> I'm fairly confident the Forbes sources are confusing retail API prices with actual compute costs

Aren't they losing money on the retail API pricing, too?

> ... comparisons to artificially low priced Chinese providers...

Yeah, no this article does not pass the sniff test.

> Aren't they losing money on the retail API pricing, too?

No, they aren't, and probably neither is anyone else offering API pricing. And Anthropic's API margins may be higher than anyone else.

For example, DeepSeek released numbers showing that R1 was served at approximately "a cost profit margin of 545%" (meaning 82% of revenue is profit), see my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46663852

Weird that they're all looking for outside money then

They're all looking for outside money because they're all looking for outside money, and so need to keep up with their competitors investments in training. It's a game of chicken. Once their ability to raise more abates, they'll slow down new training runs, and fund that out of inference margins instead, but the first one to be forced to do so will risk losing market share.

Inference is profitable. No one is selling at a loss. It’s training to keep up with competitors that is causing losses.

Are people using bottomless VC money to fund the API calls for these *Claw things?

I first tried OpenClaw with a local model, it gave poor performance. Then I tried it with Claude - great but it blew through hundreds of dollars in tokens in about an hour.

Or is everybody a billionaire now?

Lots of folks use the Claude Max 20x $200/mo. tier, I think. Gets you waaay farther than $200 of API credits.

sounds like "live like the homeless"

Bitter german winters would make living in trailers miserable

only just last year did someone goose a PC cpu to 9.13ghz

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/core-i9-1490...

on prem = capex

cloud = opex

The accounting dept will always win this debate.

SF tried a multi-front approach called "Vision Zero". I think initially deaths went down for a couple years but then ticked back up. No, people aren't (usually) driving through obstacles.

not sure why you're getting downvoted. Traffic deaths in SF definitely went up after "Vision Zero" was implemented

As someone living in SF since before it was implemented, getting the causality right and excluding cofounders seems VERY hard. Things have changed so much here since the early 00s.

We're not talking about 2003 or something. The Zero Vision-related programs started getting serious around 2016. Deep into the iPhone era.

And there are also other facts that point out to Zero Vision being the case. Cities that did not go all-in on this program seem not to have experienced the rise in deaths. I have not researched this in detail, because quantifying the level of road sabotage is tricky. But it definitely _looks_ like it's the case just based on subjective observations.

the rise of drivers on their phones

if you live next to one they're not very silent.

only 1/4th the brightness