Kimi K2.6 is 1T-A32B with a slightly less computationally efficient architecture, and is served at around $3.50/Mtok out by 9 US ZDR providers.

Unless you think that either the generally accepted size estimates for Anthropic/OpenAI models are wildly off or those companies are a lot worse at serving models efficiently, Anthropic and OpenAI are probably making around 5-8x margins on their API costs.

The cost of training new models is of course a major factor not counted here. Depending on how you want to think about that this may or may not make them net profitable. I remember one of those CEOs gave an interview a while back where they described it as a series of independent investments, where each model they train is net-positive in revenue by EOL just from its own inference, but I don't know whether that's still true or not.

Regardless, the point is that if they stopped training new models today, both Anthropic and OpenAI are making incredibly generous profits on their API inference.

For what it's worth, when I provide a Pangram link it's because I can already tell something is AI and I'm attempting to provide objective third-party confirmation so the conversation doesn't just degrade into me asserting that I have superior taste to you.

Right now a lot of people are developing their own heuristics, some much more well-calibrated than others, for sniffing out AI generated text but it's kind of an unfalsifiable accusation since you're really just saying "this sounds like slop, I can tell from the words and from seeing lots of slop in my time".

Linking to an AI writing detector serves as a somewhat objective second opinion, but half the time if I say "Pangram confirmed it" I'll see at least one person pulling the old "yeah but GPTZero is crap so that means AI writing detection can't work in principle" maneuver, which strikes me a lot like someone who tried ChatGPT in 2023, decided AI was all hype, and never re-evaluated that stance.

It would be really helpful for the discourse if we could get to a point where people generally accept one or more _actually-good_ LLM writing detectors as a reliable tool such that a "this is AI" judgement from them is accepted as reasonable proof of guilt, solely so that we can then extend the benefit of the doubt to anybody else.

It feels like you're trying for a lazy gotcha, but the actual point here is something like "AI models often generate writing with specific noticeable characteristics that make it obviously AI output, and TFA is an instance of such writing, and this should be called out when possible"

In this particular case the linked article is definitely AI generated.

edit: Never mind, given your comment history this is definitely LLM output.

If visa shoppers are overwhelming the normal processing of applicants who actually live in a particular country, it seems entirely appropriate to say "no, sorry, this location isn't for you" to the people who don't live there.