← 返回日报
精读 预计 2 分钟

The Kimi K3 Moment

摘要

作者在日常编码工作中同时使用 Kimi K3 和 Claude,发现两者输出质量和 token 消耗基本相同;Kimi K3 API 价格为每百万输入 token 3 美元、输出 15 美元,Claude 对应为 10 美元和 50 美元,Kimi 订阅方案从 19 美元起、39 美元编码档位更慷慨,而 Claude 计划常因经济原因切换模型或限额不足。文章指出美国 AI 政策限制了本土模型(如 Fable),导致受限版本拒绝某些工作,而中国实验室发布的 Kimi K3 和 GLM 5.2 等开放模型无此限制、性能相当或更优、成本更低;GLM 5.2 获 MIT 许可,在 Semgrep 网络安全基准上超越 Claude。作者预测美国政府可能采取类似汽车行业的补贴与保护措施,最终使国内用户难以获得最佳性价比模型,并表示已无理由继续支付 Claude 费用。

荐读理由

作者用 Kimi K3 做日常编码,发现输出质量和 token 消耗与 Claude 几乎一致,但 API 价格仅 3/15 vs 10/50,订阅计划也更慷慨;同时指出美国政策限制让本土模型竞争力下降、中国开源模型反而占优,你能据此决定是否放弃 Claude 订阅转向更实惠选项

原文

I’ve been running Kimi K3 alongside Claude on my normal coding work, and for all practical purposes I can’t tell them apart. Same tasks, same quality of output, and near identical token counts to get there. I expected an open model to be sloppier or to grind through more tokens on the way to the same answer, and neither turned out to be true.

The prices are nowhere near each other. K3’s API runs $3 per million input tokens and $15 per million output. Claude’s top model costs $10 and $50 for the same units. The subscription side is even more lopsided. Kimi’s paid plans start at $19 a month, and the $39 coding tier is far more generous than anything Claude sells anywhere near that price. Claude’s plans are metered tightly enough that a normal day of agent work can chew through the allowance before lunch.

Then there’s the fine print. Claude couldn’t sustain Fable access on the twenty dollar plan, so they turned it off, and the plan quietly falls back to Opus. When the headline model on your plan can be switched off because the economics don’t work, the plan was never really selling you the headline model. Kimi’s tiers don’t come with that asterisk.

Step back and the bigger story is what an unmitigated failure US AI policy has been. The administration held Fable back, and what finally shipped is a hindered version that refuses whole categories of work. Meanwhile a frontier quality model with none of those restrictions is a download away, released by a Chinese lab the US government has no ability to regulate. Whatever the theory behind gating American models was, it plainly wasn’t thought through, because the only people the gates constrain are American customers. Semgrep found GLM 5.2 beating Claude on their cyber benchmarks for exactly this reason. The restricted model declines the work and the open one just does it.

And it isn’t only Kimi. GLM 5.2 came out under an MIT license, beats the latest Opus release on real work while not even claiming to be frontier, and costs a fraction of it. OpenAI got pushed through the same government gauntlet with GPT-5.6 but came out the other side able to put their flagship on the twenty dollar plan. Whatever you think of OpenAI, they have runway here that Anthropic clearly doesn’t.

I think I can see where this goes. The government will try to regulate AI and open source in particular, and it will run the playbook it ran for the auto industry. Decades of subsidies, bailouts, and protective tariffs produced American carmakers that sell trucks at home and barely register anywhere else in the world. I expect the current administration to reach for the same tools here. Public private partnerships propping up domestic models that only get used inside the US and can’t compete internationally. That’s a sad future where America is the one country without access to the best models at the best prices, buying models deeply tied to the corrupt Trump administration that are neither the highest quality nor the cheapest. Until then, at least, I can’t come up with a reason to keep paying for Claude.

Hacker News · 170 赞 · 153 评 讨论 → 阅读原文 →

这条对你有帮助吗?