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

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by IAmGraydon »

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…

The only way I see it working out for them is if some legislation is passed that eliminates the competition by making it illegal to run local models. They could claim that the models are dangerous and could be weaponized without oversight, or something along those lines.

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

#392

Post by hansmayer »

supern0va wrote: post #328
duped wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies/users are filled with liars and grifters, so any numbers/outlook they report should be highly suspect.

I must admit that I am going to find it fascinating when we hit the point where it becomes nearly impossible to deny the efficacy of these tools. I have straight up had people, even in real life, suggest that I'm lying about my productivity gains or what I'm able to accomplish with them. Like, I understand the reasonable arguments against (I even agree with a few), but it's clear that some people have fully inserted…

In the meanwhile, Google AI search still says the next year after 2026 will be 2028.

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

#393

Post by PeterStuer »

doug_durham wrote: post #356
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…

Open source models that you can run locally are much more than 3 to 6 months behind. 6 months was the November inflection for Claude. No open source model is as good as Claude Opus 4.6.

Many business tasks do not need the latest frontier models. I have a production system running since early GPT-4o. It now runs with GPT-5.2, not for improvements, but because it is cheaper. I could invest in switching to a local model, I tried and it works well enough, but api costs for this task are so low, it barely scratches $30/month. So I am using the local machine for other things and leave the inference on OpenAI, for now.

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

#394

Post by pier25 »

supern0va wrote: post #310
hansmayer wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their CEO claims a lot of wild shit. He claimed in January this year, that in about 2-3 weeks from this moment, i.e. "in 6 months" that AI will be doing all of SWE work. Lets hold these people accountable for a change!

I work in big tech and probably 90% of code over the last month has been written by AI. And I suspect it's probably higher within Anthropic, which is probably what he's basing his opinion on. So, he's closer to correct than not. That said, your recollection is also flawed. It was in mid-March, and here's the relevant quotes: >I think we’ll be there in three to six months—where AI is writing 90 percent of the code. An…

> And I suspect it's probably higher within Anthropic

That probably explains why their uptime and reliability are so bad.

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

#395

Post by kilroy123 »

Danox wrote: post #355
kilroy123 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That site needs Apple on the list. ;-)

Why? All their money is going to Apple Silicon and the five ecosystems, so far in Apples entire history, the largest acquisition has only been $3 billion dollars, OpenAI is currently getting nothing and they gave Google a measly $1 billion refund per year for the use of Gemini. If John Ternus wants to spend some money, spend it on bringing memory in house. Apple has the money and the engineering talent to do so, have…

That's the point. To show how they _haven't_ lost billions on this.

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

#396

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

freakynit wrote: post #106
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're talking about a world where you need 5% of every knowledge workers salary to go into tokens. They are assuming ~10% global GDP growth instead of ~3%. You probably don't need the same %s if the pie grows a ton. I'm highly skeptical we get that growth, but if you aren't, it makes it easier to digest.

I mean this case with AI-productivity fires itself back when we talk about GDP. The more AI causes productivity increases, the less and less number of workers will be needed. This will heat up the job market even more and bring salaries down. Net effect of this productivity increase: less consumption by the masses, even though you may be producing more good and much more efficiently. A third effect also comes into pl…

> The more AI causes productivity increases, the less and less number of workers will be needed.

Why does this have to be the case with AI but it didn't have to be (and wasn't) the case with the steam engine, electricity, the automobile, or the computer & internet?

Certainly, AI could be different.

It's curious to me why the vast majority of people on here think it must be different.

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

#397

Post by flexagoon »

amilios wrote: post #300
slopinthebag wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do more planning yourself, be smart about the context, break down tasks into smaller components, give it more guidance. You can't just lazily prompt it to complete large features autonomously and expect good results.

But if the closed-source models can do this without the additional effort, that's a significant gap, no?

Is it really when they are hundreds of times more expensive?

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

#398

Post by binary0010 »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #183
binary0010 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried the large open source code models? I use glm-5.1 and occasionally deep seek v4. They are as good or better than Claude's latest models. And significantly cheaper. I've converted 3 of my engineer friends as well. All three have dropped their $200 month plans they had with anthropic. We've all been a bit shocked at just how good these models are now. If you "have" tried GLM (I specifically find it shocki…

What is the best IDE UI to use them? I don’t like CLIs.

Personally I'm happy with opencode right now

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

#399

Post by enraged_camel »

hansmayer wrote: post #375
jonas21 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it strange? The "exceeds $5B" quote was from December 2025. Anthropic has seen tremendous growth since then, ever since Claude Code with Opus 4.5 got really good at coding. If you've ever been at a startup, this is exactly what it looks like when you go from not having product-market fit to having it (though with a few extra zeros on the end compared to most).

Ah yes, December 2025...such a long, long time ago...

Your comment is not a serious one. Their revenue has quadrupled in just a few months. So yes, December 2025 is a long time ago now.

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

#400

Post by PunchyHamster »

alexpotato wrote: post #377
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…

I was in college in the late 1990s/early 2000s and I distinctly remember an econometrics professor state the following: "As cable TV and Pay Per View came out, there were studies done about how many movies people would watch if given unlimited access to films. The results were bandied about as proof that we should build out all this infrastructure to support this line of business. When the data was further analyzed b…

> - EVERYONE is going to be using max tokens

anthropic already hunts down OpenClaw users for using too much on their plan.

I'll give different example: When LED lights started to be more popular, the power usage didn't drop by the amount of power saved

>- tokens will NEVER get cheaper due to improvements in hardware, software, design, market forces etc etc

Well, first, improvements in computing stalled or even rolled back just purely because price of everything compute shot up cos of AI and that will NOT be fixed for a while and ESPECIALLY if AI usage will continue to increase

Second, the token per model might go down in time but better models have more expensive tokens, so we quickly get into spot when:

* price increase in token might not be worth marginal improvement next, better model brings

* more and more models are passing "good enough for the task" threshold so for less and less companies there is any economic sense to pay for the "best" instead of paying deepseek or some other company to run "previous gen" models

Post reply on HN