Hacker News Reader

Comment by aurareturn | Hacker News Reader

Tokenmaxxing was just a way to force employees to start leveraging AI in a meaningful way.

For companies that have measured performance based on token spend, they can now dial it back. Employees have learned to leverage AI for things they wouldn’t have prior. Now they know what’s possible and what’s not.

No one is stupid enough to always measure performance based on token spend and have unlimited budget. It was always a temporary thing to transition the employees to a new world.

Management felt like employees weren't leveraging AI fast enough. That's why in 2025, there were many mainstream articles about how CEOs were forcing their employees to use AI or get fired. Tokenmaxxing was just the other extreme. Companies will arrive at an equilibrium.

There's no need to overthink this.

Edit: One reply cited this X post as an example of why management needed to do this. Trying to change a company with hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of employees is hard. You have to send one simple message at a time. https://x.com/danluu/status/1487228574608211969?lang=en

View on HN

having heard the arguments made by some VP + C-levels throughout the Tokenmaxxing Tulip Mania, I think the interpretation that those mandates were made intentionally for "forcing employees to start leveraging AI in meaningful ways" is too charitable.

Most companies focused entirely on doing "what everyone else is doing" at best or "to see if Programmer Joe can be as productive as the entire team so we can fire the rest".

And many indeed fired employees in droves because they were "underperforming in token spend".

Some companies are badly managed (at least in some aspects). But it’s also true that some devs need to be pushed - sometimes forcibly - out of their comfort zone.

I’ve had multiple instances of taking months/years to get some devs to use a more sophisticated git client than GitHub Desktop (so they could properly do anything but the most trivial merges/rebases for example). Or to learn how to use the debugger instead of just printing/logging for debugging. For some of them getting them to seriously figure out how to better use AI required a bunch of repeated prodding.

Funnily enough a few years ago they enthusiastically jumped on copilot’s fancier autocomplete in VS Code, but getting them to really figure out how to get the most out of Claude Code required more pushing.

> many indeed fired employees in droves because they were "underperforming in token spend"

1. Source for that 4-word quotation? I googled it, but it appears you are the only person who has ever said it?

2. Even if you made up the quote, source for the claim that "many" "fired employees in droves" for "underperforming in token spend"? (Again, even if the companies never used those words, I'm still interested in the source for the claim about many companies firing employees in droves for low token use.)

> Most companies focused entirely on doing "what everyone else is doing"

This is true of my current overlords. It slipped recently that the reason they went AI-nuts was that a competitor had announced going “AI first” and the market responded excitedly. Not because they thought it was a good idea: because the market got excited and they didn't want to get left behind.

This is quite a change as our market is financial services and I remember a time when we had to support decades old browsers (one large UK bank who I won't name here had IE6, and only IE6, on many of its user's machines until ~2017) and web servers because they refused to upgrade anything.

> "to see if Programmer Joe can be as productive as the entire team so we can fire the rest"

I'm not sure who Joe is in our outfit, but I'm certainly in the “the rest who are to be fired” set. I've been unhappy in dev & related for years so the AI revolution which I don't care for is where I'm consciously letting myself get left behind to find something else to do with my life. Haven't touched it. Was too late to claim one of the first tranche of Claude licences. And the second. Oops. Maybe I'll use AI in my next big adventure, or maybe my distaste for it all means I have a grand future waiting for me in the hospitality industry!

Isn't it easier to get a job when you already have a job?

There's some jobs I'd love to do, but I can't face the bullshit of tertiary education again.

Without some sort of ticket, job choices become more limited?

> Isn't it easier to get a job when you already have a job?

Yes. Or so I'm told, I've not needed to apply for a job for 26 years…

I have something possible available, though whether it still will be in five months (the earliest I'm likely to leave because of [reasons] and a two-month notice period) is a bit unknown. That five months might be ten as there are other major changes in the company (we were bought a while ago) from which the dust should have settled by Feb, and it makes sense to try to hold out that long to see if I'm still hating things with the same passion at that point.

Without that “something” there are less certain tech based options I could look at, and to be honest I really could do with a proper sabbatical style break. The mortgage is paid, I have savings, and no dependents other than the cats, so I have the luxury of considering that option. And if all else fails I've actually done the arithmetic and I can survive on minimum wage for an extended time if I need to, and hospitality work is something friends can get me into above the many others looking (that bit is less of a joke then people assume: it is seriously part of my plans D & E if I can't stick with A and B & C completely fall through).

I remember a story on HN from a while back. The idea is that the larger the org, the simpler the message and the tool has to be to reach everyone. The comment author was saying that as a junior, his company implemented a "tokenmaxxing" scheme for A/B testing - more tests, better for performance review. He, back then, thought it was stupid. However, it got the desired outcome of everyone being familiar with what experiments are and how to run them.

Dan Luu at MS: https://x.com/danluu/status/1487228574608211969?lang=en

This is exactly it.

This is probably the most charitable explanation humanly possible.

Surely for this specific example of managerial stupidity it just is, but I mean more generally, it's a beautiful posting.

I aspire to have this much misplaced belief in any humans at all, let alone CEOs.

At my company, this was the explicitly stated and shared goal from management.

"We can't know all the parts of our business that AI can do a good job automating [because it's so new] but we also don't want to be the last to know and outcompeted along the way. Please throw AI at random parts of your job [and we're tracking this] so we can generate feedback from employees on where to invest in additional automation"

My company has since provided a ton of high-value little AI workflows, alongside a handful that didn't pan out. AI-assisted software development is a major change overall, but the general business-process updates from AI are a net-positive to me.

I doubt the author of the article even believes it. The article is an ad for their services which just happen to be "helping" companies use AI.

> There's no need to overthink this.

I agree, but for a completely different reason. A lot of executives simply chase trends. This was another trend they copied from each other. No reason to imagine they carefully studied the issue.

That's a very good point. Our company has been very thrifty with our AI spend, until a few months ago the average employee had ~$50 of supported spend and I was trying to be an AI leader in the company and figure out what was and was not possible, I had a $100/mo spend (Claude $100 service costs $108/mo).

We are now seeing that Claude Code can do a LOT of heavy lifting in our day-to-day work, but the bulk of our employees are stuck cost-maxing and literally cannot "imagine how you are running into your session limits". "I'm fine with the $20/mo account."

There's a case for the cost-maxing has hurt our company.

I'm in the boat of wondering how so many people run into session limits so often. I have never hit one, except once when Claude Design came out and I had fun generating a bunch of random things to see what it could do (not with the intent of actually using any of the generated designs/code, because it all sucked).

I'm using the $200/mo Claude, and I'll often hit the 5 hour limit, but last week was the first or second time I've hit the week limit. I run pretty much everything on "/effort max" because I've had good results, and I've had plenty of quota left usually, and I want to worry less about "am I getting the best results".

Fable, for the few days I had it, would eat through tokens pretty quickly, largely because it tended to work much more on its own. I could give it a task and after asking a few questions it would go off and work for 4-6 hours and be done.

I also run a lot of experiments. I'm trying to be a resource that the rest of my team can learn from as far as what works. For example: when one of the people from our parent company asked about automating payroll entry, I threw their documents and discussion at Claude to see what it'd build. That plus churning on their feedback was ~30 hours of API usage right there.

I'm currently experimenting with "loops", and using codex in those loops to provide feedback and review. That gives me fable-like autonamy (that 30 hours of API usage above), maybe even better. But it uses a lot of tokens. Loops is the bulk of why I got to the weekly limit last week.

Plus I'm having it build an experiment on what my ideal "agent mux" would look like. Herdr is really close, I found it after I started that experiment. Now I'm just letting it run when I have spare usage to see what it comes up with.

People in small teams with managers promoted from within could probably have had this in mind.

Big Corporate managers are much more likely to have felt the need to “do AI” from their VPs, who in turn got it from the executive team, who have probably been under fire to produce a coherent magical AI strategy that makes to company scale infinitely while reducing costs. In that environment it’s much more likely to be copy-and-pasted charts from Gartner and buzzwords overheard at conferences, combined with the hope that somebody somewhere will eventually turn it all into something that resembles forward movement.

This exactly. Gartner and McKinsey were paid by openAI and Anthropic to sell executive teams on AI usages 20xing profits while cutting spend 70%. And if they don’t immediately make the front end investment now they would be left behind by their competitors.

The presentations were convincing and many bought large upfront wholesale tokens then forced them on their employees.

When the savings didn’t materialize and neither did the profits. And the spend was no longer going down but up, many execs rather than admit they were duped began blaming workers at scale for not making up for their stupid decision.

This is the “get them addicted” part of the platform play.

The problem is unlike any successful drug this was expensive and low payoff.

> Management felt like employees weren't leveraging AI fast enough.

If my productivity is in line with their expectations, I don’t understand why management cares what tools I’m using to do it. No employer ever told me to use emacs instead of vi, even though I’m 10x more productive in one vs the other. So why all of a sudden does management need to micromanage my tools?

Your productivity isn’t in line with their expectations. Maybe your immediate manager but not the executives. That’s why they are doing it.

Their expectations aren't based in reality so I'm not sure why anyone should care

Edit: I mean besides the obvious of "because they will fire you if you don't care"

But idk. They're aiming to fire me eventually and have AI do 100% of my job so meh. Fire me now instead of later.

Because they're reading blog posts and listening to podcasts that increase their expectations of what your output should be.

It's FOMO all the way down.

Expectations shift, and tools do matter.

Imagine you had a direct report. They were doing just fine, slightly better than a typical report. Then you found out they were writing all their code in notepad - no linting, no automated tests or live updates, no refactoring tools, no highlighting or any code search. They didn’t have any cross code searches and didn’t have any documentation. When they hit a problem, they’d churn away at it and never reach for docs, google or so.

Still, their performance is in line with what you’d expect from someone in their position.

Would getting them to try emacs, vi, linters, etc be micromanaging them? Do you think they’d perform better with them? They are performing in line with expectations for the role, so why bother with something you think would make them more efficient?

I’ve made this obviously over the top, and can hear already replies from other bemoaning my comparison while missing the point — tools do matter and if you genuinely believe that a developer could be more efficient working in a different way it makes sense to not only want them to try it but to actively fund that change. Hell, this is literally what we argue for in training! Spend money to make someone better at their job!

If you think AI tools make you worse or don’t and can’t help, then that’s one thing. But it makes sense for management if they think it might to spend money on it and to get you to try.

Not only this, but wasn’t everyone here shouting about how tokens were subsidised and it couldn’t last? If so, wasn’t the first half of this year a really excellent cheap time to do the maxxing?

It's funny, because editor choice is also an analogy I use, to argue for the exact opposite conclusion.

Your hypothetical developer wouldn't be using notepad because they're unaware of other editors, they'd be using it because they evaluated other editors and concluded that, for whatever reason, they would be worse for them. I'd be fascinated to hear why they came to that conclusion, but I'm not going to tell them they're wrong if they're performing acceptably, aren't constantly breaking CI because the linter rejects their code, etc. Everyone is different, and I'm not narcissistic enough to think the fact that I would be way less productive without my modal editor, LSP, linter, terminal multiplexer, etc. justifies forcing everyone else has to adopt my exact setup.

> why all of a sudden does management need to micromanage my tools?

Because doing so increases the value of their stock options. They might privately think it's as dumb as you do, but apparently the stock market disagrees.

An interesting side effect of this spreading across social media is that even companies without token leaderboards were having problems with needless tokenmaxxing.

When everyone was reading about token leaderboards on all of their social media channels (include social news sites like Reddit and Hacker News) it created token anxiety even at companies that didn’t want a leaderboard. Programmers were afraid that their managers would be secretly ranking them based on token usage and they needed to pump up those numbers to avoid layoffs.

Once teams implemented token budgets in response it creates an ugly situation where a few people feel the need to use as many tokens as they can at the beginning of the budget window to stay ahead.

It’s really frustrating to have this phenomenon leak into a company that was never encouraging or looking for high token use.

Yeah there's no way that was the reason. I judge it to be a combination of FOMO and the big tech companies needing to pump demand for compute.

  the big tech companies needing to pump demand for compute.

Demand is already so large that OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Google could not fill it. Tokenmaxxing for these companies strictly to pump fake demand is just plain wrong. The inference demand for these companies internally must be a drop in a bucket in overall inference demand.

This reminds me of the popular opinion on HN for return to office mandates as executives wanting to recover their real estate investments.

Out of $13Bln of 2025 revenue, OpenAI received $867 million from one customer (less charitably, one bankroller), SoftBank. And $300 million from Microsoft[0]. That's more than a drop in the bucket, especially given that they're not the only players complicit in being both an investor and a customer.

Also are we sure it's all at arm's length? Barring a full audit, it's not possible to guarantee that there's no round-tripping or overstating of revenue. With Microsoft also being a provider for OpenAI, they could be creatively using set-off, or using SG&A, in order to overstate their revenue/gross margin/inference profit margin. I of course have no proof, extraordinary claims etc. etc. It's unlikely but we should at least debate the possibility. They have such a huge collective incentive to do it.

[0]: https://www.wheresyoured.at/exclusive-openai-financials/ (no affiliation with the website owner, who has a unique bias in this)

Are we not all getting timeout issues from Claude Code and Codex frequently due to too much demand?

Independent of everything else, very interesting to see how polarized the comments are here

I'm a +26 on my post so far so it seems like there are a lot of people who agree with me but most replies disagree with me. I suppose this is the nature of online forums - that those who disagree will take the time to reply but those who agree rarely do.

FWIW I agree with you, but it doesn't add much to the conversation to leave a comment saying so.

I also agree with the comment you're replying to as well - the vitriol and anger, along with the "this is just another blockchain bubble" type relies is really interesting. It's so surprising to see the variety of (negative) replies and beliefs people have, along with the general distaste/distrust for management. I guess it's also largely a sign of the times since a lot of ICs probably have a ton of anxiety about their career.

It’s about power and leverage. Software engineers were seen as “gods” in a tech company. Even the crappy ones. Over the last year, really 6 months, they lost great deal of that. Now they’re seen as costs, rather than assets.

This is especially true for the devs who take the code more seriously than the business that employs them. The technical PM who knows a bit of design are suddenly the kings of the company.

> I suppose this is the nature of online forums - that those who disagree will take the time to reply but those who agree rarely do.

Why would those who agree “take the time to reply”? To say what? “This”? “Agreed”? “This guy knows it”? Those comments don’t add anything of value. When you agree, it only makes sense to reply if you have something to say which wasn’t covered by the original argument.

I don't disagree with you.

I'm just pointing out that there are equally, if not more, people who agree with me than what the replies seem to suggest.

> Now they know what’s possible and what’s not.

They really don’t IMO. Hell most of the companies pushing these tools don’t even agree what LLMs are for or are capable of. Too many people are trying to use it to cut too many corners on their work (making more work for everyone else) or are using it to attempt things they don’t know how to do, which means they are incapable of vetting the results, (vibe coding anyone?) which means more instances of the first case or even getting hurt.

This is obviously wrong. Management has never cared about how engineers do their job. There's never been a push for any other productivity boosting technology: better languages, better editors, automated refactorings, paid code intelligence tools, etc. But suddenly AI comes along and the CEO says "all developers need to write code entirely with LLMs".

This is absolute nonsense. Management in many places cares enormously about productivity. What’s been a bit different here is a huge claim of improvement other companies are seeing (so you’re going to be left behind), alongside some developers going off and doing this anyway sending proprietary code hither and thither, alongside some devs railing against the very concept of using it. It’s also a wildly powerful tool and how to use it hasn’t been as clear (where does it provide value, where does it not, what can and can’t it do) so experimentation is really important.

I did not say that management doesn't care about productivity. To be clear though, I did mean to say upper management.

Interesting take - upvoted you. I'm not convinced it's been the optimal management strategy, but you're succinctly explaining what they have done, not what they should have done, and in that sense you have a good point.

Still leaves huge questions about ROI ($26tln of TAM, anyone???) and doesn't quell the concerns brought forward by AI detractors though.

You’re post rationalizating

It seems really absurd that anyone would encourage or even force employees to burn more money to see if maybe something works.

Why? This is literally what experimentation and prototyping is!

You spend money for a potential benefit. In this case it’s also a one off cost to find things that can save money over time.

One thing is to invest R&D money with a strategy and another to force people to burn as much money as possible to see what happens.

The problem is that managers have no idea how this is supposed to help either, and just get told from above to use AI.

The smart move would have been to get lower level managers to assign specific employees to experiment with applying LLMs to their processes and report back. Then incorpoate the findings into their processes.

Instead there was FOMO mass hysteria. Now there is a backlash. And a lot of time and money wasted.

Letting everybody freely experiment for a while is much more effective than appointing somebody to do just that.

Freely experiment sure. But you're not doing an effective experiment if you tell people they'll be graded on how many tokens they use.

I agree with you, but I was answering parent who suggested appointing specific people.

might be the first time I've seen this reasonable and obviously correct interpretation of the last 6-12 months so directly and unapologetically stated. bravo

HN opinions are usually divided into individual contributor vs management battles. Usually the IC opinion is majority because most people here are likely ICs.

At the IC level, people don't sense the impending urgency for the overall business. They usually sense the urgency for themselves first. AI has completely changed the software industry in 6 months. We went from having AI write some code and copy/pasting to having AI write 99% of the code in 6 months. SaaS went from nice UX and CRUD code logic being a moat to these being nearly free.

Big software companies have to adapt to this new world or they will be outcompeted by smaller, newer, nimbler companies. That's what management is thinking. For ICs, they're usually thinking about their own jobs first.

It does not seem obviously correct to me.

Were there cheaper and humane ways to get more employees to use AI? (yes). Did many people JUST burn tokens (goodbart law)? (Yes). Would people revert back to the mean? (I think yes). Do many professionals hate AI because of this push? (Yes). Was the org net productive?

I wish there was an independent body truly assessing the impact of big tech decisions and running counterfactuals. Instead of accepting nice stories like this as a given.

Using Claude, I recently tried to do something similar for the Covid hiring spree: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/21bba86a-ad5d-439c-861d-0...

This is an insane level of cope.

The whole tokenmaxxing thing started because Jensen Huang said insane things like having a single engineer spend 250k in tokens or he’d fire him; and that OpenClaw was basically AGI.

> No one is stupid enough to always measure performance based on token spend and have unlimited budget.

Yes the people forcing these mandates absolutely are this stupid because that’s what people like Jensen Huang, Peter Steinberger and Boris Cherney were touting. Seriously have you ever actually talked to an average C-Level about AI? They are absolutely cooked.

You’re the one that’s overthinking it.

> like having a single engineer spend 250k in tokens or he’d fire him;

That’s not quite what was said there, he’s budgeting half a devs salary as token spend in a podcast and that if he had a 500k engineer who spent 5k on it at the end of the year he’d go ape shit.

Now you can say that’s wild, and sure, but this is not a standard c suite exec talking it’s the ceo of Nvidia.

Even ignoring other hiring costs this is essentially an argument that Nvidia top engineers should get more than a 50% performance improvement with extremely heavy AI usage. To me, that doesn’t seem like such an enormous statement. For the head of a multi trillion dollar company entirely driven by AI sales arguing it gives a useful benefit to engineers isn’t that odd and betting on a 50% improvement within Nvidia seems kinda normal.

> Seriously have you ever actually talked to an average C-Level about AI?

Yes. Single digit percentage improvements over time would normally excite them, the idea of cappable cost performance improvements that last which your devs actually want to experiment with and a cultural and customer expectation that you’re doing this is pretty enticing. Particularly during a time when tokens were heavily subsidised - isn’t that the perfect time to do it? Now that has ended there’s a huge focus on roi.

How many “average C-levels” have you talked to? What, specifically, do you think that actually means? Do you think the average CMO and CTO are identical, and have identical profiles in this case?

Or are you just blathering about things you’ve never experienced because you met the “CEO” of a five person company once? I find grand proclamations by people who speak in TikTok absolutely laughable memeing.

You don't need to meet these C-levels personally. They spread their insane hot AI takes everywhere and go out of their way to market this crap at conferences, etc.

Did you read those hot takes personally, or only had them reported on by your favorite YouTube/TikTok pundits? Hint: YouTubers and Tiktokers are in business, and that business is entertainment, and they're about as truthful as a fortune teller.

(Difference being, one of these groups is just lying about objective reality that's trivial to independently verify, the other one are just unlicensed therapists with thousand years old rituals).

It really wasn't. It was a moronic move fueled by hype, implemented by the same type of incompetent business leaders who previously, to various extents, drank the blockchain and metaverse kool-aid.

There was demonstrably zero cost or consequence analysis, which is also why it was dialed back as soon as the (still) subsidized tokens became just slightly less subsidized, and the wise leaders realized they spent huge sums of money with no way of gauging ROI.

LLMs may have their use cases, but let's not make up free excuses for blithering idiots who, by any rights, should all be fired for cooking up money-burning policies that are textbook implementations of Goodhart's law.

Anyway, just needed to get that off my chest.

Its not _just_ that. Orgs aren't remotely sensible at measuring anything that isn't counted in dollars.

employees who are on the ai bandwagon are there for the free management attention.

Management is cooked because the damn market is hard, money is tight and they can't afford to fight the top down love and $$$ thrown at AI.

If you zoom out, all the real money spent on energy to keep AI alive isn't going to be held in nvidia stock for too long. it will burst, but its stupid to time it.

> Orgs aren't remotely sensible at measuring anything that isn't counted in dollars.

A sensible organization machinery will move to optimize the metrics that make money. Often times figuring out said machinery takes iterations. Some of them are idiotic (ref: tokenmaxxing) but they are generally directionally correct.

Did they see productivity gains that they're now calibrating for? Why have these productivity gains not been reflected externally in any measurable way?

It's simpler. Management felt like employees weren't leveraging AI fast enough. They chose to measure "AI leveraging" in the easiest way they could: how many tokens each employee was using. Goodhart's Law ("When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure") immediately triggered.

> Tokenmaxxing was just a way to force employees to start leveraging AI in a meaningful way.

Of course not. That is not what it achieved or could possibly achieve.

> Management felt like employees weren't leveraging AI fast enough.

I agree it was about their irrational feelings.

Do you have a source for this?

> Tokenmaxxing was just a way to force employees to start leveraging AI in a meaningful way.

> It was always a temporary thing to transition the employees to a new world.

Trying to understand your justification for rejecting Hanlon’s razor.

  Do you have a source for this?

Yes, my own company's decision and logic.

Thanks for posting the tweet, it was a very interesting read. A bit amusing knowing what's up with MS and Azure these days, but that's not the point!

Did not read the twitter thread but I think it is a mix of some companies with above strategy and most others just cargo culting

> Tokenmaxxing was just a way to force employees to start leveraging AI in a meaningful way.

No, it was a sinister way to manufacture your consent to cause cognitive atrophy in your employees so that you lose your ability to independently operate your business.

You'll come to realize this once they begin charging you more and more for tokens but you will probably not blame yourself for it.

> to cause cognitive atrophy in your employees so that you lose your ability to independently operate your business

The argument is tokenmaxxing was put in place by companies, with the goal of causing their employees to lose knowledge?

This feels like it’s on the level of claiming conspiracy theories are invented by tin foil companies to sell more hats.

No. While what you’re saying makes sense, that’s not the logic behind the token max mentality. It’s simply lazy ineffective leaders who are bad at their jobs and don’t make rational decisions. They really did think spending more is somehow going to make their business better.

No one is stupid enough to always measure performance based on token spend and have unlimited budget.

Accenture was.

You're naive, uninformed or turfing if you think companies are still not tokenmaxxing.

Also tokenmaxxing was never an intentional and smart strategy employed by companies like you say. It was a mix of fear of missing out, signaling to investors they were in on the hype and recouping investmenets in data centers

CEOs are just as, if not moreso, susceptibility to fomo than everyone else!

I don't disagree. They talk amongst each other, get advice from expensive consultants, but often lack the knowledge that their on the ground workers have. That said, I still think this was done to get employees to adopt AI faster and see what is possible rather than a long-term incentive.

Yes, and Uber was trying to recuperate what investments in data centers?

Come on now. Let's not think that we are all smarter than management at these companies.

Let us also not think that management is any smarter than any of us and is playing 5D chess games we couldn't comprehend. Notably, games that they also could not articulate when they were making these decisions.

It’s so easy to comprehend that even I was able to do it. I don’t think it’s 5D chess. More like checkers. They have dumb the message down just to get developers to try.

> Let's not think that we are all smarter than management at these companies.

Outside of a few well run companies, it's hard not to feel like the average IC is smarter than their leadership.

Your business will suffer greatly for your short-sightedness. But yeah, go imitate Uber, I am sure you will get just as big as they are this way. Everybody knows Uber's success comes from Apple Vision Pro making their developers oh so productive. You should go to the Apple store right now.

Your livelihood now depends on tokens remaining subsidized. How long do you think your engineers will continue to have the independent ability to maintain your codebase if the tokens got 20x more expensive?

Buy and sip that intelligence straight from the tap.

I never said go imitate Uber's strategy. I just challenged the person who claimed that these companies are only doing it to recuperate data center investments when Uber doesn't have any data center investments.

lines of code produced. similar dumb metric.

An insane re-writing of the last year of bullshit insanity. Good one.

So this is the narrative now? Come on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com