Why usage patterns surprise teams.

Teams often assume AI scales like infrastructure.

More users. More requests. More cost.

That intuition breaks down quickly.

Compute Scales With Load

Traditional compute scales with demand.

Requests per second. Concurrent users. CPU utilization.

You can model that. You can predict it. You can cap it.

AI does not behave that way.

Infrastructure costs are relatively predictable. You know how much a server costs per hour. You can estimate how many requests a service handles per second. You can project cost based on expected traffic growth.

If traffic doubles, cost roughly doubles. If you add autoscaling, cost tracks with actual load. If you optimize code, cost goes down proportionally. The relationship between usage and cost is linear and understandable.

This makes budgeting straightforward. You look at last month’s traffic. You apply a growth multiplier. You adjust for planned optimizations. You get a reasonable estimate.

AI Scales With Curiosity

AI usage scales with human behavior, not system load.

People experiment. They retry. They ask follow-up questions. They paste more context. They explore.

One user can generate more cost than one hundred API calls.

That surprises teams the first time they see it.

AI costs are driven by token consumption, not request count. A single user asking one complex question with a large context window can cost more than a thousand simple API calls.

Usage patterns are non-linear. Early adopters experiment heavily. They try different prompts. They refine their questions. They paste entire files for analysis. Each iteration costs money, but only one of them might produce useful output.

One power user can dominate costs. Someone who discovers a particularly useful workflow might run dozens of AI queries per day. Someone debugging a complex issue might feed the AI thousands of lines of code repeatedly until they find the answer.

This behavior is hard to predict. Traditional metrics like monthly active users or requests per second do not correlate well with AI cost. You might have flat user growth but spiking costs because users are asking more complex questions or providing more context.

Variance Is the Real Problem

AI usage is spiky.

One long prompt can cost more than dozens of short ones. One power user can distort the entire cost curve. One workflow change can double spend overnight.

This makes budgeting feel unstable even when traffic is flat.

We saw this firsthand. Our costs were stable for weeks, then suddenly tripled in a single day. Investigation showed that one engineer had automated a workflow that sent large code files to an AI API for analysis. They ran it hundreds of times while debugging an issue.

Another spike happened when a team discovered a useful documentation generation workflow. They started using AI to generate API docs from code. Each run processed large files and generated lengthy outputs. What was previously a manual, infrequent task became automated and frequent.

These spikes were not malicious or wasteful. They were legitimate use cases where AI provided value. But they were unpredictable. We had no way to forecast them based on traditional usage metrics.

The variance also makes it hard to attribute costs. With infrastructure, you can trace a spike to a specific service or deployment. With AI, spikes often come from individual users or ephemeral workflows that are hard to track after the fact.

Guardrails Beat Forecasts

We stopped trying to predict AI cost perfectly.

Instead, we focused on:

  • usage caps
  • quotas
  • visibility
  • feedback loops

We treated AI like an expensive shared resource, not like elastic compute.

That mindset change mattered.

We implemented per-user quotas. Each engineer gets a monthly token budget. They can see their usage in real time. When they approach the limit, they get a notification. This creates natural feedback and encourages thoughtful usage.

We also capped total team spend. If the team hits the monthly budget, AI features become read-only until the next month or until a manager approves additional budget. This prevents runaway costs without requiring constant monitoring.

Visibility improved behavior more than any policy. We built a dashboard showing top users, most expensive queries, and usage trends. When engineers saw that their workflow was consuming a disproportionate share of the budget, they often optimized it voluntarily.

We also created feedback loops. After hitting a quota, engineers could request more budget by explaining the use case. This gave us visibility into high-value workflows and helped us adjust defaults over time.

Final Thought

AI does not scale like servers. It scales like people.

If you budget it like infrastructure, it will surprise you. If you manage it like behavior, it becomes predictable enough.

Related reading: