Hacker News Reader

Comment by hodgehog11 | Hacker News Reader

The aggressive pricing here seems unusual for OpenAI. If they had a large moat, they wouldn't need to do this. Competition is fierce indeed.

View on HN

They are winning by massive margins in the app, but losing (!) in the API to anthropic

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/enterprise-llm-spend-reaches-...

It's like 5% better. I think they obviously had no choice but to be price competitive with Gemini 2.5 Pro. Especially for Cursor to change their default.

The 5 cents for Nano is interesting. Maybe it will force Google to start dropping their prices again which have been slowly creeping up recently.

Perhaps they're feeling the effect of losing PRO clients (like me) lately.

Their PRO models were not (IMHO) worth 10X that of PLUS!

Not even close.

Especially when new competitors (eg. z.ai) are offering very compelling competition.

Maybe the need/want data.

And it’s a massive distillation of the mother model, so the costs of inference are likely low.

OpenAI and most AI companies do not train on data submitted to a paid API.

They also do not train using copyrighted material /s

Oh, they never even made that promise. They're trying to say it's fine to launder copyright material through a model.

That's different. They train on scrapes of the web. They don't train on data submitted to their API by their paying customers.

If they're bold enough to say they train on data they do not own, I am not optimistic when they say they don't train on data people willingly submit to them.

I don't understand your logic there.

They have confessed to doing a bad thing - training on copyrighted data without permission. Why does that indicate they would lie about a worse thing?

>Why does that indicate they would lie about a worse thing?

Because they know their audience. It's an audience that also doesn't care for copyright and would love for them to win their court cases. They are fineaking such an argument to those kinds of people.

Meanwhile, the reaction from the same audience when legal did a very typical subpoena process on said data, data they chose to submit to an online server of their own volition, completely freaked out. Suddenly, they felt like their privacy was invaded.

It doesn't make any logical sense in my mind, but a lot of the discourse over this topic isnt based on logic.

Why don't they?

They probably fear that people wouldn’t use the API otherwise, I guess. They could have different tiers though where you pay extra so your data isn’t used for training.

If you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you...

If it ever leaked that OpenAI was training on the vast amounts of confidential data being sent to them, they’d be immediately crushed under a mountain of litigation and probably have to shut down. Lots of people at big companies have accounts, and the bigcos are only letting them use them because of that “Don’t train on my data” checkbox. Not all of those accounts are necessarily tied to company emails either, so it’s not like OpenAI can discriminate.

Plus I can imagine uncomfortable things coming up given how much non public information people send to LLMs.

"What do you think of REVG?"

"REVG is a solid company with a long history and upcoming earnings that will exceed Wall Street expectations."

OK maybe not literally like that but still... training on that much private data could get spicy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com