5 ms·
I'm sure many of us would gladly pay more to get 3-5x the limit. And I'm also sure that you're working on it, but some kind of auto-summarization of facts to r
by smallerfish 2y ago
I'm sure many of us would gladly pay more to get 3-5x the limit.
And I'm also sure that you're working on it, but some kind of auto-summarization of facts to reduce the context in order to avoid penalizing long threads would be sweet.
I don't know if your internal users are dogfooding the product that has user limits, so you may not have had this feedback - it makes me irritable/stressed to know that I'm running up close to the limit without having gotten to the bottom of a bug. I don't think stress response in your users is a desirable thing :).
- stribbon 2y ago[flagged]
- justinbaker84 2y agoThis is the main point I always want to communicate to the teams building foundation models. A lot of people just want the ability to pay more in order to get more. I would gladly pay 10x more to get relatively modest increases in performance. That is how important the intelligence is.
- willsmith72 2y agoAs a growth company, they likely would prefer a larger amount of users even with occasional rate limits, vs smaller pool of power users. As long as capacity is an issue, you can't have both
- cruffle_duffle 2y agoIf people are paying for use, then why can’t you have both?
- saulpw 2y agoIt takes time to grow capacity to meet growing revenue/usage. As parent is saying, if you are in a growth market at time T with capacity X, you would rather have more people using it even if that means they can each use less.
- brador 2y agoIf you can’t scale with your customer base fire your CTO.