Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

12gramsofcarbon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 315 posts

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#271

Post by atsaloli »

et1337 wrote: post #77

Folks have been saying “things are different now, the agents are now compounding success instead of error” for at least a year now, but I just don’t see it. I was lucky enough to receive a weeklong $50k per head AI training from the people saying these things, and one of their few helpful concrete recommendations was to constantly clear context all the time, to avoid things going off the rails. However, I think findi…

Who delivers a 50K per head training? Who pays for such a thing?

How many people were in the class?

I had a small training company, shuttered during COVID, and I used to charge 5K per day, for a group of up to 12 people. 5 days training = 25K. This is double, wow.

I would love to get back into training but getting enough volume to live and support a family on has been a challenge.

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#272

Post by AussieWog93 »

latexr wrote: post #213
AussieWog93 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you want to see if the tools work, why don't you just ask your employees? Like any normal employer would? I run a small business with two employees. N=2 here, of course, but one of them will experiment with any new process you introduce (as well as plenty more that you don't!) The other will keep doing what he's always been doing, even if it's frustrating and inefficient, unless you monitor him and force him to u…

That feels backwards. > it's usually better off in the long run to shove the new process down group B's throat. > (…) the "Group B" employee (…) is more conscientious and reliable than anyone else we've ever hired If employee B is proving themselves to be valuable and reliable, then you should trust them to make the best decisions for how they’re going to go about their work and support them . Leave the door open for…

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to explain the best way to manage someone you've never met, working in an organisation you know nothing about.

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#273

Post by tsunamifury »

clickety_clack wrote: post #12
aurareturn wrote: post #2

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 alway…

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 cop…

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.

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#274

Post by irishcoffee »

bluGill wrote: post #266
TeMPOraL wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need peer reviewed studies to tell you water is wet. Peer review is a technique to get evidence from data when SNR is low. It's not "science", it's just a technique. So is "throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks". Don't turn techniques into rituals, and science into religion.

> You don't need peer reviewed studies to tell you water is wet. You don't need a peer reviewed study to tell you that a heavy rock will fall faster than a light rock. Which is why we have peer review even for obvious things.

> You don't need a peer reviewed study to tell you that a heavy rock will fall faster than a light rock.

Either I don't understand gravity, or you might want to pick a different analogy...

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#275

Post by voakbasda »

oblio wrote: post #187
SR2Z wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually have a job? Do you talk to your coworkers? This is an insane take. Plenty of people are critical of AI at my job despite a big push to use it. I find the comparison to NK distasteful, coming from someone who presumably is pretty well paid and can quit their job whenever they want. If you're feeling humiliated... well, I don't think it's because your boss wants you to try AI.

> Plenty of people are critical of AI at my job despite a big push to use it. Are they critical to you and your 10 people team, aka a small circle or are they critical in the all hands Q&A in front of 500 employees?

Having been the guy to speak the uncomfortable truths at such meetings, I can tell you that does not end well for anyone. Expect to look for another job shortly afterwards.

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#276

Post by jamiecurle »

andsoitis wrote: post #270
jamiecurle wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the point but, I'm not really sure the analogy holds up here. If i was in a cabinet shop and had to joint, plane and resaw and cross cut a pile of timber fresh from the saw mill for the next job I'd be very grateful for the jointer, the planer, the bandsaw and the table saw. I'd also be very grateful for the dust extraction. In in total agreement with you though, forcing tools on employees is very dumb and is t…

> In in total agreement with you though, forcing tools on employees is very dumb and is terrible leadership. Ask your people what they need to be optimally exceptional and go get them it. Then let them get on with it. Some employees want AI tools, others don't. Standardizing SDLC workflows > each person does their own thing. So now you have to choose: do you require AI tool use that fit into a new SDLC? Or don't you?

I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. Assuming the vendor risk profile is acceptable to the infosec people and procurement are happy with the AI tools vendor relationship, then it's a tool inside the information security perimeter.

As long as there's evidence that work meets quality gates for any required customer audits, and your customers are happy and in the loop that AI is a thing that may or may not be used to produce the service, then those engineers that want it can have it and those that don't, don't.

Feels like a revision to an SDLC rather than a new one. Without seeing the SDLC it's hard to find common ground though. It really depends on how it's written and implemented and of course: culture. In the example we're working from sounds like the tools are being forced on people, and that's less infosec, SDLC and more unbearably bad leadership.

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#277

Post by stopyellingatme »

theahura wrote: post #269
ambicapter wrote: post #131

> That’s no longer true. We’ve entered a different regime, where spending more tokens generally results in better results. We call this “compounding correctness” — the more tokens you spend on getting a task correct, the more likely you’ll get a good outcome. We talked about this a bit at the last in person Agentics meetup: Have we? Is it generally the case that the more tokens you spend, you better results you get?…

Hi, author here. I'm probably somewhat financially benefiting from tokenmaxxing. I also just believe compounding correctness is right, based on my own experience using the tools (which is why I have structured my life to try and financially benefit from tokenmaxxing)

How do you structure your life such that you financially benefit from tokenmaxxing?

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#278

Post by sebastiennight »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #202
oblio wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the worthiness of the adoption was blindingly obvious at that point Everything is so "blindingly obvious" yet nobody can point to ANY serious peer reviewed studies that prove it. I'm patient, I'll wait.

You don't need peer reviewed studies to tell you water is wet. Peer review is a technique to get evidence from data when SNR is low. It's not "science", it's just a technique. So is "throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks". Don't turn techniques into rituals, and science into religion.

> You don't need peer reviewed studies to tell you water is wet.

I'm afraid I have bad news for you...

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#279

Post by bluGill »

irishcoffee wrote: post #274
bluGill wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need peer reviewed studies to tell you water is wet. You don't need a peer reviewed study to tell you that a heavy rock will fall faster than a light rock. Which is why we have peer review even for obvious things.

> You don't need a peer reviewed study to tell you that a heavy rock will fall faster than a light rock. Either I don't understand gravity, or you might want to pick a different analogy...

Aristotle didn't understand gravity like you do, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_P....

Re: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxing

#280

Post by andsoitis »

jamiecurle wrote: post #276
andsoitis wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In in total agreement with you though, forcing tools on employees is very dumb and is terrible leadership. Ask your people what they need to be optimally exceptional and go get them it. Then let them get on with it. Some employees want AI tools, others don't. Standardizing SDLC workflows > each person does their own thing. So now you have to choose: do you require AI tool use that fit into a new SDLC? Or don't you?

I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. Assuming the vendor risk profile is acceptable to the infosec people and procurement are happy with the AI tools vendor relationship, then it's a tool inside the information security perimeter. As long as there's evidence that work meets quality gates for any required customer audits, and your customers are happy and in the loop that AI is a thing that may or may no…

Not sure why you bring in "vendors" and "infosec". I'm simply talking about the situation of a software engineering team building something together needing to have similar workflows (supported by tooling/software) in order to work together effectively.
Post reply on HN