Because it’s one thing to get me to spend more tokens because of how well a model functions, and another thing entirely to purposefully speak in unparseable prose that requires me to spend more tokens to understand what is going on.

I’m fine with the former, while the latter is manipulative, and I rationalize to “surely that’s not actually happening.”

Maybe I’m not giving my thoughts enough credit, though: maybe it’s not tin foil hat, and is real.

▲

Jgrubb 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying "It gets paid by the word and you get back walls of text." - ie, what you don't want to think is happening is very obviously what is happening.

It charges by the unit and it decides how many units it produces. It decides how much money it makes, therefore it decides "more".

	▲	retsibsi 8 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> very obviously what is happening I don't think this is obvious at all. There's enough competition that this would at least arguably be a silly, self-destructive approach. And it's not like it's the only plausible explanation.
	▲	jodacola 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I get you, and maybe we’re talking past each other. My point is that, while I understand it’s paid by the word, there are more words and less clarity than I previously experienced, leading me to believe it’s intentional to get an artificially inflated increase in engagement and, thus, spend. If it could be as direct as I previously experienced, I wouldn’t need to ask for another different explanation of the same thing and experience the commensurate spend.