Hacker News

Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live Tokenmaxxing

19 points by theahura ago | 23 comments

aurareturn |next [-]

Tokenmaxxing was just a way to force employees to start leveraging AI in a meaningful way.

For companies that have measured performance based on token spend, they can now dial it back. Employees have learned to leverage AI for things they wouldn’t have prior. Now they know what’s possible and what’s not.

No one is stupid enough to always measure performance based on token spend and have unlimited budget. It was always a temporary thing to transition the employees to a new world.

Management felt like employees weren't leveraging AI fast enough. That's why in 2025, there were many mainstream articles about how CEOs were forcing their employees to use AI or get fired. Tokenmaxxing was just the other extreme. Companies will arrive at an equilibrium.

There's no need to overthink this.

baconmania |root |parent |next [-]

The implication that tokenmaxxing was an intentional and thoughtfully considered approach rather than blind hype-following by an overpaid manager class who are too far removed from value to understand the downsides of LLMs is hysterical beyond belief.

tough |root |parent |next [-]

Worse, tokenmaxxing has been pushed by the labs hoping to charge those tokens by the pound on their API prices eventually, even if temporarily hiding such costs behind "highly subsidized plans" or frequent bug-induced "reset buttons"

BobbyJo |root |parent |previous [-]

Yeah, the rationalization after the fact is kind if absurd. IME, the reasoning underlying tokenmaxxing at the corporate level was "we need to leverage AI as much as possible as fast as possible because we're scared our competitors will find some leverage before us".

Definitely not some measured, long term, rational out of the gate.

Scene_Cast2 |root |parent |next |previous [-]

I remember a story on HN from a while back. The idea is that the larger the org, the simpler the message and the tool has to be to reach everyone. The comment author was saying that as a junior, his company implemented a "tokenmaxxing" scheme for A/B testing - more tests, better for performance review. He, back then, thought it was stupid. However, it got the desired outcome of everyone being familiar with what experiments are and how to run them.

linsomniac |root |parent |next |previous [-]

That's a very good point. Our company has been very thrifty with our AI spend, until a few months ago the average employee had ~$50 of supported spend and I was trying to be an AI leader in the company and figure out what was and was not possible, I had a $100/mo spend (Claude $100 service costs $108/mo).

We are now seeing that Claude Code can do a LOT of heavy lifting in our day-to-day work, but the bulk of our employees are stuck cost-maxing and literally cannot "imagine how you are running into your session limits". "I'm fine with the $20/mo account."

There's a case for the cost-maxing has hurt our company.

herval |root |parent |next |previous [-]

having heard the arguments made by some VP + C-levels throughout the Tokenmaxxing Tulip Mania, I think the interpretation that those mandates were made intentionally for "forcing employees to start leveraging AI in meaningful ways" is being too charitable. Most companies focused entirely on doing "what everyone else is doing" at best or "to see if Programmer Joe can be as productive as the entire team so we can fire the rest". And many indeed fired employees in droves because they were "underperforming in token spend".

danny_codes |root |parent |next |previous [-]

Yeah there's no way that was the reason. I judge it to be a combination of FOMO and the big tech companies needing to pump demand for compute.

clickety_clack |root |parent |next |previous [-]

People in small teams with managers promoted from within could probably have had this in mind.

Big Corporate managers are much more likely to have felt the need to “do AI” from their VPs, who in turn got it from the executive team, who have probably been under fire to produce a coherent magical AI strategy that makes to company scale infinitely while reducing costs. In that environment it’s much more likely to be copy-and-pasted charts from Gartner and buzzwords overheard at conferences, combined with the hope that somebody somewhere will eventually turn it all into something that resembles forward movement.

Chu4eeno |root |parent |next |previous [-]

The problem is that managers have no idea how this is supposed to help either, and just get told from above to use AI.

therein |root |parent |next |previous [-]

> Tokenmaxxing was just a way to force employees to start leveraging AI in a meaningful way.

No, it was a sinister way to manufacture your consent to cause cognitive atrophy in your employees so that you lose your ability to independently operate your business.

You'll come to realize this once they begin charging you more and more for tokens but you will probably not blame yourself for it.

arexxbifs |root |parent |next |previous [-]

It really wasn't. It was a moronic move fueled by hype, implemented by the same type of incompetent business leaders who previously, to various extents, drank the blockchain and metaverse kool-aid.

There was demonstrably zero cost or consequence analysis, which is also why it was dialed back as soon as the (still) subsidized tokens became just slightly less subsidized, and the wise leaders realized they spent huge sums of money with no way of gauging ROI.

LLMs may have their use cases, but let's not make up free excuses for blithering idiots who, by any rights, should all be fired for cooking up money-burning policies that are textbook implementations of Goodhart's law.

Anyway, just needed to get that off my chest.

catlifeonmars |root |parent |next |previous [-]

Do you have a source for this?

> Tokenmaxxing was just a way to force employees to start leveraging AI in a meaningful way.

> It was always a temporary thing to transition the employees to a new world.

Trying to understand your justification for rejecting Hanlon’s razor.

aurareturn |root |parent [-]

  Do you have a source for this?

Yes, my own company's decision and logic.

flunhat |root |parent |next |previous [-]

An insane re-writing of the last year of bullshit insanity. Good one.

witx |root |parent |previous [-]

You're naive, uninformed or turfing if you think companies are still not tokenmaxxing.

Also tokenmaxxing was never an intentional and smart strategy employed by companies like you say. It was a mix of fear of missing out, signaling to investors they were in on the hype and recouping investmenets in data centers

aurareturn |root |parent [-]

Yes, and Uber was trying to recuperate what investments in data centers?

Come on now. Let's not think that we are all smarter than management at these companies.

fraywing |next |previous [-]

Brute forcing positive outcomes by spending more tokens until a happy path manifests does not solve the underlying comprehension (and liability) problem.

I fear a world where critical software is stood up with increasingly non-human governed abstraction because it [seems like it] works.

Software engineers as the review terminal in a conveyor of business-led code mass production... coming to a company near you?

gausswho |next |previous [-]

It's AI usage mandates now, but rather than focusing on how the current hot topic has ripped through the business world, often without benefit nor repercussions at leadership, I'd prefer to analyze the higher pattern. We've recently experienced such ripples as the metaverse, blockchain/nft/web3, 'the cloud' (and a minor wave of cloud gaming). There was even a teacup buzz of 'apis', oddly disconnected from the semantic web.

Why do such fever dreams occur at all? Are they getting more prevalent? More damaging? Do they jepaordize the global economy? Should they be regulated in some fashion?

I can't prove my case, but I think it's a symptom of media manipulation/consolidation, the 'fiduciary duty' delusion, and that shareholders can hold the puppet strings tighter than they used to. More and more, they place their sillytown bets and expect the plebs to dance to them.

linsomniac |next |previous [-]

>I’ve basically never heard a business leader say that they were going to set a bunch of money on fire because it made them feel good.

Really? ~4 years ago our CEO hired a consultant to fly out several times to do team building exercises. We can't afford to do our 3-year server refresh cycle, but the consultant was no problem to pay.

We just recently had branding consultants come in and also spent thousands of dollars (AWS charges) on rebranding all our photos. We operate in a captive market, if you want to operate in our market you are required to subscribe to our service, and if you aren't in our market you can't subscribe. Branding at the end of the day drives 0 sales.

Heck, reminds me of the time a company I was working with hired a new CTO and one of the first things he did was as "server renaming scheme" using obscure (to the US-centric staff) city names from around the world (database servers are Swiss city names, web servers are Denmark, storage is Finland). We went from cattle naming to pet naming, for a CTO that lasted ~6 months.

In my experience company leadership is not quite as thrifty as this article likes to think they are.

EA-3167 |root |parent [-]

To be fair leaders usually don't say that, they say a whole lot of nothing that means "We're gonna set money on fire because it makes me feel good."

Or more accurately, "Because this is good for my career."

behnamoh |next |previous [-]

Tokenmaxxing was never a thing to begin with. Just because a few companies did it doesn't mean it was a widespread phenomenon.

j45 |previous [-]

Beyond getting momentum going for a cmpany, Tokenmaxxing is lighting money on fire.

The idea of tokenmaxxing reaches different companies in different waves, so it will be discovered in waves and outgrown in waves in companies and industries in their own cycle.

In the long run, tokenmaxxing is like drunken sailor spending. Scaling is almost always about a large component of efficiency, and lighting money on fire in the street can only last so long.