Claude Opus 4.6

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by chis on Thursday February 05, 2026 @01:56PM (#46903420)

It's quite clear that these companies do make money on each marginal token. They've said this directly and analysts agree [1]. It's less clear that the margins are high enough to pay off the up-front cost of training each model.

[1] https://epochai.substack.com/p/can-ai-companies-become-profi...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by m101 on Thursday February 05, 2026 @03:06PM (#46904455)

It’s not clear at all because model training upfront costs and how you depreciate them are big unknowns, even for deprecated models. See my last comment for a bit more detail.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by ACCount37 on Thursday February 05, 2026 @04:52PM (#46905910)

By now, model lifetime inference compute is >10x model training compute, for mainstream models. Further amortized by things like base model reuse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by simonw on Thursday February 05, 2026 @06:01PM (#46906644)

They are obviously losing money on training. I think they are selling inference for less than what it costs to serve these tokens.

That really matters. If they are making a margin on inference they could conceivably break even no matter how expensive training is, provided they sign up enough paying customers.

If they lose money on every paying customer then building great products that customers want to pay for them will just make their financial situation worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by Schlagbohrer on Friday February 06, 2026 @11:16AM (#46914711)

"We lose money on each unit sold, but we make it up in volume"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by chis on Saturday February 07, 2026 @06:54PM (#46929672)

Those are not marginal costs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by magicalist on Thursday February 05, 2026 @02:41PM (#46904077)

> They've said this directly and analysts agree [1]

chasing down a few sources in that article leads to articles like this at the root of claims[1], which is entirely based on information "according to a person with knowledge of the company’s financials", which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

[1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-getting-effic...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by simonw on Thursday February 05, 2026 @06:01PM (#46906656)

"according to a person with knowledge of the company’s financials" is how professional journalists tell you that someone who they judge to be credible has leaked information to them.

I wrote a guide to deciphering that kind of language a couple of years ago: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Nov/22/deciphering-clues/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by topaz0 on Friday February 06, 2026 @08:30AM (#46912589)

Unfortunately tech journalists' judgement of source credibility don't have a very good track record

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by mrgaro on Friday February 06, 2026 @03:22AM (#46910395)

But there are companies which are only serving open weight models via APIs (ie. they are not doing any training), so they must be profitable? here's one list of providers from OpenRouter serving LLama 3.3 70B: https://openrouter.ai/meta-llama/llama-3.3-70b-instruct/prov...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by 9cb14c1ec0 on Thursday February 05, 2026 @02:19PM (#46903774)

It's also true that their inference costs are being heavily subsidized. For example, if you calculate Oracles debt into OpenAIs revenue, they would be incredibly far underwater on inference.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Opus 4.6 by emp17344 on Thursday February 05, 2026 @06:02PM (#46906664)

Sue, but if they stop training new models, the current models will be useless in a few years as our knowledge base evolves. They need to continually train new models to have a useful product.

[ Parent | on HN ]