7 ms·
I'm working in large US corporation. And I see that I already have access to 5.6-Sol Ultra on my corporate account. I haven't really used it yet. 2 months ago
by throw394042 3mo ago
I'm working in large US corporation.
And I see that I already have access to 5.6-Sol Ultra on my corporate account.
I haven't really used it yet.
2 months ago management was showing us scoreboards, praising leaders who used most tokens.
Last few weeks, we're getting weekly emails, telling us that whenever we can - we should use cheaper models, and that we should watch the page which shows our tokens usage.
- noduerme 3mo agoThat's kinda hilarious. Pretty soon they might just ask people to write code themselves.
- imhoguy 3mo agooh no! what about all these demos which product management vibe coded?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- wjnc 3mo agoI’m in Finance and learned pretty quickly that to point out the implicit future cost raises based on the cost the LLM-providers need to recoup was unpopular at best (STFU better describes the situation). Running full force into a bear trap.
- OtomotO 3mo agoThe sad part is that you work in FINANCE of all things and this happens there. Like: What competence do decision makers in FINANCE have, when they are this oblivious to economics?
- noduerme 3mo agoA better question would be how anyone who thinks about economic fundamentals could get a job in finance (or stay in it). [no offense intended to the parent post, I'm on their side]
- wjnc 3mo agoLook, I share your sentiment. But, I can relate to the C-squad though. Going squarely against the market sentiment is not the way to gain and keep confidence. And everyone is vibing right? So they are probably thinking something like: as long as the spent is < few percent of a years profit, we can always adjust direction in the future and at least we’ve bet the same horse as the rest. “Those penny pinchers in finance (:: me) don’t get the big picture.”
- noduerme 3mo ago>> Going squarely against the market sentiment is not the way to gain and keep confidence I don't think this is axiomatic. I usually invest my time, energy and money in things that go squarely against the market's momentary sentiment.
- noduerme 3mo agoI've seen that mentality and gone to bat to convince a boardroom that it's the wrong approach, when people were star-struck by the possibilities. Luckily I'm in a position as CTO of a (very non-tech, brick and mortar) company that entrusts me to manage their budget for new features, and prevent erosion of our software/logistics over the long term. And I've come down decidedly on the side of not having LLMs fuck with any schema or architecture changes or anything in the codebase that would touch upon business logic. When your code actually encapsulates business logic, which is often counterintuitive and full of weird exceptions, 90% of the code work is done by prior planning to map out all possible branches and the algorithms to assist employee decision making. The 10% that's actually writing code needs to be done by someone who understands the entire stack and business model perfectly. Some nice HTML/CSS fluff here and there is great to hand off to an LLM, and you don't need frontier models for that. I shot down similar arguments in favor of outsourcing overseas for years. Outsourcing any critical logic to an LLM is even worse.
- bob1029 3mo ago> I shot down similar arguments in favor of outsourcing overseas for years. Outsourcing any critical logic to an LLM is even worse. Outsourcing to another continent of humans and supplementing workflows with LLMs are entirely different operational universes. I think it is fair to put them on the same spectrum, but they're really far apart. I'd argue outsourcing is a far more aggressive abdication of ownership of the technology than bringing an LLM agent in house and having it light a few fires under a few asses.
- jddj 3mo agoIt can be as similar to or as far from outsourcing as you allow it to be. The "if AI code breaks, who will fix it? -> "AI will fix it" exchange has (anecdotally) been very common among executives, which is much closer to outsourcing than programming.
- noduerme 3mo agoOther than the delay time, I'm not sure I see the difference. You're removing your primary from the job of writing code, putting them into an editorial role, which removes responsibility and agency and actual hands-on understanding. The quality of the code is beside the point. More friction (language barriers, time zone difference) is actually better if you want to maintain institutional knowledge, because it requires more intellectual engagement. Accepting the LLM answer is too easy and leads to a decay of the systems knowledge and of the thought process. [edit] as the sibling points out, decayed system knowledge leads to relying on the LLM to fix the bugs the LLM introduced, which causes further decay in the institutional ability to reason with the business logic in code.
- eiifr1 3mo ago[dead]
- Der_Einzige 3mo agoThis is wrong. Token costs for the same model rapidly collapse over a year. Hardware inflation is a thing but not bad enough to outweigh the massive impact of software optimizations. Tokens billed at API prices are profitable for openAI and anthropic today and it only get more lucrative every month for them as their inference costs fall. If it weren’t for continuous massive training runs taking larger and larger capex, these companies would be massively profitable
- derdi 3mo ago> Tokens billed at API prices are profitable for openAI and anthropic today That's nice for them. What's less nice for them is that big customers are figuring out (some faster, some more slowly) that they don't want to pay API prices, or at least only for a much smaller number of tokens.
- re-thc 3mo ago> Pretty soon they might just ask people to write code themselves. GPT-10 Human Ultra
- VeninVidiaVicii 3mo agoI wonder if clues like this will be what are written in history books as the beginning of the bubble bursting.
- make3 3mo ago[dead]
- make3 3mo agoI don't think that people relying on the tools too much is the first sign I would identify to mean the bubble is popping
- jvuygbbkuurx 3mo agoThe market is priced at expecting AGI levels of breakthroughs. Just a very useful tool for programming is definitely not enough to keep the music playing.
- make3 3mo agothe thing went from the transformer paper in 2017 to basically doing your job for you in 2026
- drw85 3mo agoThe problem is that it's too expensive. It can technically do parts of my job for me, but at a variable cost that's higher than mine right now.
- make3 3mo agoEfficiency is an angle of research that's quite active, see quantization, MoE, speculative decoding, QKV cache optimizations, sparse attention, etc
- Zambyte 3mo agoWhat does "AGI" mean to you such that we have not had it for years already? Whenever I see people mention AGI it's in the future tense, as if we don't have artificial machines that can apply intelligence to general domains.
- solumunus 3mo ago> 2 months ago management was showing us scoreboards, praising leaders who used most tokens. Everyone is insane.
- camillomiller 3mo agoIt‘s a collective psychosis. There is not other explanation.
- elric 3mo agoEveryone is falling over themselves out of FOMO.
- y1n0 3mo agoThe thing with language models is they are tailor made to fool managerial types into thinking it’s the holy grail. Just like many managers, the appearance of productivity is all that counts. And LLMs shine at giving the appearance of having solved all of the managers problems, and all they have to do to use it is spend on tokens. This isn’t to say that LLMs aren’t truly useful, they absolutely are. But they’re very nature is one of simulating intelligence through next word prediction. The chat modes and models are by their nature supremely attractive to management layers, because they give answers that sound so damn plausible even when they are complete fictions, and uttered with such confidence how could they be anything but the singularity.
- rozal 3mo ago[dead]
- dprkh 3mo agoAre corporate employees not allowed to use personal subscriptions?
- pkulak 3mo agoGenerally not, since the corporate account has all the privacy knobs turned up. I use my personal account on my open source projects, where code leaks aren’t exactly an issue.
- bulder 3mo agoSounds like a bad idea in general. Any data use agreements get lost, shadow-IT brews and nobody knows what tools to use, oh and it's against the service terms.
- bberrry 3mo agoIf you want your company's code to be used in training, then yes.
- bob1029 3mo agoI pitched this to management as a way to get a very expensive fine tuning job done for free. They're not quite across that line yet but we're getting closer every day.
- ffsm8 3mo agoUnless you get written permission you can be sued for publishing their trade secrets. This can end in jail time if your employer is particularly uncaring. Ymmv, do whatever you want . It's your life.
- senectus1 3mo agointeresting, our enterprise account here in Australia doesn't have access to it yet.
- Shorel 3mo agoI'm using local models in Ollama for most things and only use the paid corporate account when my local model gets stuck.
- whstl 3mo agoThe craziest to me was someone saying “we are using AI in daily processes, now we need to automate”. But of course to some asshole non-technical people it meant asking for their vibe coded bullshit to be merged into production without review and fighting about it.
- tmountain 3mo agoThe craziest for me is companies that sticking stochastic agents into automated business processes and expecting stable/reliable outcomes. Businesses want deterministic processes in the vast majority of cases.
- barrkel 3mo agoPeople are stochastic. You build reliable processes out of unreliable parts with feedback and self-correcting mechanisms. AI is not actually magically special in this regard. It has higher variance and we're still figuring out how to get all the tradeoffs right.
- gmerc 3mo ago[dead]
- Topfi 3mo agoPlease. If you told a customer support rep that you are the former US president [0], they would not hand over the account straight away because you asked nicely. These models are great tools, but putting them and people on the same level does a disservice to our species and also is simply incorrect to what we know these models to be and their capabilities/limitations. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/01/meta-ai-hack-obama-sephora-instagram https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/01/meta-ai-h...
- barrkel 3mo agoI didn't put them on the same level. At the same time, one should acknowledge that not all tasks are on the same level.
- abraxas_ 3mo agoWe are using this brand new hammer to build everything! Please stop using this brand new hammer for glassmaking.
- simianwords 3mo agowow almost as if they needed to incentivise people to use and then tame it down to keep it in sustainable levels. shocking!
- websap 3mo agoDog! Use it and tell us how it is! Stop with this token maxing moaning. You have access to a new powerful tool.
- throwawayHBKFC 3mo agoSame here. It's insane that big, conservative tech companies would sign contracts saying "allow our engineers to use however much they want, we'll pay the bill later, no matter what it costs". In any other domain my company would insist on prior permission, and soft usage caps, and hard usage caps, and real-time tracking of actual dollar amounts (not just opaque tokens/credits, not just an after-the-fact view on a dashboard). The AI companies' salespeople must be the greatest geniuses in the history of the world.
- HappMacDonald 3mo agoThis is the first time in history that I have seen the shovel-sellers convince a supermajority of the gold-miners that "amount of gold mined out of the ground" is less of an indicator of profit than "amount of shovels purchased".
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- whh 3mo agoApologies for sounding like a billboard, but this is exactly why we built https://flowstate.inc/ https://flowstate.inc/
- bobkb 3mo agoThe leader boards based on token usage happened in our org for a month. Then we managed to convince the board that what matters is the reliable software shipped. Now we are back to DORA metrics.
- softwaredoug 3mo agoI’ve switched to a more precise use of agents where I give less autonomy but I have much higher trust the output will be what I expect. And I do more hand coding to guide the agent to useful patterns I want. I feel like that’s how I used less capable agents a year ago. But I’m finding even with high quality agents, the slop creeps in. I want more control. I want to save money. Hence going back to a more 80/20 agent to human LoC split.
- JeremyNT 3mo ago> 2 months ago management was showing us scoreboards, praising leaders who used most tokens. Last few weeks, we're getting weekly emails, telling us that whenever we can - we should use cheaper models, and that we should watch the page which shows our tokens usage. GPT 5.5's double token cost was the threshold for me. These things are getting expensive quickly - the subsidized pricing can't go on forever.