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

I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#541

Post by _pdp_ »

doug_durham wrote: post #374
binary0010 wrote: post #12

So how do openai and anthropic plan to keep customers when GLM-5.1 is just as good and open source and a lot cheaper? I don't see the business model working. My closest friend actually does automation software for large companies. He does not use Claude or openai at all. He primarily uses gpt 120b on cerebras and glm-5.1 for heavy thinking work. And some other small models for various tasks. All open source. And thes…

GLM-5.1 isn't just as good. It is no match for Opus running in Claude Code. Please try it yourself. Open source models are about a year behind at least.

A year behind is still very very very good at this price. ;)

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#542

Post by girvo »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #386
mv4 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I configured a dual DGX Spark cluster, and it's certainly "good enough" for my agentic and coding needs.

what models are you using on that? My experiences with apple hardware have convinced me that it is not really good enough for coding locally.

DeepSeek v4 Flash, various quantised versions of Kimi K2.6, MiniMax 2.7, Qwen 3.5 “full sized, with a dual spark setup you can fit some decent setups on here

My single spark has me running Qwen 3.6 27B and antirez’s specially quantised DeepSeek v4 Flash (which is shockingly impressive)

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#543

Post by delis-thumbs-7e »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #472
j-bos wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't it wonderful that they did?

It's vaguely disturbing that people "watch" films 10-12 hours a day. Many of them are using it as a radio, for background noise, without really caring what the program is beyond vague genre, tuning in and out without particular regard to the plot… and yet we have all the cost of transmitting high-resolution video point-to-point. Surely we could just put better stuff on the radio, and accomplish most of the same goals…

Radio has not gone anywhere you know? There is of course podcasts, but for instance Radio France has amazing music services like FIP: https://www.radiofrance.fr/fip

Then there’s NTS, BBC… Ypu can listen to them from online service, but at least in Europe there’s amazing national FM broadcastimg services.

TV is just bad radio with flickerimg lights.

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#544

Post by jimbokun »

aspenmartin wrote: post #199
seanp2k2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The bottleneck has moved from producing a thing that works to knowing that the thing was the right thing to build I would argue that that's been the case for quite some time before AI. As an example, what innovative amazing world-changing products have Google or Meta launched in the past decade with their very high numbers of very talented and highly-compensated engineers? The issue with most big tech companies are…

I don't know, if you've ever tried to build something at companies of that scale you run into incredibly boring problems "what data table do I need for X" and "who is the right person to reach out to for Y" and "they aren't answering me I guess I'll have to escalate" I don't think there is any shortage of great ideas at these companies, they are just extremely bloated. And I don't think its something like indecision…

Legal approvals won’t be in that category.

You still want someone whose ass is on the line if they get it wrong.

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#545

Post by odyssey7 »

bambax wrote: post #417
simonw wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've written a great deal of code - code that would have taken me years of work to produce without LLMs. (It's mostly open source, you're welcome to dig around in https://github.com/simonw and https://github.com/datasette if you like.) My time as an experienced software engineer is worth a lot of money - a whole lot more than $12,000 for the past six months.

> code that would have taken me years of work to produce without LLMs As you might suspect, this is what I have an issue with. Without LLMs, isn't it possible or even likely that that code wouldn't have been written at all, and wouldn't have been missed? If LLMs are mostly used to produce throwaway prototypes then it's a stretch to say that's money well spent. If indeed it let you advance your main product much faste…

I’m watching to see what happens to big enterprise software contracts. Why pay some vendor $800k annually for something a couple mid-level devs can replace—-and tailor closely to your needs——by leveraging AI.

Open source software changed the world. AI that will cheaply write whatever you want in a few days will also change the world.

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#546

Post by yokoprime »

simonw wrote: post #533
noddingham wrote: post #530

I feel like there's a bit of AI psychosis in this particular post. >"These are tools which burn vastly more tokens, but are also quickly becoming daily drivers for the work carried out by extremely well-compensated professionals." >"Somehow this fragment turned into headlines like Uber’s COO says it’s getting harder to justify the money spent on AI tokenmaxxing, because the market for stories about AI failures remain…

What's the psychosis?

Sometimes it feels like theres this opposite AI psychosis, where anything AI is bad and boils the ocean, takes our jobs and makes RAM expensive. Its a component in the current economy, but things like tariffs, closing the strait of hormuz etc is equally bad for the economy. Anyway, just find it strange to be so militantly anti a certain tech.

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#547

Post by sourcecodeplz »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #476
sourcecodeplz wrote: post #6

With deepseek and xiaomi mimo models slashing their prices 99%, I don't see a great future for openai / antrhopic with regards to their 1T valuations. Maybe 1T valuation will be the whole market, West + East.

Most of the corporate world in the EU or North America will be hesitant to rely on Chinese AI providers. There are some very real blockers for that for things like data security, compliance, etc. And recent geopolitics don't help. Legalities aside, you need to look not at the model quality but at the infrastructure needed to scale these models from tens (now) to hundreds (soon) of millions of users. Only a handful of…

Deepseek and all the other Chinese models have open-weights. You can host them yourself, no need to send data to China or rely on them.

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#548

Post by Wowfunhappy »

trjordan wrote: post #11

They've got, ballpark, $5t to $10t to make back in the next 5 years, or the hardware buildouts will start getting written down. This means we're going to need $1t+ per year in spending, per year, on tokens. 200m knowledge workers in the world, 30m developers. We're talking about a world where you need 5% of every knowledge workers salary to go into tokens. 20% if you're a developer. That's a _huge_ shift. Most people…

...does anyone have a guess as to the total amount of money spent on software developer salaries each year? What percentage of that would the AI companies need to capture to be profitable?

(I'm not trying to imply that LLMs can replace software engineers, it's just an interesting comparison. If nothing else, I suspect that if the cost of development goes down, demand for custom software will go up.)

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#549

Post by aenis »

The end game here is going back from a model where a bunch of product and tech management people sit in the U.S. or Europe, and try to manage thousands of mediocre talent sitting somewhere far away. The new model is you give those coding tools to good engineers colocated with your product people, and you ship good stuff much faster. If you can achieve such a setup, the token costs can be $50k per seat per month and you still run circles around the legacy IT models in terms of efficiency. Giving everyone the API keys and not changing the way products are managed is not going to work.

Re: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

#550

Post by yfw »

svara wrote: post #382
simplyluke wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's the part that just seems to be wildly under-discussed to me. If open source models are ~3-6 months behind SOTA, and ~opus4.6 capabilities are good-enough for product market fit, do the frontier labs have half a decade to catch up on their prior burn? AI cost ballooning faster than companies can afford is becoming a very common topic in my circles right now. The era of "I'll pay infinitely more for margin…

There's still a lot of room for the best models to get better at coding . Your argument rests on the "for marginal gains" part but it's really not clear that the gains are marginal in the foreseeable future.

What? The gains between gpt4->5 seems to be marginal. No phd level discoveries here
Post reply on HN