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

Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

emergingtrajectories.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 349 posts

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#11

Post by kgwgk »

bko wrote: post #5

I think the risk is overstated. For one, on the margin people are willing to pay a lot for slightly better models. I know personally the value the LLM adds to my workflow is considerably more than the $200/m I pay the frontier labs. I have no interest in optimizing that to get it slightly lower. There are a very vocal minority that optimizes this or companies whose LLM expense is marginal, but I think that's the mino…

> a huge value is the […] Codex harness. There are open source implementations

Like Codex https://github.com/openai/codex

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#12

Post by esperent »

bko wrote: post #5

I think the risk is overstated. For one, on the margin people are willing to pay a lot for slightly better models. I know personally the value the LLM adds to my workflow is considerably more than the $200/m I pay the frontier labs. I have no interest in optimizing that to get it slightly lower. There are a very vocal minority that optimizes this or companies whose LLM expense is marginal, but I think that's the mino…

> considerably more than the $200/m I pay the frontier labs.

This is a very rich / developed country privilege perspective.

Where I live, it's not unusual for a monthly wage to be around $200. Of course developer wages are much higher, maybe as much as $1000 a month, but $200 is still a huge chunk of that so it doesn't really matter how much "value" you get out of it if you're no longer able to pay rent or buy decent food.

Even in developed countries, $200 a month is out of reach for all kinds of people who would benefit from it (students without rich families, entrepreneurs, etc.).

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#13

Post by energy123 »

m_ke wrote: post #3

Anthropic will get squeezed by open models for 80% of the use cases that don't require frontier capabilities and by vertical specific labs for the high value tasks that would (bio, finance, math, etc.), where smaller use case specific models will beat them on cost and speed while matching or exceeding the performance of their largest general models. Even their hail mary of being first to "AGI" will never happen becau…

None of my use cases require frontier capabilities but I still pay $200/month to a frontier lab. I value the additional time saved at more than $200/month. If I had to pay actual API rates, then I'm not sure what I would do, but it would not be an easy decision.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#14

Post by overgard »

I keep thinking about the Figma thing. If you're unaware, here's the google summary:

----

The Board Departure: Mike Krieger, Anthropic’s CPO and a co-founder of Instagram, sat on Figma’s board of directors. He resigned on April 14, just days before news of Claude Design broke. This sparked speculation over conflict of interest and the use of proprietary product strategy information.

Betrayal of Partnership: The launch aggravated the tech industry because Figma relied on Anthropic's models to power its own AI features, and even announced a joint "Code to Canvas" integration. Reports indicate Figma was blindsided by the depth and scope of Claude Design.

Market Reaction: The "SaaSpocalypse" thesis—fears that major AI foundation models will rapidly build application layers and cannibalize their own SaaS partners—was realized when the news broke. Figma’s stock saw an immediate 7% drop upon the announcement.

----

I would suggest to people using LLMs: you should be cautious about giving these companies data or relying on them. If you're building an AI startup, there's a very good chance they could decide to directly compete with you if your idea has traction. You're also at their mercy for API pricing etc.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#15

Post by cmrdporcupine »

uncivilized wrote: post #6
bko wrote: post #5

I think the risk is overstated. For one, on the margin people are willing to pay a lot for slightly better models. I know personally the value the LLM adds to my workflow is considerably more than the $200/m I pay the frontier labs. I have no interest in optimizing that to get it slightly lower. There are a very vocal minority that optimizes this or companies whose LLM expense is marginal, but I think that's the mino…

What is your workflow such that frontier models increases productivity considerably?

For people cranking out SaaS / web services / web pages / "full stack" work I don't see a huge difference.

If you're building an optimizing compiler, a CUDA kernel, a database, a high performance concurrent data structure with tricky locking, etc. etc. it's still not really close. Sol 5.6 on high just slays e.g. GLM 5.2 for this kind of work for me.

I'm sure K3 is fine for these things too, but I can't afford it at its API rates compared to a Codex coding plan.

For now.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#16

Post by georgemcbay »

drob518 wrote: post #2

> More importantly, as sustainable long-term businesses, model-only providers are particularly at risk. Knowledge Atlas, Moonshot Labs, and Anthropic face defensibility challenges versus OpenAI, Alibaba, SpaceX, Meta, and Google. Hm. How is OpenAI not a “model-only” provider just like Anthropic? Seems like they are vulnerable in the same way.

The article does address what they see as the difference ("its investments in product, consumer experience, site publishing, voice, and hardware are all directions that have clearer moats")

That said I think it is pretty easy to make a case that these would-be differentiators are either currently underwhelming or completely unproven (as in the case of hardware).

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#17

Post by InsideOutSanta »

bko wrote: post #5

I think the risk is overstated. For one, on the margin people are willing to pay a lot for slightly better models. I know personally the value the LLM adds to my workflow is considerably more than the $200/m I pay the frontier labs. I have no interest in optimizing that to get it slightly lower. There are a very vocal minority that optimizes this or companies whose LLM expense is marginal, but I think that's the mino…

> on the margin people are willing to pay a lot for slightly better models

That margin is getting smaller and smaller. I would have been with you a week ago; paying for Fable was worth it compared to all other models. But with K3, the difference has shrunk to the point where, for me, it's not worth the cost anymore.

In other words, it may be worth paying five times as much to get 10% better real-world outcomes for a lot of people, but a lot fewer people will pay five times as much to get 2% better outcomes.

> a huge value is the Claude Code / Codex harness

For me, it's the opposite. Having to use Claude Code instead of the harness I prefer is a point against Anthropic, not for it.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#18

Post by intrasight »

overgard wrote: post #14

I keep thinking about the Figma thing. If you're unaware, here's the google summary: ---- The Board Departure: Mike Krieger, Anthropic’s CPO and a co-founder of Instagram, sat on Figma’s board of directors. He resigned on April 14, just days before news of Claude Design broke. This sparked speculation over conflict of interest and the use of proprietary product strategy information. Betrayal of Partnership: The launc…

Then run your own fine tuned models for your AI startup.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#19

Post by osti »

behnamoh wrote: post #9

Nope, I'll still buy Claude because the overall XP is better than Kimi and Qwen who literally copied basic harnesses to make kimi-cli and qwen-cli, respectively. Also, you can tell if a model is genuinely powerful and well-thought-out vs a model that acts like it. It's like Apple vs Xiaomi/Huawei. Sure, you can get a Huawei with bells and whistles, but most people learnt the hard way that those companies just copy th…

Lol yet I've used Apple and Android phones extensively and would choose Android every single time.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#20

Post by m_ke »

energy123 wrote: post #13
m_ke wrote: post #3

Anthropic will get squeezed by open models for 80% of the use cases that don't require frontier capabilities and by vertical specific labs for the high value tasks that would (bio, finance, math, etc.), where smaller use case specific models will beat them on cost and speed while matching or exceeding the performance of their largest general models. Even their hail mary of being first to "AGI" will never happen becau…

None of my use cases require frontier capabilities but I still pay $200/month to a frontier lab. I value the additional time saved at more than $200/month. If I had to pay actual API rates, then I'm not sure what I would do, but it would not be an easy decision.

Sure, but anthropic is charging businesses based on usage now and tried hard to pull Fable from the consumer subscriptions before Sol and K3 dropped.

Even now on the $200 plan I use up my Fable credits in a single day and had to start using codex and openrouter for more usage because Fable burns $100s an hour when billed on usage.

Post reply on HN