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

OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 161 posts

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#101

Post by solid_fuel »

igtt wrote: post #15
hgoel wrote: post #12

I wonder how much of this is associated with Scam Altman's personal negative PR and Anthropic's recent PR wins. I'm inclined to think there isn't much of an association becauss investors don't seem very concerned with morality, but I know ~dozen developers that either switched to, or started using Claude in the past month or so, while not knowing anyone that uses Codex.

The issue is investors want discipline. They want to see the CEO communicate a path to profitability. Anthropic has - purely by focusing. OAI in contrast is all over the place and they haven’t shown they’ve learned. Zuckerberg got punished for his metaverse nonsense and investors were correct to be skeptical and reflect that in the stock price. Altman thinks he’s a god and the rules don’t apply to him. More fool him.

> Zuckerberg got punished

I think it's hard to grasp just how much money he poured into this folly. $80 Billion. For an idea that any random person on the street could have torn apart. He read Ready Player 1 and decided that was what the future should be. Then he tried to make it. He ruined the Oculus brand and stole all the oxygen from other VR development just to make a lesser copy of our own world, but one where he could be admin.

Seattle just opened a new transit line, spanning from downtown Seattle to Bellevue. It's 33 miles long and cost $3.7 billion. It was already carrying 2 million people per year [0] even before the entire line was finished and on the opening day after completion it reached 200,000 riders.

Further from home, the entirety of the Artemis II program cost $93 billion [1] and lists an estimated $4 billion per launch.

One last example - the panama canal would cost an estimated $50 - $75 billion if you built it today. [2] The panama canal reshaped trade routes and the global economy.

Where is Meta's moon landing? Where is their impact? Zuckerberg spent enough money to build a new transit system for an entire city. Enough money to land astronauts on the moon. Enough to connect oceans together. He poured this money down a hole chasing his own vanity and a vision of the future that no one wanted.

How, after all that, did he get punished? He's still CEO. "Meta" is still overvalued. They're still regarded as a serious tech company.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Line_(Sound_Transit)

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/artemis-2-cost-explaine...

[2] https://www.mikegravel.org/how-much-would-the-panama-canal-c...

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#102

Post by satvikpendem »

igtt wrote: post #15
hgoel wrote: post #12

I wonder how much of this is associated with Scam Altman's personal negative PR and Anthropic's recent PR wins. I'm inclined to think there isn't much of an association becauss investors don't seem very concerned with morality, but I know ~dozen developers that either switched to, or started using Claude in the past month or so, while not knowing anyone that uses Codex.

The issue is investors want discipline. They want to see the CEO communicate a path to profitability. Anthropic has - purely by focusing. OAI in contrast is all over the place and they haven’t shown they’ve learned. Zuckerberg got punished for his metaverse nonsense and investors were correct to be skeptical and reflect that in the stock price. Altman thinks he’s a god and the rules don’t apply to him. More fool him.

How did Zuckerberg get punished? The stock is way up since he started on it.

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#103

Post by sifar »

jimbokun wrote: post #60
morcutt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam lost the plot for me. He took too many interviews which led me to not trust him. Last straw came with him standing by Anthropic one day then throwing them under the bus the next. He showed little awareness on why that is problematic.

I have appreciated Amodei’s brutal honesty about their intentions. On podcasts his attitude is basically “oh yeah all of you are basically fucked our products will take everyone’s jobs in a couple years.” Altman is a lot more coy and comes across as saying what’s politically expedient at any given point in time.

Upton Sinclair[1] has something relevant for Amodei.

Funnily enough, the same thing can be used against those who criticize his view on AI. I wonder if there is a word for this.

[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#104

Post by bob1029 »

yalogin wrote: post #35

Anthropic is not meaningfully better. Their stance is “the good guys have to make money to be in the fight with the bad guys” and so they do all the things their perceived bad guys do. I don’t know how they can do any different, but we just trust them to be good? What is the difference?

If you look at the engineering, technology, operations, etc., this isn't really a fair fight. I think that's why Anthropic puts so much effort into the other narratives.

OAI can play the empire / Death Star angle and get away with it. They've actually got a scary battlestation and anyone interested in capitalizing on the galaxy is going to be drawn to the most powerful laser system in the fleet.

I don't have a problem with the non-engineering arguments, but I don't buy that one is more ethical than the other. All of these people are total maniacs. Not just Sam and Elon.

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#105

Post by Gud »

Google “does Anthropic make a profit” and you will get endless responses about how they’re “earning revenue”. It’s a pretty obvious tactic.

What’s interesting is that they’re both still losing money on their models and are essentially giving away compute for free, although lossy.

They’ve bought up computing power and are now renting it back to the rest of us, with a decent HMI, while subsidising us to use it.

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#106

Post by heeton »

neya wrote: post #29
brookst wrote: post #3

I don’t know how OpenAI screwed this up. They had the best tech, the largest installed base, the best brand recognition. And somehow instead of prosecuting the lead in all areas, they got all hubristic and sloppy and just failed to iterate on the core product, while also failing to respond quickly when Anthropic showed that coding agents are the flywheel that makes the whole company faster. It’s like they thought the…

Anecdotally, I would actually argue tbe opposite - Anthropic is overrated, ass-kissed way too much here for mediocre coding abilities (especially for Elixir). ChatGPT most of the time one-shots complex solutions in comparison. The only reason why people shit on OpenAI so much is because of the defence deal, but, it's not like Anthropic is a saint either: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/12/anthropic-gives-20-million-t...

Anecdotally, Claude has worked far better for our elixir team than the others we’ve tried.

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#107

Post by lofaszvanitt »

majormajor wrote: post #4

> The large gap between OpenAI’s $852-billion valuation and Anthropic’s $380 billion has investors rushing to grab equity in the latter before it rises, according to Augment co-founder Adam Crawley. Interesting, so there are a lot of people still eager to invest in valuations of well greater than a-quarter-trillion, but OpenAI's latest raise has sucked up all the oxygen for enthusiasm of that valuation going even hig…

These dumb models are just making people hooked on the thing. What you think they building all those datacenters, hm? When the real deal comes, all the zombies would want their even better cocaine intravenously at whatever exorbitant price.

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#108

Post by tatrions »

bhadass wrote: post #88
ramraj07 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advantage is marginal and sporadic, and its slower. Why would I use it over anthropic?

I dunno, my experience mirrors the parent posters: we use opus for all our coding, but gpt 5.4 for all of our enterprise agentic work via api (much bigger amount of tokens). it just seems to be more optimized for this.

[flagged]

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#109

Post by neya »

gabriel-uribe wrote: post #96
neya wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in most threads you will see anyone recommending Gemini be downvoted. Ironically, Gemini (with Workspace subscription) is the only model that explicitly states it doesn't use your inputs to train their models right under the chat box. AFAIK no other provider does that explicitly - usually there is a hidden toggle in settings you will need to turn off.

TIL. That's cool. I mostly use Gemini 3 Flash for some background jobs because of the price/perf, but rooting for their models to improve. Competition is good.

The catch: If you don't pay any subscriptions to Google, they will use your data for training their models. Agreed on competition being good.

Re: OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

#110

Post by dgellow »

neya wrote: post #29
brookst wrote: post #3

I don’t know how OpenAI screwed this up. They had the best tech, the largest installed base, the best brand recognition. And somehow instead of prosecuting the lead in all areas, they got all hubristic and sloppy and just failed to iterate on the core product, while also failing to respond quickly when Anthropic showed that coding agents are the flywheel that makes the whole company faster. It’s like they thought the…

Anecdotally, I would actually argue tbe opposite - Anthropic is overrated, ass-kissed way too much here for mediocre coding abilities (especially for Elixir). ChatGPT most of the time one-shots complex solutions in comparison. The only reason why people shit on OpenAI so much is because of the defence deal, but, it's not like Anthropic is a saint either: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/12/anthropic-gives-20-million-t...

> it's not like Anthropic is a saint either:

I’m so confused. Your link shows they are pushing for guardrails, what is bad about that? It is consistent with Anthropic safety-first principles, and what Dario wrote and talked about for the past decade or so? Could you be more direct with your criticism? Otherwise it’s hard to engage with

Post reply on HN