[ben_w]

Depends on how the billing works.

For users on fixed monthly pay accounts they'll be incentivised to do the exact opposite, as their income is fixed and the cost goes up for more tokens.

If the available evidence (third-party cloud pricing of open models) is correct and they make a profit on tokens but lose it on training, they will be incentivised for as many tokens as possible on pay-as-you-go API calls. If it isn't correct and they actually lose money even per token, they're also going to be incentivised to reduce output here.

[Forgeties79]

> but lose it on training

Call me when this stops being a meaningful cost I suppose. I just don’t think there’s much point to ignoring a massive cost burden that, even if it shifts in intensity, shows no signs of going away. Anthropocic is talking IPO and shows no signs of stopping their training. Google and Microsoft sure aren’t going to stop, they have deep as hell pockets. It’s a non-stop arm’s race currently. Frankly that’s a massive “if” at this stage. An “if” costing countless billions annually.

[ben_w]

While that matters for investors, it's completely unrelated to the question "do these companies want users consuming more tokens, e.g. by first creating buggy code and then by selling the tool to fix it?"

When the answer is "yes", it is "yes regardless of how much training costs", when it is "no", it is "no regardless of how much training costs".