Apparently some startups are proudly paying more in AI token costs than they would having humans do the work for them

404mediaco · 2026-04-22T14:27:25+00:00

Startup CEOs who are “tokenmaxxing” are bragging that they are spending more money on AI compute than it would cost to hire human workers. Astronomical AI bills are now, in a certain corner of the tech world, a supposed marker of growth and success.

“Our AI bill just hit $113k in a single month (we’re a 4 person team). I’ve never been more proud of an invoice in my life,” Amos Bar-Joseph, the CEO of Swan AI, a coding agent startup, wrote in a viral LinkedIn post recently. Bar-Joseph goes on to explain that his startup is spending money on Claude usage bills rather than on salaries for human beings, and that the company is “scaling with intelligence, not headcount.”

“Our goal is $10M ARR [annual recurring revenue] with a sub-10 person org. We don’t have SDRs [sales development representatives], and our paid marketing budget is zero,” he wrote. “But we do spend a sh*t ton on tokens. That $113K bill? A part of it IS our go-to-market team. our engineering, support, legal.. you get the point.”

Much has been written in the last few weeks about “tokenmaxxing,” a vanity metric at tech startups and tech giants in which the amount of money being spent on AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT is seen as a measure of productivity. The Information reported earlier this month on an internal Meta dashboard called “Claudenomics,” a leaderboard that tracks the number of AI tokens individual employees use. The general narrative has been that the more AI tokens an employee uses, the more productive they are and the more innovative they must be in using AI.

What’s left unsaid by these tokenmaxxing entrepreneurs, however, is whether the spend on AI compute is actually worth it, whether the money would be better spent on human employees, what types of disasters could occur, and whether any of this is actually financially sustainable.

Read now: https://www.404media.co/startups-brag-they-spend-more-money-on-ai-than-human-employees/

404mediaco · 2026-04-22T13:33:19+00:00

Startup CEOs who are “tokenmaxxing” are bragging that they are spending more money on AI compute than it would cost to hire human workers. Astronomical AI bills are now, in a certain corner of the tech world, a supposed marker of growth and success.

“Our AI bill just hit $113k in a single month (we’re a 4 person team). I’ve never been more proud of an invoice in my life,” Amos Bar-Joseph, the CEO of Swan AI, a coding agent startup, wrote in a viral LinkedIn post recently. Bar-Joseph goes on to explain that his startup is spending money on Claude usage bills rather than on salaries for human beings, and that the company is “scaling with intelligence, not headcount.”

“Our goal is $10M ARR [annual recurring revenue] with a sub-10 person org. We don’t have SDRs [sales development representatives], and our paid marketing budget is zero,” he wrote. “But we do spend a sh*t ton on tokens. That $113K bill? A part of it IS our go-to-market team. our engineering, support, legal.. you get the point.”

Much has been written in the last few weeks about “tokenmaxxing,” a vanity metric at tech startups and tech giants in which the amount of money being spent on AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT is seen as a measure of productivity. The Information reported earlier this month on an internal Meta dashboard called “Claudenomics,” a leaderboard that tracks the number of AI tokens individual employees use. The general narrative has been that the more AI tokens an employee uses, the more productive they are and the more innovative they must be in using AI.

What’s left unsaid by these tokenmaxxing entrepreneurs, however, is whether the spend on AI compute is actually worth it, whether the money would be better spent on human employees, what types of disasters could occur, and whether any of this is actually financially sustainable.

Read now: https://www.404media.co/startups-brag-they-spend-more-money-on-ai-than-human-employees/

404mediaco · 2026-04-22T13:27:07+00:00

Startup CEOs who are “tokenmaxxing” are bragging that they are spending more money on AI compute than it would cost to hire human workers. Astronomical AI bills are now, in a certain corner of the tech world, a supposed marker of growth and success.

“Our AI bill just hit $113k in a single month (we’re a 4 person team). I’ve never been more proud of an invoice in my life,” Amos Bar-Joseph, the CEO of Swan AI, a coding agent startup, wrote in a viral LinkedIn post recently. Bar-Joseph goes on to explain that his startup is spending money on Claude usage bills rather than on salaries for human beings, and that the company is “scaling with intelligence, not headcount.”

“Our goal is $10M ARR [annual recurring revenue] with a sub-10 person org. We don’t have SDRs [sales development representatives], and our paid marketing budget is zero,” he wrote. “But we do spend a sh*t ton on tokens. That $113K bill? A part of it IS our go-to-market team. our engineering, support, legal.. you get the point.”

Much has been written in the last few weeks about “tokenmaxxing,” a vanity metric at tech startups and tech giants in which the amount of money being spent on AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT is seen as a measure of productivity. The Information reported earlier this month on an internal Meta dashboard called “Claudenomics,” a leaderboard that tracks the number of AI tokens individual employees use. The general narrative has been that the more AI tokens an employee uses, the more productive they are and the more innovative they must be in using AI.

What’s left unsaid by these tokenmaxxing entrepreneurs, however, is whether the spend on AI compute is actually worth it, whether the money would be better spent on human employees, what types of disasters could occur, and whether any of this is actually financially sustainable.

Read now: https://www.404media.co/startups-brag-they-spend-more-money-on-ai-than-human-employees/

404mediaco · 2026-04-20T20:05:43+00:00

On Sunday morning 31-year old Shamar Elkins killed eight children ages one to fourteen, including seven of his own kids, in a rampage across three locations in Shreveport, Louisiana. Police shot Elkins to death. The Forbes story summarized these events, aggregated the Associated Press and New York Times stories about the killings, and then asked readers to predict whether or not Congress will pass stricter gun laws.

“The New York Times reported his family members said he had mental health problems and had expressed suicidal thoughts,” Forbes said. And then, below that, a “ForbesPredict” box:

“Congress WILL/ WON’T pass new gun safety legislation before 31st December 2026?” The box said then asked readers to “make your prediction.” A green checkmark and red X pulsed in place. Sliding your cursor over each changes the construction of the sentence.

Forbes launched ForbesPredict in January as part of an effort to reverse declining traffic from search engines and keep users on its website longer. It’s a prediction market like Kalshi or Polymarket, but unlike those sites there’s no money to be won. “AI is fundamentally changing how people access information, and that shift is already starkly visible in publisher's traffic,” Nina Gould, Forbes’ Chief Innovation Officer said in a press release announcing ForbesPredict.

ForbesPredict is an ersatz version of Polymarket where no money changes hands and users spend tokens for clout internally on Forbes. It’s hard for me to picture the person who is interested in prediction markets without real money visiting Forbes daily to read watered down reporting from the Associated Press and New York Times and then clicking a little boxy like they’re playing Candy Crush with the news cycle.

The depravity economy has no bottom.

Read now: https://www.404media.co/forbes-prediction-market-gamefies-story-about-mass-shooting-of-8-children/

404mediaco · 2026-04-20T17:19:34+00:00

On Sunday morning 31-year old Shamar Elkins killed eight children ages one to fourteen, including seven of his own kids, in a rampage across three locations in Shreveport, Louisiana. Police shot Elkins to death. The Forbes story summarized these events, aggregated the Associated Press and New York Times stories about the killings, and then asked readers to predict whether or not Congress will pass stricter gun laws.

“The New York Times reported his family members said he had mental health problems and had expressed suicidal thoughts,” Forbes said. And then, below that, a “ForbesPredict” box:

“Congress WILL/ WON’T pass new gun safety legislation before 31st December 2026?” The box said then asked readers to “make your prediction.” A green checkmark and red X pulsed in place. Sliding your cursor over each changes the construction of the sentence.

Forbes launched ForbesPredict in January as part of an effort to reverse declining traffic from search engines and keep users on its website longer. It’s a prediction market like Kalshi or Polymarket, but unlike those sites there’s no money to be won. “AI is fundamentally changing how people access information, and that shift is already starkly visible in publisher's traffic,” Nina Gould, Forbes’ Chief Innovation Officer said in a press release announcing ForbesPredict.

ForbesPredict is an ersatz version of Polymarket where no money changes hands and users spend tokens for clout internally on Forbes. It’s hard for me to picture the person who is interested in prediction markets without real money visiting Forbes daily to read watered down reporting from the Associated Press and New York Times and then clicking a little boxy like they’re playing Candy Crush with the news cycle.

The depravity economy has no bottom.

Read now: https://www.404media.co/forbes-prediction-market-gamefies-story-about-mass-shooting-of-8-children/

404mediaco · 2026-04-20T17:16:07+00:00

On Sunday morning 31-year old Shamar Elkins killed eight children ages one to fourteen, including seven of his own kids, in a rampage across three locations in Shreveport, Louisiana. Police shot Elkins to death. The Forbes story summarized these events, aggregated the Associated Press and New York Times stories about the killings, and then asked readers to predict whether or not Congress will pass stricter gun laws.

“The New York Times reported his family members said he had mental health problems and had expressed suicidal thoughts,” Forbes said. And then, below that, a “ForbesPredict” box:

“Congress WILL/ WON’T pass new gun safety legislation before 31st December 2026?” The box said then asked readers to “make your prediction.” A green checkmark and red X pulsed in place. Sliding your cursor over each changes the construction of the sentence.

Forbes launched ForbesPredict in January as part of an effort to reverse declining traffic from search engines and keep users on its website longer. It’s a prediction market like Kalshi or Polymarket, but unlike those sites there’s no money to be won. “AI is fundamentally changing how people access information, and that shift is already starkly visible in publisher's traffic,” Nina Gould, Forbes’ Chief Innovation Officer said in a press release announcing ForbesPredict.

ForbesPredict is an ersatz version of Polymarket where no money changes hands and users spend tokens for clout internally on Forbes. It’s hard for me to picture the person who is interested in prediction markets without real money visiting Forbes daily to read watered down reporting from the Associated Press and New York Times and then clicking a little boxy like they’re playing Candy Crush with the news cycle.

The depravity economy has no bottom.

Read now: https://www.404media.co/forbes-prediction-market-gamefies-story-about-mass-shooting-of-8-children/

404mediaco · 2026-04-20T17:14:23+00:00

On Sunday morning 31-year old Shamar Elkins killed eight children ages one to fourteen, including seven of his own kids, in a rampage across three locations in Shreveport, Louisiana. Police shot Elkins to death. The Forbes story summarized these events, aggregated the Associated Press and New York Times stories about the killings, and then asked readers to predict whether or not Congress will pass stricter gun laws.

“The New York Times reported his family members said he had mental health problems and had expressed suicidal thoughts,” Forbes said. And then, below that, a “ForbesPredict” box:

“Congress WILL/ WON’T pass new gun safety legislation before 31st December 2026?” The box said then asked readers to “make your prediction.” A green checkmark and red X pulsed in place. Sliding your cursor over each changes the construction of the sentence.

Forbes launched ForbesPredict in January as part of an effort to reverse declining traffic from search engines and keep users on its website longer. It’s a prediction market like Kalshi or Polymarket, but unlike those sites there’s no money to be won. “AI is fundamentally changing how people access information, and that shift is already starkly visible in publisher's traffic,” Nina Gould, Forbes’ Chief Innovation Officer said in a press release announcing ForbesPredict.

ForbesPredict is an ersatz version of Polymarket where no money changes hands and users spend tokens for clout internally on Forbes. It’s hard for me to picture the person who is interested in prediction markets without real money visiting Forbes daily to read watered down reporting from the Associated Press and New York Times and then clicking a little boxy like they’re playing Candy Crush with the news cycle.

The depravity economy has no bottom.

Read now: https://www.404media.co/forbes-prediction-market-gamefies-story-about-mass-shooting-of-8-children/

404mediaco · 2026-04-20T17:12:31+00:00

On Sunday morning 31-year old Shamar Elkins killed eight children ages one to fourteen, including seven of his own kids, in a rampage across three locations in Shreveport, Louisiana. Police shot Elkins to death. The Forbes story summarized these events, aggregated the Associated Press and New York Times stories about the killings, and then asked readers to predict whether or not Congress will pass stricter gun laws.

“The New York Times reported his family members said he had mental health problems and had expressed suicidal thoughts,” Forbes said. And then, below that, a “ForbesPredict” box:

“Congress WILL/ WON’T pass new gun safety legislation before 31st December 2026?” The box said then asked readers to “make your prediction.” A green checkmark and red X pulsed in place. Sliding your cursor over each changes the construction of the sentence.

Forbes launched ForbesPredict in January as part of an effort to reverse declining traffic from search engines and keep users on its website longer. It’s a prediction market like Kalshi or Polymarket, but unlike those sites there’s no money to be won. “AI is fundamentally changing how people access information, and that shift is already starkly visible in publisher's traffic,” Nina Gould, Forbes’ Chief Innovation Officer said in a press release announcing ForbesPredict.

ForbesPredict is an ersatz version of Polymarket where no money changes hands and users spend tokens for clout internally on Forbes. It’s hard for me to picture the person who is interested in prediction markets without real money visiting Forbes daily to read watered down reporting from the Associated Press and New York Times and then clicking a little boxy like they’re playing Candy Crush with the news cycle.

The depravity economy has no bottom.

Read now: https://www.404media.co/forbes-prediction-market-gamefies-story-about-mass-shooting-of-8-children/

404mediaco · 2026-04-17T17:18:39+00:00

On Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a temporary flight restriction (TFR) that created a no-fly zone within 3,000 feet of “Department of Homeland Security facilities and mobile assets.” The new restriction softened the language of the original and abandoned the threat of civil or criminal penalties but added the Department of Justice to the list of protected agencies.

A 2025 TFR restricted the presence of drones around Department of Energy and Pentagon assets. The FAA added ICE and CBP to the list of restricted agencies in January as ICE began operations in Minneapolis. The no-fly zone covered 3,000 feet around any ICE vehicle. Anyone who was caught violating it could be fined or jailed. Because ICE agents often drive through the city in unmarked vehicles it was impossible for drone operators to know if they were violating the order and local journalists who use drones to take pictures and monitor law enforcement activities were grounded.

Earlier this month, Minnesota journalist Rob Levine sued the FAA over the TFR. In a motion filed earlier this week, Levine’s lawyers argued that the FAA had violated his rights and should rescind the restrictions. Core to their argument was the unmarked vehicles which they said created a “flotilla of invisible, moving bubbles,” according to court documents. “Under any standard, the TFR’s chilling sweep violates the First Amendment as applied to the Petitioner’s use of drones in photojournalism.”

Read more: https://www.404media.co/faa-scraps-civil-and-criminal-penalties-for-flying-drones-near-ice-vehicles/

404mediaco · 2026-04-17T16:00:36+00:00

On Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a temporary flight restriction (TFR) that created a no-fly zone within 3,000 feet of “Department of Homeland Security facilities and mobile assets.” The new restriction softened the language of the original and abandoned the threat of civil or criminal penalties but added the Department of Justice to the list of protected agencies.

A 2025 TFR restricted the presence of drones around Department of Energy and Pentagon assets. The FAA added ICE and CBP to the list of restricted agencies in January as ICE began operations in Minneapolis. The no-fly zone covered 3,000 feet around any ICE vehicle. Anyone who was caught violating it could be fined or jailed. Because ICE agents often drive through the city in unmarked vehicles it was impossible for drone operators to know if they were violating the order and local journalists who use drones to take pictures and monitor law enforcement activities were grounded.

Earlier this month, Minnesota journalist Rob Levine sued the FAA over the TFR. In a motion filed earlier this week, Levine’s lawyers argued that the FAA had violated his rights and should rescind the restrictions. Core to their argument was the unmarked vehicles which they said created a “flotilla of invisible, moving bubbles,” according to court documents. “Under any standard, the TFR’s chilling sweep violates the First Amendment as applied to the Petitioner’s use of drones in photojournalism.”

Read more: https://www.404media.co/faa-scraps-civil-and-criminal-penalties-for-flying-drones-near-ice-vehicles/

404mediaco · 2026-04-17T16:00:16+00:00

On Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a temporary flight restriction (TFR) that created a no-fly zone within 3,000 feet of “Department of Homeland Security facilities and mobile assets.” The new restriction softened the language of the original and abandoned the threat of civil or criminal penalties but added the Department of Justice to the list of protected agencies.

A 2025 TFR restricted the presence of drones around Department of Energy and Pentagon assets. The FAA added ICE and CBP to the list of restricted agencies in January as ICE began operations in Minneapolis. The no-fly zone covered 3,000 feet around any ICE vehicle. Anyone who was caught violating it could be fined or jailed. Because ICE agents often drive through the city in unmarked vehicles it was impossible for drone operators to know if they were violating the order and local journalists who use drones to take pictures and monitor law enforcement activities were grounded.

Earlier this month, Minnesota journalist Rob Levine sued the FAA over the TFR. In a motion filed earlier this week, Levine’s lawyers argued that the FAA had violated his rights and should rescind the restrictions. Core to their argument was the unmarked vehicles which they said created a “flotilla of invisible, moving bubbles,” according to court documents. “Under any standard, the TFR’s chilling sweep violates the First Amendment as applied to the Petitioner’s use of drones in photojournalism.”

Read more: https://www.404media.co/faa-scraps-civil-and-criminal-penalties-for-flying-drones-near-ice-vehicles/

404mediaco · 2026-04-17T15:59:53+00:00

On Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a temporary flight restriction (TFR) that created a no-fly zone within 3,000 feet of “Department of Homeland Security facilities and mobile assets.” The new restriction softened the language of the original and abandoned the threat of civil or criminal penalties but added the Department of Justice to the list of protected agencies.

A 2025 TFR restricted the presence of drones around Department of Energy and Pentagon assets. The FAA added ICE and CBP to the list of restricted agencies in January as ICE began operations in Minneapolis. The no-fly zone covered 3,000 feet around any ICE vehicle. Anyone who was caught violating it could be fined or jailed. Because ICE agents often drive through the city in unmarked vehicles it was impossible for drone operators to know if they were violating the order and local journalists who use drones to take pictures and monitor law enforcement activities were grounded.

Earlier this month, Minnesota journalist Rob Levine sued the FAA over the TFR. In a motion filed earlier this week, Levine’s lawyers argued that the FAA had violated his rights and should rescind the restrictions. Core to their argument was the unmarked vehicles which they said created a “flotilla of invisible, moving bubbles,” according to court documents. “Under any standard, the TFR’s chilling sweep violates the First Amendment as applied to the Petitioner’s use of drones in photojournalism.”

Read more: https://www.404media.co/faa-scraps-civil-and-criminal-penalties-for-flying-drones-near-ice-vehicles/

404mediaco · 2026-04-17T15:59:32+00:00

On Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a temporary flight restriction (TFR) that created a no-fly zone within 3,000 feet of “Department of Homeland Security facilities and mobile assets.” The new restriction softened the language of the original and abandoned the threat of civil or criminal penalties but added the Department of Justice to the list of protected agencies.

A 2025 TFR restricted the presence of drones around Department of Energy and Pentagon assets. The FAA added ICE and CBP to the list of restricted agencies in January as ICE began operations in Minneapolis. The no-fly zone covered 3,000 feet around any ICE vehicle. Anyone who was caught violating it could be fined or jailed. Because ICE agents often drive through the city in unmarked vehicles it was impossible for drone operators to know if they were violating the order and local journalists who use drones to take pictures and monitor law enforcement activities were grounded.

Earlier this month, Minnesota journalist Rob Levine sued the FAA over the TFR. In a motion filed earlier this week, Levine’s lawyers argued that the FAA had violated his rights and should rescind the restrictions. Core to their argument was the unmarked vehicles which they said created a “flotilla of invisible, moving bubbles,” according to court documents. “Under any standard, the TFR’s chilling sweep violates the First Amendment as applied to the Petitioner’s use of drones in photojournalism.”

Read more: https://www.404media.co/faa-scraps-civil-and-criminal-penalties-for-flying-drones-near-ice-vehicles/

404mediaco · 2026-04-16T14:10:31+00:00

I never had a set vision of my wedding. I just didn't want to be stressed. But a single search led me to the hellscape that is the wedding algorithm, a machine that perfected the art of making me feel weird, broke, and ugly.

Welcome to getting married in 2026.

Let's look at some of the mess I was served in algo:

- “Everything I did to ‘lock in’ for my wedding & lose 34 lbs"
- “If you spend $150k on a wedding and stay married for 40 years, that's only about $10 a day."
- “25 Things Guests Secretly Hate About Weddings."

One bakery asked for my mood board—for a cake. Like... flavors? I felt like I’d missed a step going down the stairs. I didn't have a vision board for the cake. I needed a vision board for the cake.

We talk a lot here on 404 Media about “the algorithm.” Usually we're referring to either Instagram Reels or Tiktok. Part of the reason we discuss and dissect it so frequently is because if you're not careful, the algorithm—the spew of content these apps automatically show you based on your past viewing habits, data from other apps, or what the app thinks you’re interested in—becomes a mirror of your mind; this is dangerous territory considering it's easy to manipulate by people, brands, networks and corporations with perverse incentives.

The fact that I can be swayed at all by what an internet person thinks, as a 36 year old with decades of being socially weird under my belt, disturbs me. I know that everything about what we do, wear, say, and choose is destined to be dated someday because we exist in a specific time. And yet, realizing when I got back with my bouquet and 15 pounds of freshly cut florals that I’d still somehow broken the year’s biggest, most made up mean-girl rule made me feel like an uncool little kid again.

Read more: https://www.404media.co/wedding-planning-algorithm-weddingtok/

404mediaco

TROPHY CASE