Hacker News Reader

No I didn't. I buy my tokens from a provider that exposes the model reasoning so I can understand what it's doing and work with it, or interrupt if I see things going in the wrong direction.

View on HN

I agree with you in principle. I'm just pointing out that the latter is in some way another valid point of view.

Thinking tokens aren't free though. This is not a valid point of view.

If I was being charged for the raw, output/input token count, excluding thinking/reasoning token costs, then sure. But at least via the API, you pay for tokens you cannot see.

Is it really that unusual? When you attach an image or a video, it gets converted to tokens you don’t see, at a rate that is proprietary to the model. You pay for those tokens, but don’t see them. Even how text is converted to tokens is a property of the dictionary, which is opaque for proprietary models.

There are features of input and output that are opaque to you, but that you pay for. Part of how model providers chose to run their service.

Well, I don’t pay for them. Maybe you do. But again, they’re a byproduct, an intermediary. They contribute to your result but aren’t the final result. I’m not defending their position, just showing you an alternative universe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com