Remix.run Logo
▲ bko 4 hours ago

The online crowd harping on about Chinese models is disconnected from reality imo.

I won't use a Chinese model. Why would i bother? I pay $100/m for the frontier model, understanding it's marginally better than much cheaper alternatives. I get so much value from the product it's not worth shopping around

Think of it like apple and android. Plenty of people pay 2k for their iPhone every few years when android at 1/4 the price is just as functional. Why? Because they get so much excess value from the device it's not worth shopping around. For most people it's their only personal computer. From booking airfare, to filling out their kids permission slips, it's a device they use 10+ hours a week. They don't bother, until a paradigm shift happens and something is 10x better than the iPhone. I imagine llms will follow the same trajectory

▲samusiam 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

100/m for a subscription is a lot of money to most people. Like people who don't have a SWE salary.

▲lunar_mycroft 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You aren't paying API prices. Anthropic (or OpenAI, SpaceX, etc) are almost certainly losing money on your subscription. How long they'll be able to continue to subsidize your usage is an open question, but they definitely won't be able to do it with everyone (currently, their solution is to make enterprise users pay per token, but that might change). What that means is that for the customers that the frontier labs need to be profitable, going with a closed weight provider isn't "marginally better intelligence for marginally higher (or even lower) prices" but "marginally better intelligence for much higher prices".

▲splatter9859 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This.

I get (sometimes) frustrated with people that don't work in the tech industry over this concept, and having them rationalize that their usage is heavily subsidized by the distributor of the model.

The costs in compute, electricity, cooling, etc. per token is much higher than most people (I feel) who work in the industry realize. Which, cognitively makes sense: they just want the 'magic 8-ball' to give them a tasty dinner recipe that meets their specifications, for example, and don't care how the 'sausage' is made.

However, economies generally equalize with supply and demand, and this (most likely) will become cheaper as the technology progresses and optimization passes/new algorithms are discovered.

▲jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly, like it has done in cycle after cycle in the past. It would be very naive to assume that once you have a moat it will stay that way with a thing like this.

▲famouswaffles 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah. People have very strange ideas about competition and choice and moat. If all you needed to unseat the entrenched was a competitor then Bing would be going toe to toe with Google, and Edge with Chrome. They have a billion+ devices they can stick those options as defaults and still nothing. There are many examples.

People are naturally sticky. If they're satisfied with a product, they'll stick around unless something comes along that is so much better it gets people talking. Open AI's 1B+ customers won't give a shit about Chinese models. Enterprise customers won't move to Chinese models, especially just to save money. They are a non issue, especially if the M.O is just going to be playing catch-up.

▲koe123 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The big big difference is that you dont pay directly for google. Paying per token is more akin to going grocery shopping.

▲philistine 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They're sticky, but not for everything. There are common goods where the market has commoditized greatly because customers are conscious of quality and not provenance. Something like apples.

▲xmcp123 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are not the real consumer though. The real consumer is API, inside of products ingesting vast amounts of data at scale.

My last role swapping from Haiku/Sonnet to GLM dropped costs by 90-95% and increased quality.

Money talks.

▲throwaway_1016 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Most of sp500 companies are never going to use chinese models.

▲matsemann an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Only because anthropic&co will price themselves just below the cap where people contemplated switching. In so, the Chinese models still set a sort of cap on the prices they can charge, even if not directly.

▲pbasista an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not?

I can understand that they might be cautious about sharing their data with a Chinese company.

But them being the most successful companies means that they can just buy their own hardware. And run whatever models they can get their hands on in there.

Even if those models are Chinese. They (the companies running them on their own hardware) would be in full control then.

▲maxnevermind an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I work in one of sp5 and I use chinese models :-D

▲cmdrk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

depends on the framing.

if the chinese models have this aura of inferior quality around them, then sure.

if they manage to frame it instead as open source, sovereign AI, the calculus changes.

▲throwaway_1016 an hour ago | parent [-]

It's not about quality, but more about processes, for example we handle EU, US personal, financial data etc, we have strict rules about it (company rules, and gov ones), and there is no place for chinese model here.

▲koe123 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

You dont understand it, its open you can host in USA

▲jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would happily bet that > 50% are already doing just that. Whether you'll be able to collect the data is another thing but they'd be fairly stupid if they haven't at least checked out what is available. It would be next to irresponsible not to do so and given that they're in the S&P 500 you would have to at least give them some credit.

▲huhhu22 an hour ago | parent [-]

We already have data! Look at market share measured by tokens not revenues.

▲xmcp123 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For now, there’s definitely some resistance because people don’t understand models can’t phone home (only the servers they’re hosted on).

But I don’t think this will be the first time in history that money doesn’t win.

▲throwaway_1016 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They absolutely can, it's just a matter of proper incentives (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50159245).

▲addaon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> models can’t phone home

Models with tool access (and internet-connected tools like curl) can, though… is this really a useful distinction?

▲xmcp123 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, because you can run a chinese model on a USA server. The fact that it's a chinese model means nothing.

▲joshheitzman 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It is. Harnesses do not need to give LLMs such broad tools like the shell.

▲jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At $100 / month (or $1200 / year) it may not be worth it, for you. But many of us would be spending a (large) multiple of that and then thinking about how much you spend, where you spend it and who you spend it on can make a big difference. For companies there are other considerations at play as well, for instance trust.

▲ 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲bunderbunder 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

First off, $2k is the price of the new iPhone Duo. Suggesting that that is basically the same thing as a $500 Android phone is... strange.

But also, I don't think you should use individual consumer behavior as a proxy for how the overall LLM market behaves. Current estimates are that individual users represent a pretty small share of overall genai revenue. Most of it comes from enterprise contracts. Those might be more price sensitive because the CFO gets a say in which vendor they choose.

For a couple years now I've been accustomed to choice of foundation model being a heavily scrutinized design decision because it's just about the easiest way to manage COGS. I can certainly imagine scenarios where, given the option to pay 1/2 as much in inference costs but with a 5% reduction in output quality, the boss would say, "Nah, that's a bad deal." But I have yet to encounter one in the wild.

▲bko 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> First off, $2k is the price of the new iPhone Duo. Suggesting that that is basically the same thing as a $500 Android phone is... strange.

Okay fine, it's $1,400 for a latest iPhone Pro with 512gb of storage. Point still stands.

> Most of it comes from enterprise contracts. Those might be more price sensitive because the CFO gets a say in which vendor they choose.

I think enterprise contracts are even less sensitive to price than consumer. That's the whole idea behind enterprise pricing. You'll see companies charge multiple times as much just for SSO for instance.

There are limits to this obviously, but to think that major commercial enterprises will switch over to some Chinese models to save some money is laughable.

▲bunderbunder 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Okay fine, it's $1,400 for a latest iPhone Pro with 512gb of storage. Point still stands.

So you switched away from the specialty product, but you're still comparing a top of the line 6.3 inch iPhone to a mid-market Android phone. Why not compare it to a Pixel 11 Pro with 512GB. That way they're at least comparable devices. But also, that would cost $1,220, which I suppose doesn't go well with the intent of suggesting iPhones are several times as expensive as Android phones.

The reason why I'm digging in on this is, when you start your argument with such a transparently silly comparison, it gives the impression that you're dealing in superlatives and willing to say just any old thing. Which undermines your own credibility.

So, getting back to corporate - multiple times how much for SSO? Okta Essentials is $17/user/month, which is a little over half as much as the base price for Cursor Pro, and about 2/3 the price of a basic ChatGPT seat.

▲seven-red-suns 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

tbh iPhone genuinely doesn't have anything over chinese models, and if there is any illusory sense of privacy, that is purely marketing. Genuinely people thinking iPhone is anywhere close to worth it lose respect because they are at the end of the day just tribes that love one thing

▲cmiles8 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But if you’re a heavy user you’re probably paying $100 for something that costs $1,000. Hence Anthropic’s problem. If they charged real prices to the masses the massses would flee.

▲hotstickyballs 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because the $100/m fee they're charging is only there because Chinese models will undercut them if they try to raise it further.

▲pton_xd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's been a headline circlulating lately: 80% of Anthropic's revenue comes from 1% of their customers. The $100/mo or however much individuals are paying doesn't seem to be material.

▲jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That would be extremely bad news for them. Unless that 1% is captive, then it's a different story.

▲revolvingthrow 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I spend extra on a smartphone because I use the thing all the time, see it all the time, hold it in my hand all the time, it's my camera, music player, note taker and so on.

For AI? Prompt comes in, tokens come out. The value of the 'ecosystem' is roughly zero to me. Switching costs between models are essentially zero. The UI and UX is the same whichever LLM runs underneath.

If you do use llm some, then the $20 tier makes sense, but that's not where the money is. If you use it a lot then a $100 sub probably makes sense. But if you're a BigCo that heavily uses it and pay API prices and suddenly you pay $200 million a month, well, maybe it's worth buying a bunch of hardware and stick it in a basement somewhere, and you won't upload all your secrets to your future competitor to boot. If US labs didn't care about the competition from Chinese models they wouldn't lobby so hard for banning the evil, unaligned, super dangerous communist models that want to steal our freedoms and make our gas expensive.

Ultra-cheap models like Deepseek are also very nice if you need to burn billions and billions of tokens.

▲codebolt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was playing around with OpenCode on Omarchy over the weekend, working on my Android app, and was struggling to spend a single dollar with DeepSeek. The quality difference from the frontier models I use at work was hardly noticeable (where I typically rack up at least a few hundred dollars per month).

▲seven-red-suns 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

LLMs are not a luxury brand that individuals buy. Companies are always looking to save money. And their enterprise consumers are all developing their own models, so idk where you are getting this "analogy" from.

▲jaapz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When the chinese or any other party releases a model that is Opus 5.5 level, there might be a shift to other providers as especially people in the EU are trying to get rid of their dependency on american stuff.

▲testbjjl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your opinions do not reflect the market and the motivations of its participants.

▲LinXitoW 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Competition is the only reason you can pay 100$ a month for like 4000$ worth of API credits.

▲gmerc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Consumer AI is going to be paid with privacy, not money. CFOs don't pay 2k iPhones for their employees.

▲spot5010 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a great way of putting it and something I have come to realize as well. I'd rather just pay for the frontier model if I trust that it is indeed at the frontier and works reliably. Same with the iphone.

▲ActionHank 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"I am spending a provably untenable amount for a services that will have to degrade to meet my price point, the cheaper options and processes are beneath me"

▲nemo44x 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The $100/month guy for inference isn’t the prize. It’s the thousands of companies spending millions/month.

It’s not unusual for someone to spend $5k in a week. 2 guys at my place just spend $150,000 over 3 months building out a factory.

We are aggressively exploring open weight models now.

▲saturn8601 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wish there were more case studies on what people were actually doing. Building out an entire factory sounds amazing. Are they actually getting that level of value out of AI?

Sounds like this will be another one of those things where everyone makes their money and it then will eventually become something experienced people 'blog' about.

▲jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Wish there were more case studies on what people were actually doing. Building out an entire factory sounds amazing. Are they actually getting that level of value out of AI?

I don't doubt it.

> Sounds like this will be another one of those things where everyone makes their money and it then will eventually become something experienced people 'blog' about.

Or not. The problem is that right now you and a whole bunch of others are trying to outrun a pack of lions. The lions have already taken down a couple of your group. The people further ahead have seen what the lions can do and they are attempting to speed up to the point that they can outrun them. Whether that will work or not depends to a large degree on what the other people are doing and they are not going to make it easier for them to keep pace.

That partially explains the lack of deep insight blog posts, besides everybody is just too bloody busy.

▲blueblisters 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don’t know why this was downvoted but basically correct. OpenAI is in a price war with Anthropic right now for enterprise api consumers and that’s the biggest revenue line item for both.

▲jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They were counting on a duopoly so they could split the market between them but then someone decided to spoil their little party. To what degree that was an accident is anybody's guess but the timing is certainly interesting.

▲thatsabadlook 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's really marginally better and in some cases actually worse. If 100 dollars is throwaway money for you, and prices don't increase sure why switch. For heavier users, and for people with less money(most of America is struggling with bills and food) it's not attractive at all.

▲mbesto 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why would i bother? I pay $100/m for the frontier model, understanding it's marginally better than much cheaper alternatives. I get so much value from the product it's not worth shopping around

Wait until you are forced onto an enterprise plan...

▲metalliqaz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The LLMs don't have the moat that Apple has. Apple has carefully built their walled garden to keep people in. Their messaging, their cloud services, their media store, it all keeps users in.

LLMs don't have that. For at least 90% of users, the model in the back end is completely irrelevant to them. Switching to Kimi won't lose them their iTunes music.

▲jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly. I can switch models in between toolcalls if I want to. There is no barrier to switching unless you erect one yourself.

▲eurieq 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Apple’s walled garden is akin to a modern day work of Michaelangelo.

It’s pure genius. There’s a lot of bozo’s here who cannot appreciate it and cry about fairness.

▲SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You won’t use a Chinese model, and I won’t either. But both of our bosses have much higher incentives than we do to routinely shop around, and unlike us they can convince an Anthropic sales rep to give them a discount.

▲eurieq 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The idea that firms forgo profit is crazy.

Many here don’t understand corporate finance do they? Hence the marketing hopium to fool people.

How many Astroturfers and Anthropic employees are here to convince us otherwise?

▲xyzsparetimexyz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anthropic doesn't care about sub users. At all. The real target is pay pig enterprises that give their employees access to the API and allows them to go buck wild spending $1000 on fable in a day.

▲topspin 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Anthropic doesn't care about sub users. At all.

If that were true, they would cancel subs and save themselves the load.

Yet that hasn't happened. So they must care to some extent.

▲xyzsparetimexyz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Okay, I mean outside of the good PR reasons and as a hook for getting companies onto the API.

▲topspin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I thought you would have also mentioned the use they make of data collected from loss leader subscribers, from at least those that don't disable collection.

With that, there are at least three distinct reasons to care about subs: PR, hook and training data.