top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 149 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Lol. Lmao even. Rofl perhaps.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    But it stops clearly short of roflmao, I infer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 87 points 2 months ago (29 children)

    Something I’ve been noticing recently is that while the cost per token on specific models hasn’t gone up, the provided interfaces for using those models are starting to chew up significantly larger numbers of tokens for the same tasks that used fewer tokens with older versions of the interface software just a few months ago. Likely the interfaces are applying more expensive guardrail prompts and charging the end user for those tokens — but the end result is that it costs 4x as much to get the same work done.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    "Tokens" are just made up.

    These "tokens" that are used to "measure" how much you use, they are not a real dimension that can be measured. Just an artificial counter that goes up when they decide that it should go up.

    They can change the "size" of a "token" every day, and every second, and every microsecond....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    Not entirely wrong, but tokens are not just "fake" in the way, for example, an in-game currency is. They're the fundamental "units" of data, both input and output, processed by the model. For most models, tokens are just a certain number of characters or words. So they're not completely untethered from the model. If we're both using Clankerbot v5.1: Sloppy Logic Edition™️, your tokens are defined in the same way mine are.

    This is near the edge of my limited understanding, but AFAIK, yeah they can mess with token costs and billing schemes all they want. They could theoretically charge us 2 different costs per token, or do surge pricing or some shit.

    if they wanted to change the actual size/definition of what a token is though, that would require a whole new model (or at least a major revision).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You aren't totally wrong. Such a unit exists and it is also called tokens, that can measure the capability of a model and the size of a running operation in a model.

    But what they use for calculating your bill is something different today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    That doesn't make much sense. When Anthropic moved to Sonnet 5 they introduced a new tokenizer which increased token use up to 35%. If these would be unrelated kinds of tokens why would the usage go up when the process of tokenization changes?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It's not like that. Tokens are an inherent computational property of how a model calculates the probabilities and such to generate text.

    Having said that, what a token means in terms of computation varies wildly between models and is not directly comparable. So attributing a money value to tokens in general, independently of the model, is weird by nature.

    And even within a model, the number of tokens needed to generate a response is very variable too, depending of the model itself and the parameters with which it has been configured (thinking mode, temperature, etc.).

    So yeah, companies can pretty much set any price they want and there's not much anyone can do about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Maybe you're confusing tokens with the "credits" you pay for. Tokens have a technical meaning, but some companies are charging per AI credit, where they don't tell you the conversion rate of credits to tokens, so they can change this at any time, or vary it between models, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 61 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    How is it too expensive? Surely it's generating way more profit than it would cost in value. How else could it be propping up the entire economy?

    Itd have to be some kind of bubble and that would mean we were in a lottttt of danger and should reasses our use of it.

    Nah we should just reduce our use because its too expensive and then stop thinking about it beyond that.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    Itd have to be some kind of bubble and that would mean we were in a lottttt of danger and should reasses our use of it.

    Well yeah, but if it were the only sector propping up the whole economy and we reassessed it, the economy would be in a loooooot of danger anyway.

    Luckily, that would never happen...

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 35 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    That's funny now that whole workflows are automated with it. Oops hit the quota, I'm off

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 32 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I’m confused. I thought employers loved AI and it was the future.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    They loved it too much and now it costs more than paying a living wage to a human being. The end goal of AI was always to cut cost and layoff people. The best sabotage right now is to setup a script that constantly prompts an LLM for something useless. I would recommend it if it didn't waste so much energy and clean water. But it would send a message. AI is not cheaper, it never was. Even with today's outrageous token prices, LLM companies are still bleeding money per user. It will only get more expensive as data center contracts fall through and the investment craze fizzles out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    They love money. AI was good money for a while. Or at least it looked like good money until you looked at it for longer than 3 seconds, which greatly surpasses the average attention span of an executive. And also the average executive's iq.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 32 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    This is actually how the bubble begins to pop, we're seeing it happen now.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 29 points 2 months ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 22 points 2 months ago

    We can only hope this helps kill the fad. I know companies won't be taking any realistic lesson from this, but at least this can force them to abandon a lot of this crap.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago

    All over America, employees are saying "But YOU said..."

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I smell a bubble about to burst...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    Uplifting News

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    So it has a negative ROI and anyone who brought it into their firm is a clueless twat who uncritically bought a sales pitch.

    If corporate governance were not a joke, C-level heads would roll.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago*

    The millionaires following the stupidity of billionaires and wondering why they're not becoming billionaires too.

    Give them 50 years and maybe they'll start to wonder why people doing "how to get rich" seminars aren't retiring... And why podcasters telling everyone how to get women seem like such losers.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    This is why these companies should go bankrupt.

    We had a system that works and they thought if they got rid of the actual workforce with the needed knowledge and replace them with lower paid AI retards it would make them more money, fucking karma.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 2 months ago (25 children)

    I don't really understand how people are using so many tokens. At work I haven't even hit $200 I spend per month. Wtf are people doing with these things that burns so many tokens?

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago*

    If you run "agentic coding harness" or any kind of goal oriented loop then tokens goe brrrr.

    And LLM sellers are pushing for that (duh), as they managed to convince people to use infinite monkeys typewriting until they make Hamled.

    (Type made on purpose)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (21 replies)
    [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    What’s this echoey sound? As if someone warned us about this exact fucking thing.

    Curious.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The first half of the title got me worried...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Maybe they should get AI to do the AI prompts so they can cut down on costs XD

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    My company recently converted our PMs into Vine Engineers right after laying off actual engineers. They don't even know what git is or how to use it. 3 of them alone are using $7k a month in Claude tokens and they have not raised so much as a single PR.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›