Large language model providers are compute constrained, and their universal response to congestion is to degrade service: route queries to smaller models, cut reasoning effort, truncate context. The industry's accounting says this saves money. We show the accounting is wrong, because it prices a query when the customer buys an answer. A degraded answer fails with some probability, and a failed answer either returns as a retry, inflating arrivals when the system is most loaded, or departs as churn, destroying lifetime value on a ledger no cost dashboard displays. We model inference allocation with three classical primitives: 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 queue whose arrival rate is made endogenous by retries. Statically, there is a nonempty, measurable regime in which a cheaper model saves energy per satisfied answer while consuming strictly more capacity per satisfied answer, so the discount inverts exactly 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, class by class, and whose dual, the shadow price of intelligence, prices a marginal query by class and by hour; closed-form trajectories make it computable in milliseconds. Stochastic analysis sharpens rather than erodes the thesis: the ignition boundary acquires a predicted width, and noise punishes the reactive policy that parks the system against it. Under congestion, throttling is not a cost lever but a demand lever.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized AI services, but a critical tension emerges: while personalization improves model performance, it consumes scarce computational resources that users must share. When should a user invest in expensive Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) versus lightweight In-Context Learning (ICL)? How does congestion from other users' personalization choices reshape these incentives? And what strategies should platforms adopt when offering multiple personalization algorithms? We develop a tractable framework for LLM serving that captures the statistical-economic trade-offs users face. Our analysis yields several surprising insights. First, we show that ICL and SFT dominate in different regimes, determined by an interplay between pretraining coverage and data signal-to-noise ratios, but congestion can flip these rankings. Second, equilibrium resource consumption exhibits pronounced non-monotonicity: improving pretraining precision reduces the congestion, while broader pretraining coverage and harder tasks sometimes increase it. Third, we prove that offering both personalization methods never hurts the platform's maximal profits, despite potentially increasing computational load. Experiments with GPT-2 on linear regression tasks validate our theoretical predictions about algorithm performance. Complementing these results, our review of documentation from 21 major AI platforms shows that the share offering both SFT and ICL increased from 9.5% in 2021 to 71.4% in 2025, consistent with our platform-design implications.