Once I realized that Anthropic is a token merchant, I start to understand Anthropic’s decision more. They are always finding reasons for you to use more tokens through them unless the users revolt or demand some guardrails.
I've done a couple side by sides on web chat with the same prompt on Opus 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 and the output gets longer/more verbose on version increment. The enerr variants are definitely much wordier.
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"
From my experience new models are slower and use more tokens even on questions which gpt 4 answered correctly. It is mostly because newer models tend to be more verbose (even with prompt requesting short answers).
I've done a couple side by sides on web chat with the same prompt on local 4b, 14b, 32b open models and the output gets longer/more verbose on version increment.
Its rather frustrating, slower tokens and more tokens.
If I were anthropic I’d force that too. They offer the harness and if they control the entire pipeline then they can optimize the entire experience. It doesn’t have to be nefarious.
This is kind of a strange comment as it implies a false dichotomy.
Its not 'nefarious' in that its in their best business interests.
But it'd be difficult to take anyone serious who thinks Anthropic's motivation was to improve the UX, and the other effect were by accident. At the time they specifically started blocking based on openclaw prompt text. Its a walled-garden tactic.
A walled garden is nefarious to people who do not want to be inside one.
I don't think it's in the same ballpark at all. I checked the `/usage` in my session which uses a Max x5 plan. One day I had used $400 of tokens and 20% of my Fable allocation. Anthropic is effectively giving us more tokens per $ on the monthly plans but it comes at the cost of Anthropic being the prompt-writers and managers of the agents pretty much entirely. I don't think this is a bad deal.
Whether or not it's a bad deal depends on what you're comparing it to. Compared to API pricing, of course a subscription through CC is a good deal. But when OAI offers their super-subsidized plan and allows you to use your own harness which is 75% more token-efficient, then the CC deal starts looking like a bad one in comparison.
The nefarious part is because it's non optional. They could give you an option and compete by being better, instead you're given the finger as the option is taken from you. Competition is hard and banning people to create more FUD serves business need better.
You've obviously been gaslit so badly you're desperate to find a way to defend a shitty move and pretend it's the only way to increase usability. But you don't have to deny really! You're allowed to admit control is easier for a company than competition, and that they didn't have to, but did because it increases their control of the ecosystem.
If you want to defend someone, good? But at least save it for someone who actually deserves it. They don't; and you insult you and your readers intelligence by trying.
Sounds like they're modeling their PR on the classic Apple playbook: "choice is bad, and you should appreciate the constraints we've generously imposed"
But they gave us double the tokens! Then a limited time more usage! Then even more tokens "off peak" times! Then some new model released but apparently it inherently used 1.69x tokens! Then Fable is here but "it uses much more usage". But only until ~~the US banned it~~ ~~7th July~~ ~~19th July~~ who even knows.
At this point I think Dario is just in his wellness retreat adjusting a revenue/profit dial.
now reealize that LLMs are trained to produce tokens and like the halting problem, cant be trained not to produce tokens and youll realiE the AI labs are the perfect essential capitalist and like cancer, will keep growing useless tokens until it kills its host.
no amount of alignment will stop aomeone drom just shutting up.
LLMs might be trained to produce tokens, but Anthropic don’t have to price by tokens.
If an organization is a ‘non-profit’ and they decided to design their pricing to be tokens-based, I get it.
If a for-profit design their pricing to be tokens-based, I don’t know where are they drawing the line between profit vs benefit. That doubts makes it hard for me to be a customer. Disclaimer, I still use Claude…
Seems unlikely they'd be this dumb. The way to get us to use more tokens is to make those tokens more useful, not less. Anthropic is full of people (including higher-ups) who know this.
> What stops any business from over-charging? Competition.
I fully agree.
> It's the same conflict of interest quite literally any business has.
I know that you know what I meant ;)
In the long term it is just as you say - overcharging (eventually corrected by competition forces), but in the short term it can be additional revenue, blamed on a bug, but making some manager look good.
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"