Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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 :).



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.


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


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


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.


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




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: