483
Lavalamp too hot
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
483 points (97.4% liked)
Programmer Humor
29742 readers
486 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hmm, interesting theory. However:
We know this is an issue with language models, it happens all the time with weaker ones - so there is an alternative explanation.
LLMs are running at a loss right now, the company would lose more money than they gain from you - so there is no motive.
No, it wasn't a virtue signal, you fucking dingdongs.
Capitalism is rife with undercooked products, because getting a product out there starts the income flowing sooner. They don't have to be making a profit for a revenue stream to make sense. Some money is better than no money. Get it?
Fuck, it's like all you idiots can do is project your lack of understanding on others...
Of course there's a technical reason for it, but they have incentive to try and sell even a shitty product.
I don't think this really addresses my second point.
How does it not? This isn't a fucking debate. How would artificially bloating the number of tokens they sell not help their bottom line?
Because they currently lose money for every token sold. They're operating at a loss to generate a userbase so that they can monetize later. They're currently in the pre-enshittification (I still don't like that word) phase where they want to offer a good product at a loss and lure in customers, not phase 2 where they monetize their userbase.
and? How do you not understand that more money is better for them even if they're not in the black, yet?
Two things can be true at once.
Creating additional tokens LOSES them money. For a single token, the cost of generating it exceeds the profits.
I genuinely don't understand what would drive someone to be this condescending when you don't even understand the argument I have clearly laid out four times now.
Do you think they don't want people using their product? Are you really that dense?
Are you? Because now we've agreed on every fact to determine my conclusion is correct. Yes they do want people using their product; they want to lure in customers. Wasting tokens generating unhelpful output would both drive customers away with a worse experience, and cost them more money. So there's no reason for them to do that. Like I said in my first post.