๐—ฌ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ ๐—”๐—œ ๐—ช๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ธ, ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฌ๐—ผ๐˜‚ ๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—œ๐˜ ๐—ง๐˜„๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ

AI models charge you by the token. This creates a massive problem.

Last week, an AI agent wrote ten tests for a function. Two of them were useless. They re-checked things the code already guaranteed. They added zero value.

I paid for the tokens to create them. Then, I paid more tokens to keep them in the chat history for every future turn. The model had no reason to stop. The company billing me had no reason to stop.

The issue is simple: We pay for what AI produces, not for the value it delivers.

This misalignment creates several hidden costs:

This pricing model changes how you build software. You start capping history, caching aggressively, and routing tasks to smaller models just to manage costs. You are no longer designing for quality. You are designing for the invoice.

How do we fix this? I propose three rules for fair AI pricing:

  1. Charge only if the code compiles.
  2. Charge only if the tests pass.
  3. Cut the price if the agent ignores your specific instructions.

Real value lives at the end of the process, not at the start. Current pricing only measures the very beginning.

To fix this, we need an external referee. A verifier cannot ask the AI how well it did. It must watch the boundary. It must check the build, the tests, and the architecture independently.

A green light is cheap to produce but expensive to verify. Stop trusting the self-reported meter.

Would you pay per outcome for generated code? What signal would you trust to verify it?

Source: https://dev.to/tibtof/your-ai-writes-junk-and-you-pay-for-it-twice-185c

Optional learning community: https://t.me/GyaanSetuAi