mekpro

I did use deepseek via API and it can easily cost 3$ per day for my workload. On the other hand Luna 6 on 20$ subscription from OpenAI cover by usage for whole month. However, `ccusage codex` command suggested that my Luna6 token cost is around ~100$ monthly.

``` or by 5 opencode subscriptions, and have $800 of ds4.1-flash for $200. I'm skeptical that the average dev will manage to burn through the equivalent of $800 of ds4.1-flash if they spend even a bit of time optimizing their token usage. ```

This is my point. For most developer, subscription model (with subsidize) is preferable. And what I'm wondering is, as suggestted by very cheap cost-per-token from DeepInfer, why don't Deepseek persued subscription market as well ? What make subscription not make sense for them to provide ?

Even though their API price is cheap compared to OpenAI/Anthropic, I still can’t “afford” to use their API because the subscriptions from OAI/Anthropic provide far higher value and peace of mind. I know for sure how much I need to pay each month. I believe most developers fall into this category as well, where $20/$100/$200 from Anthropic/OAI provides more value.

This raises the question: why doesn’t DeepSeek provide a subscription service as well? Is it a better move to have a single pricing model like they currently do?

Why they are not even benchmark model against Anthropic or anybody ?

It’s interesting in terms of the economics of development.

This product takes advantage of advancements in lithium-ion battery technology driven by phones and cars, benefiting from improvements in both performance and cost at scale without requiring extensive additional research. Looking forward to trying it.

why so much hate on this ? Meta releases open Model and it is competitive and confirms the direction, what could we ask more !!

codex spark is not large model though, much weaker than standard model.

We need more coding benchmark score. Not sure that winning terminalbench 2.1 alone is a clear win over Fable/Mythos yet.

source ?

API server is not hard problem and not make sense for indefinite postpone. I think the more likely explanation is model quality.

Too bad for Meta, and very sad day Llama.

The technical report is very detailed and would 'reinforcement learning' of future researchers, Thanks Microsoft!

Yes, 300 MW from SpaceX helps a lot, but I think that’s mainly to support Opus demand, which has grown faster than expected. If Mythos is roughly 5× more expensive to serve than Opus, as the pricing suggests, then 300 MW is nowhere near enough to enable large-scale deployment of Mythos.

As an ordinary developer who relies on a $20–$200/month subscription, I feel disappointed by the release of a paper describing a model that I can’t actually use.

It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly.

They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.