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

Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

qazinform.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 512 posts

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#411

Post by bloggie »

amazingamazing wrote: post #10

I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing. I see meet ups specifically about Claude often. Modern tupperware party. A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. Couldn’t tell. Edit: i…

Steam and other game stores are pretty much the same but Steam is more popular because every one of their competitors has decided to continually shoot themselves in the foot over and over.

Even if Claude and ChatGPT were exactly the same, Claude would be more popular because OpenAI has decided to make some very unpopular moves and try to make money where popularity isn't required. At the moment that popularity still seems to matter.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#412

Post by kaydub »

Aurornis wrote: post #172
amazingamazing wrote: post #10

I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing. I see meet ups specifically about Claude often. Modern tupperware party. A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. Couldn’t tell. Edit: i…

> We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. > Couldn’t tell. Why would you expect them to be able to recognize the signature of a model from a pair of PRs? I don’t understand why you think this is a useful test for anything when we have numerous benchmarks that run 100s of tests on model…

I just don't believe non-deterministic tools can actually be benchmarked. It's all hoopla to me.

I flip between models all the time. Makes little difference. Sometimes one model is faster or better than another but there's no rhyme or reason why.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#413

Post by jrnichols »

amazingamazing wrote: post #10

I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing. I see meet ups specifically about Claude often. Modern tupperware party. A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. Couldn’t tell. Edit: i…

The funny thing about Tupperware is that some of us have their products from many many years ago and they still work great.

I think we've had the same iced tea pitcher since I was 5 years old, for example. Solid.

Will we be able to say the same thing about Claude?

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#414

Post by dilyevsky »

mlsu wrote: post #177
afavour wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're overestimating the extent to which individual developers have a choice here. My employer signed up for a Claude Code membership, I use Claude Code. I cannot use Codex. Anecdotally I hear of folks with workplace Claude Code subscriptions all the time. I'm not sure I've ever heard someone talk about their workplace Codex subscription. Anthropic clearly did a far better job chasing corporate customers while OpenA…

I think the marketing campaign came first. Anthropic captured developer mindshare first, then they brought it to their companies.

I started using Claude web with sonnet over chatgpt before any of the coding tools came out and noticed other founders were using it too and the reason was pretty simple - it was much less likely to hallucinate non existing APIs than ChatGPT

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#415

Post by drawnwren »

kaydub wrote: post #412
Aurornis wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. > Couldn’t tell. Why would you expect them to be able to recognize the signature of a model from a pair of PRs? I don’t understand why you think this is a useful test for anything when we have numerous benchmarks that run 100s of tests on model…

I just don't believe non-deterministic tools can actually be benchmarked. It's all hoopla to me. I flip between models all the time. Makes little difference. Sometimes one model is faster or better than another but there's no rhyme or reason why.

All tools are non-deterministic on some reasonably specified input set.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#416

Post by vunderba »

thefounder wrote: post #407
vunderba wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, OP is conflating so many things that the comparison has all the scientific rigor of the Pepsi Challenge. For a developer using an LLM on a daily basis, the experience is about much more than just the resultant code. There’s everything from: - how often you had to manually steer the model - how frequently you needed to course-correct - how much detail you had to provide up front - how was the interaction process…

the answer is : I usually let it do its thing with bypass permission and I run the max plan so nothing really matters except the "result". I think Claude is faster and has better UX integration with vscode but I wouldn't use it without GPT 5.5 XHigh as reviewer.Claude is just sloppy. Eventually I think it will not matter much in 1 -2 years. Most AI models will be good enough for most tasks so you may need the best of…

I've actually settled on a very similar workflow - I mostly use Claude 4.6[1M] with adaptive reasoning disabled on High/Max for implementation, and then I'll do some combination of manual review in conjunction with GPT 5.5 xhigh.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#417

Post by ethbr1 »

amazingamazing wrote: post #288
Erem wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world saw Anthropic take a possibly company-killing risk wrt weaponizing their AI, and are rewarding them for holding to their values, for now at least. It’s not like anyone owes Sam Altman their business just bc their product has become slightly, perhaps temporarily, better

Both companies don't mind weaponization. The difference is whether it should only be domestic. Both are ok with foreigners being bombed.

Do you have a citation for that?

Because the Anthropic's presentation of their position doesn't have a domestic or foreign caveat to autonomous weapons. It's a categorical no.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#418

Post by AlienRobot »

mountainriver wrote: post #259
cmiles8 wrote: post #176

Sam Altman appears to represent a significant liability for OpenAI’s success from this point forward. A big portion of the driver for Anthropic’s meteoric rise over the last six months appears to be folks recognizing “it’s that AI startup not run by Sam Altman.” Anthropic has amazing tech, but its biggest asset at the moment seems to be that “it’s not OpenAI.” Not saying that’s right or wrong, but it’s clearly a fact…

I don’t know that most people care at all or even know about this. ChatGPT still far and away has the largest consumer market and brand recognition. What Anthropic has done exceedingly well is work their way into corporations. I have personally seen massive uptake over the last 6 months of regular people in corporations using Claude cowork. They are all genuinely amazed by what it can do for them. OpenAI wants to be…

My short experience with Claude and ChatGPT via web is that:

1. the way GPT writes is simply fundamentally annoying. I pretty much had to create a project with a file that said "do not use headings, lists or emojis" to make it bearable. It feels like, as a product, this sort of thing should be a general preference the user sets before they even start talking to a chatbot.

2. Claude just loves wasting tokens doing things nobody asked for. You ask "how do I calculate the distance between 2 points?" and it's probably going to compile some C code in the background with tests to make sure it works, then generate an interactive diagram on the fly to show how the math works, and then give you a downloadable file with the code. Like, dude, I just want some text. Why are you doing all of this?

Both of these problems come from the obvious lack of any UI controls in the software. there is no way for the user to know what sorts of things the software can do, because it's not exposed via UI as a checkbox like "generate interactive diagram" or "avoid using emojis." Discoverability is burning tokens to figure out what prompts work, or looking at example prompts the developer placed in the welcome screen.

I just feel it's completely ridiculous how LLM's are essentially the culmination of a trajectory of bad UI practices masquerading as "good UX" and now they're being implemented everywhere because people think it's good UX a blank textbox where you don't even know what you're supposed to type to do something.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#419

Post by nmilo »

golly_ned wrote: post #326
orphea wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Amodei is different?

Amodei is convinced he's abraham prefiguring AI's christ. Very different than Altman's cold power-seeking. You can always trust someone who's selfish, since they'll always do whatever's in their benefit at all times.

Is that better? I'd much rather have someone trying to build a good product to sell to willing buyers at a fair price than some zealot who thinks he's going to usher in the second coming and end the world or something.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#420

Post by mpyne »

kaydub wrote: post #412
Aurornis wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. > Couldn’t tell. Why would you expect them to be able to recognize the signature of a model from a pair of PRs? I don’t understand why you think this is a useful test for anything when we have numerous benchmarks that run 100s of tests on model…

I just don't believe non-deterministic tools can actually be benchmarked. It's all hoopla to me. I flip between models all the time. Makes little difference. Sometimes one model is faster or better than another but there's no rhyme or reason why.

> I just don't believe non-deterministic tools can actually be benchmarked. It's all hoopla to me.

We benchmark non-deterministic things all the time and it's frankly not even that unusual or hard. You yourself indicate that one model outperforms another one in your experience on various facets, and that is itself a benchmark.

The more relevant question is probably how well does a given benchmark translate to improvement on a specific desired outcome or task. The military uses the ASVAB testing battery to benchmark potential new recruits for suitability in various career specialties, but the actual outcome the benchmark is meant to correlate with is later success in the training pipeline.

So every so often the various military branches have to do and compare ASVAB results against training results and make sure that they still have a predictive relationship.

And this is benchmarking real flesh-and-blood human beings where you get on the order of magnitude of a million data points or so per year. You can benchmark AIs much more efficiently than that, as non-deterministic as they are, and as long as the benchmark itself is reasonably predictive of outcome it's going to be useful information.

Post reply on HN