2 ms·
> LLMs (which are paid by the token) Straight-forwardly true and yet I'd never thought about it like this before. i.e. that there's a perverse incentive for LL
by Retr0id 2y ago
> LLMs (which are paid by the token)
Straight-forwardly true and yet I'd never thought about it like this before. i.e. that there's a perverse incentive for LLM vendors to tune for verbose outputs. We rightly raise eyebrows at the idea of developers being paid per volume of code, but it's the default for LLMs.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- britannio 2y agoOnly while a vendor is ahead of the others. We developers will favour a vendor with faster inference and lower pricing.
- Retr0id 2y agoI think real endgame is some kind of "no win no fee" arrangement. In the case of the article in the OP, it'd be if they billed clients per "addressed" comment. It's less clear how that would map onto someone selling direct access to an LLM, though.
- dustingetz 2y agothen, cartels
- vergessenmir 2y agoIt's why I prefer Claude to let's Chat GPT. I'm paying for tokens generated too.
- rgbrgb 2y agoIn the current landscape I think competition handles this neatly, especially since open models have almost the opposite incentive (training on concision is cheaper). As siblings note, Claude tends to be a little less verbose. Though I find they can all be quite concise when instructed (e.g. “just the code, no yapping”).
- johnfn 2y agoLLMs are paid by input token and output token. LLM developers are just as incentivized to give quality output so you make more calls to the LLM.