Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with an agent definition

Re:Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with a... by bazodedo on Sunday February 08, 2026 @04:14PM (#46938588)

The "premium request" billing model where you pay per invocation and not for usage is very obviously not a sustainable approach and creates skewed incentives (e.g. for microsoft to degrade response quality), especially with the shift towards longer running agentic sessions as opposed to simple oneshot chat questions, which the system was presumably designed for. Its just a very obvious fundamental incompatibility and the system is in increasing need of replacement. Usage linked (pay per token) is probably the way to go, as is industry standard.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with a... by Grimblewald on Sunday February 08, 2026 @05:48PM (#46939382)

Paying per token also encouragages reduced quality only now you pay. If they can subtbtly degrade quality or even probability of 1shot solutions, they get you paying for more tokens. Under current economic models and incentive structures, enshitification is inevitable, since we're optimizing for it long term.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with a... by jtbayly on Monday February 09, 2026 @06:35AM (#46944137)

What if there is actual competition, though? That’s the hope I keep having. If there is a cheaper, better model, I can switch.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with a... by Grimblewald on Monday February 09, 2026 @05:07PM (#46952192)

For that to work it requires a free market, llms in their current format are a neccesarily closed market. It's like mobile phones. You'll get a sleek somewhat passable product increasingly dated and dysfunctional which every year serves you less and someone else more. Given I can't decide smart phones in their current form are shit, i'll make something better (without enromous capital) meams we're failing open market conditions. Do you see the point i am trying to make?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with a... by jtbayly on Tuesday February 10, 2026 @06:34AM (#46958333)

That’s not what free market means.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with a... by Grimblewald on Wednesday February 11, 2026 @04:25AM (#46972778)

Tell my economics textbook not me. Free markets are defined, in part, by the absence of coercive impediments to economic activity, which explicitley includes restrictions on entry.

see "low barriers for entry"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with a... by jtbayly on Wednesday February 11, 2026 @07:42PM (#46983411)

"Low" is relative. But we've got people creating new models with millions of dollars, not billions. Granted, not thousands either. It's low enough that I don't think the barrier to entry is a problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Billing can be bypassed using a combo of subagents with a... by Grimblewald on Friday February 13, 2026 @08:12PM (#47010241)

Good golly miss molly them goalposts sure can fly

right, so basically the only people who can enter the market are those part of the same club who have brought us the stripped down and dated wonders before us today.

Take the mobile phone market, there is basically no innovation going on these days. Small iterative steps and minor improvements, each new generation another sensor removed or new consumer hostile bloat added, because everyone in the club agrees on how to fuck the consumer, irrespective of what the consumer wants. It's an illusion of choice.

[ Parent | on HN ]