On the other hand, the newer variants also tend to benchmark higher so it's not quite a clean argument of "hey the new version eats more tokens"
At this point I think Dario is just in his wellness retreat adjusting a revenue/profit dial.
It’s like that saying “What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away”, but in this case it is one company.
There is definitely a conflict of interest.
no amount of alignment will stop aomeone drom just shutting up.
Edit: consumer Claude subs are the 5%. I’d bet most all of CC subs lump in under enterprise.
- API & Enterprise: 75% to 85% of total revenue.
- Business Subscriptions: Roughly 10% to 15%.
- Individual Subscriptions: About 5%.I don't fully agree with the premise that they intentionally increase system prompts, but the enterprise plan usage is going to make that a huge income for Anthropic.
Also I think it’s well known that OpenAI is the much less expensive option (in tokens and $$). For the same $20 you get a lot more mileage.
Curious if folks have strong opinions about the overall UX of OpenCode vs CC…
Especially since compute is such a scarce resource.
Also i doubt there was jira ticket with “make llm more verbose”, rather ticket with “bug makes llms too verbose” gets prioritised taking revenue impact into account.
Not sure if intentionally meant as a reference, but it gives "I use Arch btw" vibes.
and the interesting thing about system prompt wastage is its a cost that scales non linearly with subagent use.
I mean, that's a very weak argument? Isn't a much more plausible explanation that with your tooling you'll have more of a lock-in than with just your model?
They get lock-in, and through that lock-in are more effectively able to inflate token usage.