I actually do think token maxing is good, but they should have limited it per user. I find it reallly hard to get people to max out the Claude $100 plan, let alone the $200 plan. I understand the enterprise plans are different and more expensive, which is how you get these kinds of issues. But encouraging people to try things with AI is very important, and some amount of token maxing is importsnt.

▲

trollbridge 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Man, it sure isn’t hard for me to max it out.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's not hard for most people now. 6 months ago when agents first started getting big, I genuinely didn't know enough about AI tools to understand how it was possible to use so many tokens, and I don't think I would have bothered to find time to learn without a kick.

▲

tquinn35 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Who’s it important for?

▲

loeg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

tquinn35 an hour ago | parent [-]

I think the key word is “believes”. There is no proof that AI usage improves productivity. Token maxing is essentially customers paying to try and prove a business’s unsubstantiated claim. The AI companies should be proving their claims themselves not the other way around.

I do think AI has value and is useful but the idea of token maxing is ridiculous.

	▲	loeg 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure; I described it that way deliberately. I think you can reasonably disagree with whether or not AI improves efficiency, but regardless, you can agree that if a business believes AI does, it will logically conclude that it should incentivize employees to learn to use AI.