Hacker News

Favorites Setup
Comment by Gigachad | original | 500B Tokens Later: Letting AI Agents Decompile a First-Person Shooter
[−]Gigachad · 2026-10-11 Sun 03:12 UTC · link
There’s also examples where this didn’t work. Moviepass for example.

Taxis were an established profitable business model and the uber subsidisation wasn’t anywhere near as much as AI subsidies.

[−]isubkhankulov · 2026-10-11 Sun 03:26 UTC · link
Disagree with your second paragraph. Uber/lyft subsidized into deep negative margin territory around ~2015 or so. Anthropic (and OpenAI) are subsidizing but not losing money on these consumer plans.
[−]edg5000 · 2026-10-11 Sun 03:52 UTC · link
> subsidizing but not losing money

????

[−]Gigachad · 2026-10-11 Sun 04:57 UTC · link
It's profitable if you don't count the expenses.
[−]oblio · 2026-10-11 Sun 05:52 UTC · link
I think you're joking but that's Amodei & co are claiming with a straight face.
[−]HWR_14 · 2026-10-11 Sun 07:01 UTC · link
The claim is that uber and lyft lost money on each ride but that openai and anthropic make money on inference. Just not enough to pay the cost of developing the models. The difference is that uber and lyft had to change their pricing (or payment) models to make money, where anthropic or openai could just sell enough inference (at some level of sales).
[−]isubkhankulov · 2026-10-11 Sun 07:53 UTC · link
to clarify, I mean that the big model companies are charging consumers much less than equivalent API pricing but they're not actually losing money so its more of a steep at-cost discount for inference. It likely does not fully cover amortized R&D just like the other reply stated but it does still cover marginal inference cost (GPU/power/etc)

Uber and Lyft were paying drivers $X but charging users way less than $X so they were literally burning investor money to get market share.

[−]xienze · 2026-10-11 Sun 09:12 UTC · link
> It likely does not fully cover amortized R&D just like the other reply stated but it does still cover marginal inference cost (GPU/power/etc)

Why does this point come up over and over again, pretending that you can truly separate training and inference costs. Yes, they are separate things but the value OpenAI and Anthropic are presenting to the world is "we're the absolute best, no one else comes close." Well, to keep that up you can't just not train for extended periods of time. You have to keep that engine going non-stop when there's free Chinese models nipping at your heels. You can be profitable on "just inference" all you want but if training expenses dwarf that, you're not going to be profitable overall, and that's the bottom line.

[−]edg5000 · 2026-10-11 Sun 09:30 UTC · link
> does still cover marginal inference cost Simply comparing to the larger models on OpenRouter implies that the pure hosting costs (equipment + power + minimal overhead) still exceed plan pricing if we assume all users always use their full weekly allowance.

So my conclusion is that it only works because the majority of users doen't fully utilize their allowance. Last month I used almost nothing of my Claude 20x plan (did use Codex though).

[−]0x457 · 2026-10-11 Sun 05:36 UTC · link
Moviepass failed because they thought it's going to be like Gym membership - people buy and don't go, but guess what? People love going to movie theaters. On its own its not bad, see AMC Stubs, but AMC owns the theater, they sell you popcorn and soda. OpenAI an Anthropic is closer to AMC than Moviepass.
[−]xienze · 2026-10-11 Sun 09:04 UTC · link
> Moviepass failed because they thought it's going to be like Gym membership - people buy and don't go, but guess what? People love going to movie theaters.

You think developers won't/don't stretch subscriptions to the absolute limit? The AI subscription model is like the gym model except a large percentage of the customers work out 24/7/365.