[bluegatty]

You can pay 1 cent for a mediocre answer or 2 cents for a great answer.

So a lot of these things are relative.

Now if that equation plays out 20K times a day, well that's one thing, but if it's 'once a day' then the cost basis becomes irrelevant. Like the cost of staplers for the Medical Device company.

Obviously it will matter, but for development ... it's probably worth it to pay $300/mo for the best model, when the second best is $0.

For consumer AI, the math will be different ... and that will be a big deal in the long run.

[harrall]

Yeah you’re right but most people in the world do not need an agent that codes.

I think Gemini gives fine answers outside code tasks.

Outside of work, where I use Claude, Gemini is cheaper for me (for what I would use AI for) than both Claude and ChatGPT so Google gets my money.

[fhub]

Right now I'll pay 2x for a subjectively 20+% better coding agent. But in a year I don't think there will be an agent that to me is subjectively 20% better amongst the big three.

[viking123]

So where is the moat for these companies then, in the end will they all be almost the same from the pov of a normal person? So it's just price competition?

[xnx]

> You can pay 1 cent for a mediocre answer or 2 cents for a great answer.

But Gemini is also a great answer (possibly slightly less great or more great).

When consumers cannot easily assess a product's quality, they frequently use price as a primary indicator, equating higher costs with superior quality.

[andai]

Quality is Anthropic's game.

Quantity is OpenAi's.

Google's is... specialized hardware? (For now.)

Also deeper crawls, and Google Books! (Though it's unclear if they're making good use of those.)