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

Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 360 posts

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#351

Post by solenoid0937 »

arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #344
solenoid0937 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I've tried to engage you in debate you just call me a shill so there's no point. Love ya too though!

I have explicitly stated more than once, beforehand, what would have given you a benefit of doubt from my perspective. Even after reading all that you opted for answer evasion, rather than providing any substance, as you do with all the questions addressed to you. I do understand why you had to do it here though, because the claims regarding AI and LLM you have made before are even more outlandish than what has been…

I find it so funny that claims like this are so outlandish to you that it makes you think I'm a shill:

> Unfortunately, instead they have claimed recently that they went completely full-on with agentic coding skipping reviews and pushing to prod directly at a FAANG, no less.

This is like the most normal thing in my org, lmao. The fact that this aggravates you so much, is proof to me that many people/industries are way behind the curve on agents. Still bullish!

> as someone who is actually using LLMs in their work,

You should consider that your way of using LLMs is not the only correct way, and may in fact be severely limited, unimaginative, and/or close-minded.

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#352

Post by Wowfunhappy »

irishcoffee wrote: post #283
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, can you fill me in? I don't see the connection.

Which part? The undocumented, shifting api or the intentional friction?

...are you sure you originally replied to the right post?

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#353

Post by arkadiytehgraet »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #351
arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have explicitly stated more than once, beforehand, what would have given you a benefit of doubt from my perspective. Even after reading all that you opted for answer evasion, rather than providing any substance, as you do with all the questions addressed to you. I do understand why you had to do it here though, because the claims regarding AI and LLM you have made before are even more outlandish than what has been…

I find it so funny that claims like this are so outlandish to you that it makes you think I'm a shill: > Unfortunately, instead they have claimed recently that they went completely full-on with agentic coding skipping reviews and pushing to prod directly at a FAANG, no less. This is like the most normal thing in my org, lmao. The fact that this aggravates you so much, is proof to me that many people/industries are wa…

Nothing of substance yet again, more unfounded LLM-hype. As a reminder, this whole thread started by other people asking you to provide examples or proofs of your outlandish claims. Instead of doing that you ignore the questions or cover behind NDA (which is bullshit, because 1) no one is asking about the secret sauce, only the end result and 2) most of the work in FAANGs does not require signing NDA, and you would have known it if you actually worked at a FAANG).

Moreover, you refuse to even name the organization you allegedly work at. This is because people who actually work there will immediately call you out on your bullshit, so you have to stay intentionally vague there.

This is just yet another evidence of you being a shill.

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#354

Post by solenoid0937 »

arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #353
solenoid0937 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it so funny that claims like this are so outlandish to you that it makes you think I'm a shill: > Unfortunately, instead they have claimed recently that they went completely full-on with agentic coding skipping reviews and pushing to prod directly at a FAANG, no less. This is like the most normal thing in my org, lmao. The fact that this aggravates you so much, is proof to me that many people/industries are wa…

Nothing of substance yet again, more unfounded LLM-hype. As a reminder, this whole thread started by other people asking you to provide examples or proofs of your outlandish claims. Instead of doing that you ignore the questions or cover behind NDA (which is bullshit, because 1) no one is asking about the secret sauce, only the end result and 2) most of the work in FAANGs does not require signing NDA, and you would h…

lol. lmao, even. Everything is under an NDA unless otherwise stated. It's hilarious to me that you think it's fine for me to give away our competitive advantage on HN.

And give away my org, for what? So some HN loser can doxx me?

Anyways, there's no point. If you learn to use agents, you'll understand eventually. If you don't, well, that's a you problem.

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#355

Post by JSR_FDED »

CptFribble wrote: post #330
JSR_FDED wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right of course, but wouldn’t it be more likely that everyone will embrace 10x cheaper Chinese models?

my money is on: eventually frontier model dev and training becomes basic research funded by governments, and LLM operators become essentially private utilities a la ISPs, competing mostly on data center operational costs and occasionally new chip tech to run models cheaper and governments will keep running massive data centers with classified frontier models for intelligence and propaganda purposes

Good point, why isn’t this a job for the national labs like Livermore, Sandia, etc?

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#356

Post by danny_codes »

rr808 wrote: post #112

I have Opus 4.7 at work at 15x. Burns through tokens like water. It feels like one of these new mega datacenters is just for me. I'd love to know what the bill is, but we're just encouraged to do as much AI as possible.

Does your company by any chance sell compute for LLM companies? Because if you do then that makes sense to me!

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#357

Post by danny_codes »

bilater wrote: post #83

The black bill that is coming that nobody is prepared for is that the value of a token varies greatly depending on the human. Companies will quickly find out its much better to give your top 10% engineers a lot more tokens and lay off your average engineers. The 10x engineer will become the 1000x engineer. Wrote about this and the impact of to jobs here: https://x.com/deepwhitman/status/2058324179506831372

Why stop there, you should be a millionX engineer. No, a billion! We can make up all the numbers!

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#359

Post by arkadiytehgraet »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #354
arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing of substance yet again, more unfounded LLM-hype. As a reminder, this whole thread started by other people asking you to provide examples or proofs of your outlandish claims. Instead of doing that you ignore the questions or cover behind NDA (which is bullshit, because 1) no one is asking about the secret sauce, only the end result and 2) most of the work in FAANGs does not require signing NDA, and you would h…

lol. lmao, even. Everything is under an NDA unless otherwise stated. It's hilarious to me that you think it's fine for me to give away our competitive advantage on HN. And give away my org, for what? So some HN loser can doxx me? Anyways, there's no point. If you learn to use agents, you'll understand eventually. If you don't, well, that's a you problem.

Once again, no proofs of your claims, only more LLM-hype and personal attacks.

No, you are intentionally being obtuse, because people have already called you out on your lies. Saying "my team worked on " is not under NDA in 90%+ cases, and no one is asking you for the implementation details for the .

Name your company so others from it can confirm what you have claimed regarding AI and LLMs or deny it. Each FAANG being 10k+ (and in most cases 50-100k+) makes doxxing you unlikely, as others have done so on this forum without any problem.

Re: Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify money spent on tokenmaxxing

#360

Post by loeg »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #297
loeg wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business. Employees are hesitant to learn new tools that are very different from what they are used to, so if your business believes that AI is a productivity multiplier, it behooves it to incentivize individual employees to learn to use the tool.

> Employees are hesitant to learn new tools that are very different from what they are used to... That simply isn't true for technical employees (like software devs). They are so hungry to get stuff done that you have to hold them back from adopting new tools which they think can make them work more effectively. Tech guys will set up entire shadow IT departments just to get around corporate restrictions that are limi…

I disagree with you on both counts.

> [Technical employees] are so hungry to get stuff done that you have to hold them back from adopting new tools

Technical employees are also hesitant to waste time learning new tools if their existing tools do the job. Maybe juniors are more hungry to spend time on new tools that might not pay off. But seniors aren't burning time trying out the new flavor-of-the-week tool.

> if software devs are not using LLMs for programming, that is proof that the tool isn't actually useful for them

No. It's evidence that they perceive that the tool won't be useful to them, or don't think learning it will be worth the effort expended, or that they won't enjoy using it. These are different things than the tool being useful or not.

Post reply on HN