Per the "Availability" section of the page, seems like should come back to all plans eventually...
* From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost.
* On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits. If capacity allows, we’ll extend the included window.
* After this point—when sufficient capacity allows us to do so—we aim to restore Fable 5 as a standard part of subscription plans. We intend to do this as quickly as we can.
Coding plans are a (massive) subsidy. We can debate until the cows come home whether western frontier models' API pricing rates are fair, but the coding plans are all heavy discounts below those API rates meant to draw people in and get them hooked (and, ostensibly, to be useful for hobbyists or other lower-usage cases).
It's been discussed at length (on this site, on other sites, on like every blog ever, etc) that, eventually, those subsidies will end, much as the $5-10 Ubers/Lyfts I used to take from the far north end of Chicago into the Loop in 2016 would eventually end once those companies had a footing and didn't need to hook folks.
So - yeah, I mean, a v5 model launching in a year where Anthropic has a rather deeply established market and in a year where AI costs are rising from nearly all providers (sometimes for multiple reasons) seems like exactly the thing I'd expect them to pull the subsidy plug on after a launch teaser.
(Even the open-weight models sometimes do this: for example, OpenCode Zen/Go has a rotating door of free models at any given time that eventually leave the free tier and move into the paid tier once the launch day hype/marketing dies down)
The worst part is that Uber "only" lost about $30bn. AI will probably lose at least $300bn by the time the bubble pops. Which means that the pressure to hook and enshittify will be at least 10x as high.
Problem with that website/perspective is separating training costs from inference costs. Training is a one time cost, and while it is certainly not something you can completely ignore, it being one time changes the answer to "Is AI profitable?".
That site doesn't list the dozens of companies doing pure inference, and making a profit while doing so.
What makes you think “most of them will just pay 10 or 20 times more for AI”?
They can’t measure ROI, and it will start costing more than their staff. You might be right, but I can’t think why any competent C suit would agree to this..
Look at cloud spend - how many of your employers have measured the ROI of using cloud vs. self-hosting? At a certain point these things just become the cost of doing business I suppose.
Every single one minus Federal Gov. if you are in a leader position you absolutely should be assessing hosting options, trade offs, costs etc, and looking forward as things grow to make sure you aren’t just burning cash. Only my experience from Australia, the low interest environment could be different in the US, but I would expect this attitude to change if interest rates stay above 5%.
Of the 4 series A-B startups I've helped grow, none have measured and made decisions on cloud spend based on measurement. The only time this came up is when bills got too large and spend needed to be controlled. You're right that it may be a difference of environment (USA here)
Thanks for this, reading "water fast" and "3 days" gave me a shot of adrenaline. The "water" prefix is just confusing, the word for abstaining from food is just "fast" for those interested.
dry fasts aren't always what they appear. if you have significant glycogen stores in your body as you begin your fast you wont be dehydrated for the first day or two as water is freed. what usually happens is someone who starts glycogen endowed discovers that they aren't thirsty when they start fasting and tout it as dry fasting.
What you thought of (not even drinking water) is called a dry fast. It is a thing, but for obvious reasons is much more intense and shorter in duration.
The cross cutting concerns with ECS + ALB + ASGs + Capacity providers + target groups + EC2 instances + launch templates means that ECS is somewhat central to the larger context of your hosted system. I really like ECS, but AWS have done a poor job of presenting all the linked parts stemming from ECS that this app actually tries to solve. Yes, it wraps several services to achieve this because it has to, but ECS is central enough that having an app like this to show things in a more contextualized way I think can be extremely useful.
This is great, and will be keen to have a look at helping for Linux support you have planned. ECS is one of the better products AWS has produced IMO. It has its warts, but it has made very intentional trade offs between simplicity and control/flexibility, and for a very large amount of use cases, I think they have made some really good choices. Thanks for sharing!
Hasn't there been a _lot_ of debt to buy up Nvidia GPUs? I follow this stuff somewhat closely and it feels intentionally confusing, so I've likely lost track.
> Hasn't there been a _lot_ of debt to buy up Nvidia GPUs?
I believe that's been concentrated at the hyperscaler layer, and subsided when the aforementioned private-credit scare reared its head. (I haven't heard a big datacenter debt deal announced in a while. Though of course that doesn't mean they aren't being done.)
They also banned crypto mining which previously was using the free to cheap electricity, so if AI data centres are using those now under utilised supply, very possible subsidies are very low.
> Overall, economic growth is good for society as a whole, so it makes sense that a state should encourage it as much as it can.
The problem with basing the language in the aggregate, is implies that distribution doesn’t matter, and all modern economic models agree. This is a big problem for the reality of people living in ever increasing inequality. Money is a competitive resource, we use it to bid for real resources. If constant economic growth disproportionately goes to the already wealthy, it worsens inequality when resources to exploit become more scarce. It’s one thing to have massive swaths of untouched natural world to exploit for human benefits, but those days are long gone IMO.
I think that was the point I was trying to make, that both total economic output and distribution matter. Both matter in terms of overall citizen satisfaction.
If you have a very fair distribution of a very small productive output, everyone will be miserable because they don’t have enough to live. At the same time, producing a ton that only goes to a select few will also leave most people miserable.
We don’t want to go to either extreme. We want to find the best way to foster productivity while making sure everyone benefits from that productivity.
My suggestion is that you get the best of both by letting competition and innovation be rewarded, while also taking care of the ‘losers’ in that competition.
Inequality is not "ever increasing". You should resist the urge to say everything is constantly getting worse just because that makes you look more sympathetic to the poor.
(A worse issue is that inequality decreasing can mean things are getting worse for everyone.)
This was a large part of my problem with Claude code, it is far too eager to get to the code writing. Matt Pocock's skills and Codex I have found to work together quite well. You still have to ensure design/architecture is being followed, and review carefully obviously, but Codex by default seems to look for minimal change approach a lot more than Claude does/ever did.
It absolutely does and a very good effort of compatibility with GitHub actions. It’s not perfect but migrating is far less of a pain than I experienced moving to others
reply