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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by whazor »

kkarpkkarp wrote: post #783

> I currently subscribe to the $100/month Max plan from Anthropic and the $100/month Pro plan from OpenAI. If you are a heavy user of coding agents these plans are a fantastic deal. Guys, what - in your opinion - does "heavy user" mean? I thought I am heavy user (I am using AI to code every day 8hr a day + side projects) but 20 USD/month Cursor plan is always enough. What should I be doing to extend my license to hig…

My agents are easily busy 30 min to a hour independently. Implementing their plan, building and running tests, verifying deployment, linting. So I switch between multiple agents. Each agent has its own branch and worktree.

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

#792

Post by upbeat_general »

IX-103 wrote: post #729
whatshisface wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are a few thoughts: - The publicly available information about how inference costs compare to training costs is conflicted. EEs involved in datacenters talk about power usage spikes during training runs as if they were a major factor in the designs, but academic papers discussing cost-optimal scaling confidently treat inference-time compute as a major factor. - On the side of the balance indicating that training…

I don't see how it would be possible for inference costs to dominate training costs, even after amortization. Training involves multiple passes over the entire training dataset, ideally in large batches where you can perform inference on as many samples as possible simultaneously and then perform backpropagation to adjust the model weights (which is about as expensive as inference). Let's consider the size of the dat…

This statement is well known to be incorrect for at least a year.

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

#793

Post by sothatsit »

brazukadev wrote: post #663
aspenmartin wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to parse the raw claims here maybe you can help me out - it’s a swindle because ROI of tokens for coding models is not positive? As in it doesn’t bring enough value to charge like the $100/mo? - enterprise customers are too dumb to see this - IPO to max out the CEO profits for what is ultimately blockchain vaporware Am I getting that right? Or am I putting words in your mouth? > it gives tons of people in the…

> Dario and Sam are saying “if you buy our coding agent subscription you can build a game with zero skill and one shot and then be rich”? They are saying profitable companies should replace the engineers that built their systems with a subscription (while they are hiring).

I don’t remember ever hearing Dario or Sam recommend replacing people. Rather they say that smaller groups of people can do more work, so hiring will slow because small teams can do more.

The only times when people talk about actual full replacement of people is always when they are talking about some “future AGI” that is far more capable than the tools we have today.

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

#794

Post by mock-possum »

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…

You can’t just redefine ‘AI Psychosis’ to mean ‘somebody whose opinion about ai I disagree with’

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

#795

Post by dgellow »

sowbug wrote: post #93
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…

There is also the EV (expected value) of developing AGI. Even if you personally believe the probability is low within the lifetime of either of these companies, the value would still be extraordinarily high, enough to forgive a $5T or so miscalculation here or there.

Only if running AGI makes economic sense. We actually have no idea if that’s the case. We don’t even have a definition for AGI

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

#796

Post by vfalbor2 »

He is talking about tokenization of different llm and comparing, and this is inacurate because you cannot compare if you dont how it tokenice the words, some tokenicer could be cheap with more tokens than other because of their features. Not agree with Simón speech.

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

#797

Post by mock-possum »

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…

Do you have a good source to refer to, to map out migration from Claude code to a cheap setup using small open source models like you’re describing? I’d certainly like to experience how good they’ve gotten.

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

#798

Post by karlkloss »

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…

"5% of every knowledge workers salary to go into tokens. 20% if you're a developer"

Not unreasonable. I'm a hardware developer, and my employer spends ~10% of my salary on software tools. Add hardware tools and their maintenance and it's more like 30%.

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

#799

Post by dgellow »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #315
mirekrusin wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now try to take back llms from developers and see what happens.

If, by some miracle, all LLMs ceased working right this second, any developer who would no longer be productive should not have been a developer in the first place.

You don’t need a miracle, if Anthropic API is down due to technical issues you don’t have software development anymore. It’s insane how much we are delegating to 3rd parties. It’s not like having cloudflare down where your users cannot access your services. The AI tools used to investigate prod issues stop working, developers stop working. The AI support system that allowed the company to get rid of their support team stops working. In addition to all the issues that causes to customer facing products based on AI. The sales team cannot work anymore.

It’s like the industry is willingly introducing a common external risk to everything

Post reply on HN