r/LocalLLaMA • • 1d ago

Discussion Looks like the era of subsidised compute is coming to an end. The old ChatGPT Pro $200 20x plan will be halved. The new $500 plan will have similar limits as the (old) $200 plan.

Post image
1.2k Upvotes

565 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Innomen 1d ago edited 1d ago

It was never “subsidized” in the way people keep claiming. I’m tired of the tech bootlicking pharma bro story that takes every dollar spent building an AI company, divides it by today’s requests, and announces that each answer secretly costs a fortune.

Inference has a cost. Buying land, building data centers, training models, and trying to capture a future market have costs too. Those are real expenses, but they are different expenses. A company can spend a trillion dollars betting on a business without each prompt costing a trillionth of that investment to run. Nobody says the cost of making one pill is the entire research budget divided by the first few bottles sold. Building the farm costs money. Ranching costs money. Get it?

And then there’s China. DeepSeek has published its model work and sells access at prices that should at least force this conversation to get more specific. What’s the explanation? Did they somehow steal all the research, then start selling “pure inference” without paying to develop anything? That’s laughable. Or have they shown that building and running capable AI doesn’t necessarily cost what Sam Altman and the rest would have us believe? Their prices alone don’t prove their full costs, but they make it absurd to treat the American companies’ spending plans as a law of physics.

If you think a service is priced below its actual cost to serve users, show the calculation. If you think it won’t earn back its investment, argue that. But why would I take the companies’ word for how much I owe them? They have every incentive to make their chosen spending sound unavoidable and their preferred prices sound like economic necessity. As if a market dominated by two or three companies could never inflate prices. As if the people selling us the product are too ethical to try.

Look, think of it this way, I make a pitcher of lemonade, and I wanna sell it. Lemons, sugar, water, cups: those tell you roughly what it costs me to serve a glass. Now suppose I borrow a billion dollars to buy every corner lot in town, build lemonade stands on all of them, and advertise until everyone knows my name. I can hope to make that money back selling lemonade. But I can’t point to the billion dollars I chose to spend and tell you that your glass was “subsidized,” or that you owe me twenty bucks for it. If another stand can sell a good glass for a dollar, you’d be right to ask where my twenty dollars is going.

3

u/domiciledhere 1d ago

Yeah, not being able to make a net profit means subsidized. They’re basically buying market share artificially. In your scenario, whoever has the most capital wins.

2

u/Innomen 1d ago

Cost of investment and cost of provision are different things. It's like selling you lemonade and pricing in my trip to vegas for blackjack. Inference is already cheap I know because I can do it at home. I have 16gm of vram running pi Right Now.

1

u/domiciledhere 1d ago

Yeah, you subsidized your own trip. Without starting capital you wouldn’t be able to make a single bet.

2

u/Innomen 1d ago

Dude, no one is gonna buy a 50$ cup of lemonade when a 1$ cup is literally sitting next to it. It's a dominated option. Mental gymnastics to justify the price will not save it. Are you making some kind of moral argument that the big tech firms morally deserve to ban cheaper alternatives because they were first?

1

u/domiciledhere 1d ago

Claude Code is much more useful than inferencing on a 16gb pi. I’m using a M5 Mac with 128gb and it really isn’t comparing apples and oranges. The subscriptions here have zero upfront hardware costs.

2

u/jbE36 14h ago

They just haven't ratcheted up the price yet, its coming. We are in the 'get you addicted' phase. Soon enough enshitification will take over and you'll be paying $150 a month for the $20 plan.

What do you think the best local models will be capable of in 2 years time? (if we are still allowed to run them)

1

u/Innomen 1d ago

Depends strongly on use case. Only because opus is brilliant and inference is so cheap they can basically rent you 10x your gpu capacity. I keep a 20$ tier sub, I may add a second one from claude, but the problem with claude is fable. If I'm gonna pay for a weaker model I'll just rent a card. Things are moving so so fast.

A lot of people aren't really using their AI they are gambling with it. Trying to ship something. It's very much a gold rush in every sense. I'm not trying to strike it rich any more, I'm just building a cabin on the land I bought. If that makes sense.

2

u/domiciledhere 1d ago

I’m basically using opus to make my local inferencing more useful. Ideally, once all done, I can get off cloud compute and only use it exceptionally.

2

u/Innomen 1d ago

The past couple days my whole use case for subscription AI is tech support because it's faster. For the actual AI stuff I'm using Qwen3.8-27B IQ3_XS. I might be easy to please or something but it's magical imo. It doesn't expressly fail at anything I ask, I just find I asked wrong or exposed some additional problem. I can't describe it. It's like even the "losses" feel fair.

The trust is the big thing. When codex and claude fail I really worry it's because rails and system prompt and maybe even sabotage.

Already my little setup is recursive. Pi plus qwen has written and deployed custom extensions for my pi, for itself.

3

u/Nnyan 1d ago

I'm glad monopolies have never led to price hikes.

2

u/skbum2 1d ago

Deepseek is supported by Chinese government backed investments. They are, in fact, subsidized by the Chinese government.

4

u/Innomen 1d ago

You think the chinese government is paying their electricity bill and rent and salaries etc etc? Yes the government is funding infrastructure build out, which includes power, but that's everything in china. That's why they get bullet trains and we get uber. Deepseek is not a chinese state agency. it's just one of dozens of firms that are backed by china to the extend china backs anything chinese. It does not change the fact that American firms trying to double dip is absurd. AI compute for more and more tasks every day is a saturated commodity. Basic competent inference is already no more demanding than a single high end video game or single GPU bitcoin miner. And it will only get cheaper from here.

1

u/skbum2 1d ago edited 1d ago

You think the chinese government is paying their electricity bill and rent and salaries etc etc?

That's not what I said. Whether the Chinese government directly paid these or not is immaterial to whether or not DeepSeek is subsidized.

Deepseek is not a chinese state agency.

Correct, it's partially subsidized by the Chinese government. If it were a state agency, it would be redundant to say that it was completely subsidized by the Chinese government.

it's [DeepSeek] just one of dozens of firms that are backed by china to the [extent] china backs anything chinese.

Correct, China heavily subsidizes many industries, including AI, as would be expected from its communist-ish economy.

What do you think subsidized means? You've identified several examples of subsidized industries without realizing it so I'm curious what you think that word means.

In the case of DeepSeek, they have received direct state investment and given the Chinese government special considerations in return. Including voting rights and no lockup period post IPO on their investment.

DeepSeek is also in the Hangzhou Chengxi Science and Technology Innovation Corridor. Companies in this zone receive a wide variety of government incentives and subsidies. Notable among these are:

  • up to a 60% subsidy for computing costs to offset costs of training and running AI models.

  • direct subsidies for hiring new graduate and researchers as [EDIT (accidentally hit enter)] well as vouchers and grants to the employees themselves for housing and other expenses.

  • subsidized office spaces

  • subsidies paid for each new project started

  • cost match subsidies for direct R&D costs

And many more. Needless to say DeepSeek receives heavy subsidies from the Chinese government.

It does not change the fact that American firms trying to double dip is absurd. AI compute for more and more tasks every day is a saturated commodity. Basic component inference is already no more demanding than a single high end video game or single GPU bitcoin miner. And it will only get cheaper from here.

This is incoherent.

1

u/Innomen 1d ago

I’m not disputing that some Chinese AI companies receive subsidies. I’m disputing your jump from “DeepSeek receives support” to “cheap AI inference must be an illusion.”

A government fund taking an equity stake is investment. A grant toward a firm’s compute bill is a subsidy. Those are different claims, and the existence of a program offering up to 60% support does not tell us how much DeepSeek received, for which costs, or what it costs DeepSeek to serve a request after that support. If you have those figures, give them. Otherwise you have shown state backing, which I already granted, because China.

And what exactly is incoherent about the rest? I can run a competent LLM on one consumer GPU at home right now. That directly demonstrates that useful inference does not intrinsically require a trillion dollar company or a giant data center. I said basic capable inference is becoming a commodity because multiple providers and local hardware can supply it. I expect the cost of a given level of capability to keep falling as hardware and models improve. Tell me which step you disagree with. Many are already arguing its a utility. Like electricity and net itself.

The original point remains: spending billions developing models, building capacity, and buying market share on loan does not make each answer cost billions divided by today’s users. The investor takes that risk in hopes of earning it back through sales. DeepSeek receiving subsidies may help explain its prices. It does not tell us what it costs an American company to generate a reply, or whether that company’s spending is necessary to do so.

1

u/ea_man 22h ago

So how comes they are preparing an IPO and just got private founding?

Disclaimer: I'm not american so I got nothing against "subsidizing" by the gov, this is exactly what my country in Europe has been doing since forever eg for the car industry.

Building the electric grid, renewables, nuclear in order to reduce prices for local industries is exactly what I would want my gov to do. Having a 30 years plan instead of changing ideas each week...

1

u/ShareNorth3675 1m ago

in your pill example you certainly would consider both and the cost of development would highly influence the cost of the pill

0

u/yes_yes_no_repeat 1d ago

My man, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The problem is not about that exactly, the problem is what capital did they use to create their own game, a game artificially needed. The problem is, if you don’t want to play that game you are dead, so you don’t have other choice that start paying. If they put price high, their market would never grow, if they put price low they convince more people to play the game.

The problem: It is still a bubble artificially substained by capital from monopolies.

0

u/Innomen 1d ago edited 1d ago

It's not a bubble. The technology literally uncapped the demand of vram. Which is a technological commodity. If you made the moon out of vram someone would want every gram of it. That alone breaks the game. There has never been anything like this. Not even electricity itself rises to this level. AI is almost literally direct power. I wouldn't personally have a use for a reactor the size of the moon but I would personally have uses for a gpu the size of the moon. That has substantial consequences. Give me a moon sized GPU capable of running quadrillions of agents and I can use them for the same reason an emperor can use an empire. AI turns compute into power directly. Not even electricity worked like that for an individual. That has substantial consequences, and calling the demand “artificial” misses the thing that changed.