Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#111

Post by thefounder »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #25
fraywing wrote: post #2

What happens if OpenAI collapses at this point? Is it just too big to fail given defense contracts and Microsoft? The Sora sunsetting marked a big shift towards enterprise focus and meeting Anthropic on the enterprise battlefield, but almost all engineers I work with or know are using Claude at this point exclusively. Anyone seeing differently?

Claude Code definitely has a head start, but there have been a few HN posts about a perceived nerfing of the intelligence and settings in the past month or so. Codex could capitalize on that weakness. They just introduced a $100 monthly 5x plan so they are at parity with the Claude Code plans. If Anthropic fiddles too much more with the settings then people will start to switch to Codex.

Codex is just better than Claude but Claude is faster and has the better UI for vscode. That’s why I use Claude as main coder with codex(5.4 with xhigh effort) as mcp reviewer etc. It is clear to me that codex is a better programmer but the UI and speed are too much of a con to use it exclusively. Claude is just clumsy

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#112

Post by operatingthetan »

gradus_ad wrote: post #8

Claude Code is extremely easy to set up and use. I suspect its saturation among software professionals is at the majority of the addressable market. What if there are no other killer apps for Enterprise? Only CC will produce the level of token churn that could drive huge profits for model providers. The Enterprise market is not as substantial as the rapid success of CC makes seem.

Us devs have shiny object syndrome. We will use whatever we perceive to be be best at the moment and move on. People are already souring on Opus 4.6 due to what appears to be opaque changes to it by Anthropic. For any of these companies to be successful they need to get to a point where their models stop growing and compute gets multiples cheaper.

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#113

Post by prescriptivist »

mandevil wrote: post #48
matchagaucho wrote: post #29

As someone working in the enterprise space with OAI, this still feels like we're in the top of the first inning. Many teams remain anchored on equating AI with chat experiences, while a growing share of enterprise value is emerging from leasing compute clusters to run agentic workloads in containerized environments. OpenAI has built a cloud-first architecture that supports this model. The desktop experience and appli…

I know that people keep saying "we're early on here", but I take it as a negative signal that people keep thinking we are in the early innings here. Compared to previous generations of technology change, a great deal of time has passed, it should be a bit disconcerting that no one seems to have found a way to make money out of this yet. Look at previous killer apps- they came out quickly and were raking in money very…

Comparing the IPO market today to the IPO market in the late 90s is not very instructive. You could have IPO'd a lemonade stand in 1998 and raised $10 million.

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#114

Post by echelon »

margalabargala wrote: post #99
dyauspitr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, how is this possible? Is this all Veo 3? How are they getting such fantastic continuity across clips?

They aren't one shotting these.

You would be surprised.

Some shots are indeed impossible to one shot, but others can serendipitously turn out better than you wanted.

I'd say it averages 2.5 generations per shot. A lot of single one off one shots, and some (few) shots that just won't work no matter how hard you prompt.

That said, it's likely you'll find usable footage even in the losses. Videos are meant to be cut. A failed generation might still have salvageable contents you can cut to/from.

Editors are the super powered folks in AI video.

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#115

Post by hattmall »

nopinsight wrote: post #59
dagamer34 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think The Verge said it the best. Taking advantage of these tools to the maximum requires you to have "software brain" which the average person does not have. They struggle to set up a simple automation in their smart home platform of choice. There is little reason to believe they will take the leap to use such tools to simplify daily tasks because it requires people to think about which daily tasks can be simplifi…

I don't think 'software brain' is required for non-coding tasks. Rather, it requires 'manager brain', the ability to delegate, direct, and review the output. Manager brain is more prevalent than software brain and likely learnable by many knowledge workers who don't yet have it.

You also need the brain of not giving up after 2/3/10 tries. I don't know what the exact numbers are but if something doesn't work properly after the second or third try a huge percentage of people give up.

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#116

Post by leonidasv »

the__alchemist wrote: post #11
fraywing wrote: post #2

What happens if OpenAI collapses at this point? Is it just too big to fail given defense contracts and Microsoft? The Sora sunsetting marked a big shift towards enterprise focus and meeting Anthropic on the enterprise battlefield, but almost all engineers I work with or know are using Claude at this point exclusively. Anyone seeing differently?

> Anyone seeing differently? There have been a stream of HN posts (I'm noticed this mainly in the past few weeks) implying some people prefer ChatGPT/Codex to Claude. Anecdotally, Claude on the $20/month plan can only run 1-3 queries per 4 hours before rate limiting, often stopping in the middle of a query. ChatGPT/Codex doesn't have this problem.

My 2 cents: Claude is more expensive, but it has something that Codex/GPT lacks that's not easy to quantify. Opus is probably a bigger model (my guess) and trained on code and technical writing (books?) of better qualify compared to GPT.

HOWEVER, it has a flaw that makes some people prefer Codex: out of the box, it's lazy: https://x.com/i/status/2044126543287300248

However, once you learn how to deal with the laziness (which can be dealt with some CLAUDE.md instructions and context docs), Claude shows a better taste for coding. It replicates patterns from the repo, writes more readable/maintainable code, follows instructions, captures implicit information.

GPT/Codex is not a bad model/agent, but it lacks something. It's amazing for code reviews, but it writes code with zero regard to your existing codebase or SOLID/DRY principles. It just likes to output code (a lot of it) that works for the task you gave it right now, with zero regard for maintenance later. And also over-uses defensive programming in a way that quickly makes the codebase unreadable for dynamic languages.

Claude is not perfect, I still have to steer it sometimes to prevent overengineering or duplicate code, but a lot less than when I try Codex (and the built-in /simplify does half of the work for me).

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#117

Post by bostik »

groceryheist wrote: post #40
gradus_ad wrote: post #8

Claude Code is extremely easy to set up and use. I suspect its saturation among software professionals is at the majority of the addressable market. What if there are no other killer apps for Enterprise? Only CC will produce the level of token churn that could drive huge profits for model providers. The Enterprise market is not as substantial as the rapid success of CC makes seem.

Claude Code is rare product that is both beneficial and economically addictive, where its use increases demand for itself, at least in the supply / demand range for code we are accustomed to. It makes making software so much easier that Claude coding custom software becomes a solution to all sorts of past annoyances. Maintaining the software is easy enough thanks to Claude code.

I have now witnessed first hand what the unexpected benefits might be. I expected CC to be a boon to overburdened teams, because it's now possible to spend $2 on compute and have it write a mostly-one-off tool that nobody would ever otherwise have the capacity or time for.

Sure, that's happening too, but to a lesser degree than I thought. CC with a number of "enterprise integrations" (really: corporate MCPs) is a pretty hefty force-multiplier for operations teams. "Go summarise and dissect this weird client request for me. Documentation is spread across at least $THESE_ENTERPRISE_DATA_SILOES." Saves a bunch of time pinging the different people across continents who happen to know intimate details. That was not entirely unexpected.

It's the technically minded but not necessarily otherwise technical people who keep surprising me in weird and wacky ways. People are building themselves and their immediate peers disposable dashboards. Who needs a service to pull data for a real-time display when CC can collect the necessary information and construct a local, static HTML file with all the info neatly in one place? I'm sure there will be a hangover because the compute cost for doing these in JIT fashion will surely feel like death by a thousand cuts at some point, but the ability to really quickly validate whether certain types of data aggregations are useful is proving to be ... a positive development.

I disagree about the ease of maintaining the software, though. You still need the skills to really understand what the code is doing, and with the original "why" possibly lost in the adrenaline haze, the maintenance effort floor has shifted.

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#118

Post by hattmall »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #66
nopinsight wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think 'software brain' is required for non-coding tasks. Rather, it requires 'manager brain', the ability to delegate, direct, and review the output. Manager brain is more prevalent than software brain and likely learnable by many knowledge workers who don't yet have it.

You have to recognize that it's a problem to delegate in the first place. One example I love to trot out is, do you have any toilet seats in your life that kinda slide around bit and don't seem securely attached? It's absolutely trivial to fix this, and it's really annoying when it happens, yet with shocking frequency I encounter people who've just been dealing with the annoyance because they didn't process it as som…

It's not that easy to fix, and it can be kinda gross, and once it happens once, it tends to happen again in fairly short order. I'm someone that's fixed those loose seats countless times, and continues to do so, but the gap between me noticing it and fixing it is consistently growing.

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#119

Post by prescriptivist »

matchagaucho wrote: post #110
mandevil wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that people keep saying "we're early on here", but I take it as a negative signal that people keep thinking we are in the early innings here. Compared to previous generations of technology change, a great deal of time has passed, it should be a bit disconcerting that no one seems to have found a way to make money out of this yet. Look at previous killer apps- they came out quickly and were raking in money very…

"previous killer apps" - exactly. That's the point. Everyone is anchored in AI as being the next desktop app. It's not. We're only using 1% of what these models will ultimately do when they're running 24/7 as utilities serving new economic models. There just isn't enough compute right now to realize the larger monetization strategies.

On top of that, the APIs/Tools/Function Calls into the real world don't exist yet. But consumer products are going to start eventually exposing functionality to these LLMs. By that time, I wonder if we'll all have an edge-inference box sitting in every one of our houses that we buy from a consumer products company like Apple or from Amazon, or directly from OpenAI or Anthropic. These little brains will be the low latency central nervous system of a lot of things in our homes, and gateways to the larger models in the cloud. Or at least that's how I imagine it sorting out in the future.

Re: OpenAI's $852B valuation faces investor scrutiny amid strategy shift, FT reports

#120

Post by Ekaros »

grtteee wrote: post #56
mandevil wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that people keep saying "we're early on here", but I take it as a negative signal that people keep thinking we are in the early innings here. Compared to previous generations of technology change, a great deal of time has passed, it should be a bit disconcerting that no one seems to have found a way to make money out of this yet. Look at previous killer apps- they came out quickly and were raking in money very…

Most people don’t want to accept and believe that the only viable revenue stream is selling tokens in relation to software development. All the other stuff is nice… but you will continue to be money losing and eventually die. Now you can’t come out and say this because there’s a whole bunch of investments that depend on hype - think about the robotics nonsense.

There is some revenue in copywriting, translation and generating images. But that is probably 20 per month per seat enterprise plans with limited use. With the possible cost of interface varying enough to have actual marginal costs...
Post reply on HN