 1 byte per character, assuming UTF-8 encoding (even code should not be much more either). As an aside, it is common to use bits-per-byte as a loss metric instead of the per token calculation, precisely because of the effect of different tokenizers. |
| |
| ▲ | smallerize 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's going to vary dramatically based on which text you put in. Really it's hard to make one benchmark number that's relevant to all cases. But maybe we can make something a little more specific, like regular English text, code, the model's own thinking tokens, image inputs etc. |
|
|
| ▲ | victorbjorklund 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It is kind of a shame we ended up comparing token pricing across models and providers when it doesn’t really make sense. Not sure what would be better though. |
| |
| ▲ | alain94040 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Use price per page (standard English text)? That would also help make the metric easier to visualize. If you think a page is too vague, use a famous known writer's work as a reference. | |
| ▲ | whoopdeepoo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well isn't that what benchmarks are for? They compare total cost for a unit of work. |
|