upvote

points

by GodelNumbering5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby jjice3 hours ago|
next
[-]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but OpenRouter doesn't tell the whole story.

If I'm using OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google models, I'm probably using their API directly, so OpenRouter won't have those stats to compare to.

All that said, it is very exciting to see open model usage grow via OpenRouter.

reply
upvoteby dgellow2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It doesn’t show the whole market of course, but the trend lines are interesting
reply
upvoteby jjice1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Definitely interesting seeing it grow there. I'm now curious to see if it's overall market usage growing for LLMs (with more OpenAI and Anthopic usage in a similar growth rate), or if it's more heavily weighted towards open models specifically.

With the price to performance of the latest open models, I think most cases for integration into applications would get a best bang for the buck from an open model.

reply
upvoteby buddhistdude5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
would love to see a statistic by model, and maybe some sort of classification to get a sense of how good the model is and how much it costs.

edit: this exists https://artificialanalysis.ai/

reply
upvoteby nonethewiser2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Why would I use open router with claude? No thanks
reply
upvoteby xur173 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Interesting to see, but I also think more and more usage is moving towards subscriptions, which isn't captured by this metric.

(both my personal and corporate use has done exactly this)

reply
upvoteby ofjcihen5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
This right here is going to be considered one of the first major signs of the downfall of closed models years from now.

And look, if you disagree with me PLEASE tell me why. What moat do these companies have? I genuinely want to know because looking at the spend for companies like OAI and Anthropic with no actual moat I can identify is actually driving me insane.

reply
upvoteby hungryhobbit3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think the frontier AI companies think you're missing key details:

- they can still discover entire new untapped markets for AI (that, potentially, only their models can unlock)

- they can find (novel, unique to them) ways to drive down the cost of running their models

- they can provide other ancillary value (e.g. write better harnesses) because of their expertise, and then charge for that value

I'm probably missing a few bullet points also. However, none of those are moats (or at least not yet) ... I'd consider them more like bets. The frontier AI companies are betting "the house" on them, and if they pay off they could, hypothetically, make them financially competitive.

reply
upvoteby newswasboring3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> The frontier AI companies are betting "the house" on them, and if they pay off they could, hypothetically, make them financially competitive.

They are not betting the house, they are betting the American economy on it. When this crashes it will take everyone down.

reply
upvoteby unethical_ban3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I've been keeping my cash/stock ratio a bit higher than usual recently because I'm waiting for the bubble to burst. My "stock" side is mostly a company I work for that is riding the wave.
reply
upvoteby athorax5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The moat is enterprise contracts and artificial friction moving between harnesses. Moat is a strong word, more of a puddle.
reply
upvoteby slopinthebag4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
If we use the same logic as the AI boosters and just assume we're in exponential growth, that means in a year open models will be handling 523T tokens.
reply