It's interesting that there's a price nearly 6x price difference between reasoning and no reasoning.
This implies it's not a hybrid model that can just skip reasoning steps if requested.
Anyone know what else they might be doing?
Reasoning means contexts will be longer (for thinking tokens) and there's an increase in cost to inference with a longer context but it's not going to be 6x.
Based on their graph, it does look explicitly priced along their “Pareto Frontier” curve. I’m guessing that is guiding the price more than their underlying costs.
It’s smart because it gives them room to drop prices later and compete once other company actually get to a similar quality.
> This implies it's not a hybrid model that can just skip reasoning steps if requested.
It clearly is, since most of the post is dedicated to the tunability (both manual and automatic) of the reasoning budget.
I don't know what they're doing with this pricing, and the blog post does not do a good job explaining.
Could it be that they're not counting thinking tokens as output tokens (since you don't get access to the full thinking trace anyway), and this is the basically amortizing the thinking tokens spend over the actual output tokens? Doesn't make sense either, because then the user has no incentive to use anything except 0/max thinking budgets.
Does anyone know how this pricing works? Supposing I have a classification prompt where I need the response to be a binary yes/no. I need one token of output, but reasoning will obviously add far more than 6 additional tokens. Is it still a 6x price multiplier? That doesn't seem to make sense, but not does paying 6x more for every token including reasoning ones
This implies it's not a hybrid model that can just skip reasoning steps if requested.
Anyone know what else they might be doing?
Reasoning means contexts will be longer (for thinking tokens) and there's an increase in cost to inference with a longer context but it's not going to be 6x.
Or is it just market pricing?