[simianwords]

>To analyze the decline in LLM prices over time, we focused on the most cost-effective LLMs above a certain performance threshold at each point in time. To identify these models, we iterated through models sorted by release date. In each iteration, we added a model to the set of cheapest models if it had a lower price than all previous models that scored at or above the threshold.

Can you look at the analysis? It will make it clear. I mean its so obvious because GPT 4 costs way more than GPT 5.2-mini but much worse performance.

>Even if the numbers are truthful, I have no idea how the calculate price there. Is it in terms of cost of compute they rent? Is this cost subsidized or not?

Do you think they are subsidising 900x or simply that the costs have gone down?

Overall you have shown what I feel is extreme skepticism in something that is obvious. You can literally run a model in your laptop that matches an older closed model. Costs are obviously going down, I have shown data. Use your own anecdotes and report.

Extreme skepticism in such a way doesn't do any help.

[surgical_fire]

> Overall you have shown what I feel is extreme skepticism in something that is obvious.

I think you show extreme faith in something that is very obscure.

For me to believe in the analysis I would need to trust the numbers that the analysis is based upon. I see no reason why I should trust this. What sort of regulatory body or neutral third party inspects those numbers to ensure they are not a fabrication?

But you can claim I am a hater if it justifies your worldview. Skepticism is sinful for the believer.