[mchusma]

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.

[usrusr]

Do you find it hard to max out, or do you find it hard to productively max out?

It's like paying drivers per gallon of fuel consumed and then acting all surprised that you see them revving their engine while waiting at a red light.

[trollbridge]

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

[SpicyLemonZest]

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]

Who’s it important for?

[loeg]

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]

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]

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.

[bigstrat2003]

> Employees are hesitant to learn new tools that are very different from what they are used to...

That simply isn't true for technical employees (like software devs). They are so hungry to get stuff done that you have to hold them back from adopting new tools which they think can make them work more effectively. Tech guys will set up entire shadow IT departments just to get around corporate restrictions that are limiting their productivity.

No, if software devs are not using LLMs for programming, that is proof that the tool isn't actually useful for them. It doesn't mean "they need to be forced to use it", because they didn't need to be forced to use any of the tools which came before it.

[loeg]

I disagree with you on both counts.

> [Technical employees] are so hungry to get stuff done that you have to hold them back from adopting new tools

Technical employees are also hesitant to waste time learning new tools if their existing tools do the job. Maybe juniors are more hungry to spend time on new tools that might not pay off. But seniors aren't burning time trying out the new flavor-of-the-week tool.

> if software devs are not using LLMs for programming, that is proof that the tool isn't actually useful for them

No. It's evidence that they perceive that the tool won't be useful to them, or don't think learning it will be worth the effort expended, or that they won't enjoy using it. These are different things than the tool being useful or not.