I think he's just saying tokenmaxxing is a temporary hype lol, probably fueled by subsidized subscriptions. When that's over, these cheaper models might get more usage.

Why is this exchange reminding me of that You Can See Everything documentary?

The analogy made sense to me: Tokenmaxxing policies were the result of an irrational drive by execs who just craved an, ahem, explosion of metrics due to the excitement over new technology. Now that cost sensitivities are setting in, there’s a growing sense of unease that maybe they were in an altered state when they created the mess and now that the excitement has passed they have to clean it up.

So people had this drive to use tokens, and once they experienced the release from using the tokens they went into a refractory period where their reasoning is no longer being overridden by the need to use tokens? And later I guess they'll start to feel more and more of a need to use tokens and this will repeat?

Or is it just a throwaway phrase that makes no sense?

Here is the argument

1) There was a false narrative called tokenmaxxing whereby one is more productive by spending more tokens

2) This narrative was fueled by discount prices on tokens (which still happens to this day on subscriptions)

3) There is a point where we collectively realize that tokenmaxxing was a state of mind that is not rational

4) We will then pay API prices because LLMs are obviously amazing but no one will offer subscriptions

5) API costs of Opus 5.5 and Fable tier become uneconomical

6) That leaves us in Sonnet/Haiku tier

I understand his assertion, and I can make up an argument that fits it too, probably a few arguments that aren't even compatible with each other, but what you said isn't what he said, you are just assuming all of this, and also nowhere here does it explain how this fits an analogy of "post nut clarity".