All articles

ai

The AI race at work is no longer about tokenmaxxing

Meta, Microsoft, Uber and Amazon have backed away from token counts as a measure of engineering work. Here is what they track now, and what that means for developers.

Victor K Kiptum

4 min read

The word tokenmaxxing in large type, struck through, above the phrase cost per useful result

On 7 October, Microsoft proposed moving more AI agent work off the cloud and onto developers' own machines, R&D World reported. It is the latest sign that large employers no longer treat heavy AI use as a goal in itself. Six months ago, leaderboards ranking engineers by token use were running inside several of them.

What changed

Tokens are the unit AI providers bill by. The Associated Press describes them as small pieces of text a model reads or writes, each about three quarters of a word. Tokenmaxxing means using as many as possible, on the theory that heavy use marks a productive employee.

Four companies, when token use was the target and now

CompanyWhen tokens were the targetWhat it does now
Meta"Claudeonomics" leaderboard covering 85,000+ staffToken counts not used to evaluate impact (September)
MicrosoftInternal token leaderboard since JanuaryToken budgets per division, cheaper default models (August)
UberUsed its 2026 token budget in four monthsPrompt caching, a new default model, per-hour cost visibility (August)
Amazon"Kirorank" leaderboard for its Kiro coding toolLeaderboard shut down in late May

Sources: The Pragmatic Engineer, Fortune and HCAMag for the middle column; InfoWorld, ITPro, a later Fortune piece and HCAMag for the last.

Every row moves the same way: from counting use to limiting or pricing it.

How token counts became a target

In March, Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang said he would be "deeply alarmed" if an engineer paid $500,000 a year spent less than $250,000 on tokens, The Decoder reported. By April, leaderboards had spread.

Once the number was visible, people optimized for it. One Microsoft engineer told The Pragmatic Engineer they asked AI about documentation they could have read directly, and built prototypes they planned to discard. At Amazon, some staff assigned agents to needless tasks to climb the ranking, according to Financial Times reporting summarized by HCAMag.

Not a retreat from AI

Uber's chief technology officer, Praveen Neppalli Naga, wrote in August that the company had quadrupled the number of employees using frontier AI tools while lowering its cost per token. Uber treated efficiency, he wrote, "as an engineering problem rather than a budget problem". Fortune, which reported the post, noted that he did not say whether total usage had gone up or down.

Microsoft took a similar line. R&D World quotes an August message to engineers, first reported by 404 Media, as "tokenmaxxing is not what we are optimizing for". This week's move goes further: its MAI-Code-1.1-Flash coding model will run on local hardware, which removes the per-request charge.

Two caveats apply. Much of this evidence is internal memos reported secondhand. And no company named here has published data showing that its new measures track value better than token counts did.

Why it matters

For working developers, the signal has flipped. Cost per useful result now carries the weight that token volume did. The techniques being reported are ordinary engineering: cache prompts, choose the smallest model that does the job, and know what a session costs. As Bain consultant Jue Wang told the Associated Press, "Not everything needs a Claude Opus 4.6."

The takeaway

Token counts measured an input, and employers found that input easy to inflate and expensive to reward. Whether the replacement measures capture value any better is still open. The thing to watch is the first company that publishes outcome data, not another memo.

Sources

aitokenmaxxingengineering-productivity

Written by

Victor K Kiptum

Software Engineer · About me

More articles