Sometimes I will go out and I will plant a pepper plant and take care of it all summer long and obsessively ensure it has precisely the right amount of water and compost and so on... and ... for some reason (maybe I was on vacation and it got over 105 degrees?) I don't get a good crop.
Does this mean I should not garden because it's a variable reward? Of course not.
Sometimes I will go out fishing and I won't catch a damn thing. Should I stop fishing?
Obviously no.
So what's the difference? What is the precise mechanism here that you're pointing at? Because sometimes life is disappointing is a reason to do nothing. And yet.
It's a not a binary thing, it's a spectrum. There are many elements of uncertainty in every action imaginable. I'm inclined to agree with the other commenter though, the LLM slot machine is absolutely closer on that spectrum to gambling than your example is.
Anthropic's optimization target is getting you to spend tokens, not produce the right answer. It's to produce an answer plausible enough but incomplete enough that you'll continue to spend as many tokens as possible for as long as possible. That's about as close to a slot machine as I can imagine. Slot rewards are designed to keep you interested as long as possible, on the premise that you _might_ get what you want, the jackpot, if you play long enough.
Anthropic's game isn't limited to a single spin either. The small wins (small prompts with well defined answers) are support for the big losses (trying to one shot a whole production grade program).
> Anthropic's optimization target is getting you to spend tokens, not produce the right answer.
The majority of us are using their subscription plans with flat rate fees.
Their incentive is the precise opposite of what you say. The less we use the product, the more they benefit. It's like a gym membership.
I think all of the gambling addiction analogies in this thread are just so strained that I can't take them seriously. Even the basic facts aren't even consistent with the real situation.
Thats a bit naive. Anthropic makes way more money if they gey you to use past your plans limit and wonder if you should get the next tier or switch to tokens
The price jump between subscription tiers is so high that relatively few people will upgrade instead of waiting a few more hours, and even if somebody does upgrade to the next subscription level, Anthropic still has an incentive to provide satisfactory answers as quickly as possible, to minimize tokens used per subscription, and because there is plenty of competition so any frustrated users are potential lost customers.
I swear this whole conversation is motivated reasoning from AI holdouts who desperately want to believe everybody else is getting scammed by a gambling scheme, that they don't stop and think about the situation rationally. Insofar as Claude is dominant, it's only because Claude works the best. There is meaningful competition in this market, as soon as Anthropic drops the ball they'll be replaced.
It's not going to get worse than now though. Open models like GLM 5 are very good. Even if companies decide to crank up the costs, the current open models will still be available. They will likely get cheaper to run over time as well (better hardware).
To run GLM-5 you need access to many, many consumer grade GPUs, or multiple data center level GPUs.
>They will likely get cheaper to run over time as well (better hardware).
Unless they magically solve the problem of chip scarcity, I don't see this happening. VRAM is king, and to have more of it you have to pay a lot more. Let's use the RTX 3090 as an example. This card is ~6 years old now, yet it still runs you around $1.3k. If you wanted to run GLM-5 I4 quantization (the lowest listed in the link above) with a 32k context window, you would need *32 RTX 3090's*. That's $42k dollars you'd be spending on obsolete silicon. If you wanted to run this on newer hardware, you could reasonable expect to multiply that number by 2.
I mean it would make sense to see this as a hardware investment into a virtual employee, that you actually control (or rent from someone who makes this possible for you), not as private assistant. Ballparking your numbers, we would need at least an order of magnitude price-performance improvement for that I think.
Also, how much bang for the buck do those 3090s actually give you compared to enterprise-grade products?
Wouldn't that apply only to a truly unlimited subscription? Last I looked all of their subs have a usage limit.
If you're on anything but their highest tier, it's not altogether unreasonable for them to optimize for the greatest number of plan upgrades (people who decide they need more tokens) while minimizing cancellations (people frustrated by the number of tokens they need). On the highest tier, this sort of falls apart but it's a problem easily solved by just adding more tiers :)
Of course, I don't think this is actually what's going on, but it's not irrational.
For subscription isers, anthropic makes mkre money if you hit your usage limit and wonder idlf the next plan, or switching to tokens would be better. Especially given the FOMO you probably have from all these posts talking about peoples productivity
> you'll continue to spend as many tokens as possible for as long as possible.
I mean this only works if Anthropic is the only game in town. In your analogy if anyone else builds a casino with a higher payout then they lose the game. With the rate of LLM improvement over the years, this doesn't seem like a stable means of business.
While I don't know if this applies to AI usage, but actual gambling addicts most certainly do not shop around for the best possible rewards: they stick more or less to the place they got addicted at initially. Not to mention, there's plenty of people addicted to "casinos" that give 0 monetary rewards, such as Candy Crush or Farmville back in the day and Genshin Impact or other gacha games today.
So, if there's a way to get people addicted to AI conversations, that's an excellent way to make money even if you are way behind your competitors, as addicted buyers are much more loyal that other clients.
You're taking the gambling analogy too seriously. People do in fact compare different LLMs and shop around. How gamblers choose casinos is literally irrelevant because this whole analogy is nothing more than a retarded excuse for AI holdouts to feel smug.
The timescale is one difference, it's hard to get "sucked in" in the gambling-like mindless state when the timescales are over seasons as opposed to minutes. There's a reason gambling isn't done in a correspondence format.
In human physiology/psychology as well, the chance of addiction itself is a function of timescale. This is why a nicotine patch is much less addictive than insufflated nicotine (hours to reach peak effect vs seconds), or why addictive software have plenty of sensory experiences attached to every action, to keep the user engaged.
> Intermittent variable rewards ... will induce compulsive behavior
As a dog owner this is why you need to give a variable amount of treats (sometimes zero) to your dog when they obey a command, for the "jackpot effect".
For example, if I land a trick while skating it gives me a boost. Is that addictive behaviour? not sure. It gets me to exercise.
My point is that variability is probably part of what gets you back to pepper planting and fishing. Intermittent variable rewards reinforcing a behaviour seems to be a fact. If this is good or bad regarding a specific activity is left as an exercise for the reader.
??? I'm pretty sure you know what the differences are. Go touch grass and tell me it's the same as looking at a plant on a screen.
Dealing with organic and natural systems will, most of the time, have a variable reward. The real issue comes from systems and services designed to only be accessible through intermittent variable rewards.
Oh, and don't confuse Claude's artifacts working most of the time with them actually optimizing to be that way. They're optimizing to ensure token usage. I.E. LLMs have been fine-tuned to default to verbose responses. They are impressive to less experienced developers, often easier to detect certain types of errors (eg. Improper typing), and will make you use more tokens.
Basically true tbqh. Poker is maybe the one exception, but you're almost always better off gambling "in the wild" e.g. poker night with your buds instead of playing slots or anything else where "the house" is always winning in the long run. Are your losses still circulating in your local community, or have they been siphoned off by shareholders on the other side of the world? Gambling with friends is just swapping money back and forth, but going to a casino might as well be lighting the money on fire.
Does this mean I should not garden because it's a variable reward? Of course not.
Sometimes I will go out fishing and I won't catch a damn thing. Should I stop fishing?
Obviously no.
So what's the difference? What is the precise mechanism here that you're pointing at? Because sometimes life is disappointing is a reason to do nothing. And yet.