3 ms·
Nobody is accusing them of making the models more efficient. People are complaining they are changing how many tokens you get on a subscription plan. Why woul
by edgolub 6mo ago
Nobody is accusing them of making the models more efficient.
People are complaining they are changing how many tokens you get on a subscription plan.
Why would anyone dislike getting more service for less (or the same) amount of money?
- weird-eye-issue 6mo ago> People are complaining they are changing how many tokens you get on a subscription plan. They didn't change this. It's the same number of tokens just a different tokenizer.
- esperent 6mo agoThey absolutely do change this all the time - session limits vary wildly. The most damning proof of this is that there's absolutely no information about how many tokens you get per session with each subscription level, it's just terms like 5x, 20x. But 5x what? Who knows?
- weird-eye-issue 6mo agoThat's not proof of anything. Also the usage is not solely based on tokens because you also have to factor in things like prompt caching costs (and savings). So it's based on the actual API cost.
- verve_rat 6mo agoYou and I have no way of knowing that.
- weird-eye-issue 6mo agoExcept that the API cost is literally logged on disk for every session and it's easy to analyze those logs.
- verve_rat 6mo agoWe aren't talking about API costs or number of tokens consumed, we are talking about number of tokens in a monthly subscription.
- weird-eye-issue 6mo agoAgain, it is not based on number of tokens. If it was solely based on number of tokens then things like cache misses would not impact the usage so much. It's based on the actual cost which includes things like the caching costs.