[smallerfish]

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 :).

[justinbaker84]

This 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]

As 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]

If people are paying for use, then why can’t you have both?

[saulpw]

It 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]

If you can’t scale with your customer base fire your CTO.