HackerPapers

arXiv:2608.23986math.OC

The Shadow Price of Intelligence: Quality Degradation in LLM Inference as a Supply Chain Problem

Elioth Sanabria

HN submission. Found in a submission link or body. Submitters do not count as commenters in the main ranking; a submission is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Large language model providers are compute constrained, and a common response to congestion is to degrade service. A degraded answer fails with some probability, and a failed answer either returns as a retry or departs as churn, destroying LTV on an unaccounted ledger. We model inference allocation as a newsvendor whose stockout cost is churned lifetime value, a geometric retry multiplier in which the recycled product is dissatisfaction, and a two-regime transient fluid queue whose arrival rate is made endogenous by retries. Statically, there is a regime in which a cheaper model saves energy per initiated task while consuming strictly more capacity per initiated task, so the discount inverts when capacity binds. Dynamically, a reactive throttle fired during a surge can cross an ignition threshold beyond which it manufactures more traffic than it sheds, and a release rule set below the degraded equilibrium converts a transient surge into a permanent degraded regime. With heterogeneous customers, throttling is a transportation problem in retry-inflated load whose optimal policy rations intelligence by critical ratio, and whose dual, the shadow price of intelligence, prices a marginal query by class and by hour. Under congestion, throttling is not a cost lever but a demand lever.

arXiv comments
28 pages, 12 figures. Numerical instances calibrated to public benchmark data for five LLM providers
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
math.OCOptimization and Control cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.PFPerformance

On Hacker News

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Found in 3 HN submissions from Aug 2026 to Sep 2026. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments0 threads

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Open submission discussions.

Submitted to Hacker News

  • Show HN: I built a tool showing how AI providers (should) throttle their models

    OP here: this project was born out of the frustration/paranoia that AI providers are throttling their models when their server load is too high. So, I set out to model and study the problem mathematically to understand what was happening, what I found was quite surprising. The idea seems natural: as the data center demand increases momentarily through the day, throttling their models (either using quantized versions, reducing the context window or lowering the tier of the model to a smaller…

  • Show HN: I built a tool showing how AI providers (should) throttle their models

    OP here: this project was born out of the frustration/paranoia that AI providers are throttling their models when their server load is too high. So, I set out to model and study the problem mathematically to understand what was happening, what I found was quite surprising. The idea seems natural: as the data center demand increases momentarily through the day, throttling their models (either using a quantized version, reducing the context window or lowering the tier of the model to a smaller…

  • Show HN: Throttling AI models under load can backfire and increase demand (SIM)

    OP here: TL-DR: When AI providers silently swap weaker models under high demand, this can cause even more demand as users tend to re-ask. This is even worse for agents. Both of these effects cause even higher load on the data centers. I guess all of us have felt when the models "don't feel quite the same", so this could explain part of it. I modeled this as a fleet scheduling problem using Queueing Theory and Dynamic Programming over a finite horizon. The standard practice of throttling once…

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.