I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit

Post by wizzwizz4 » Thu, May 28, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

ozozozd wrote: post #708

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's vaguely disturbing that people "watch" films 10-12 hours a day. Many of them are using it as a radio, for background noise, without really caring what the program is beyond vague genre, tuning in and out without particular regard to the plot… and yet we have all the cost of transmitting high-resolution video point-to-point. Surely we could just put better stuff on the radio, and accomplish most of the same goals…

Who has the time to watch films 10-12 hours a day? I think the comment put forward that as an incorrect assumption that was made prior to the cable build-out.

Post by oblio » Thu, May 28, 2026, 1:05 PM UTC

unmole wrote: post #866

oblio wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the planned infrastructure commitments. At least for OpenAI I think they're supposed to spend $300+bn in the next few years.

I still don't understand why that means they need to make 5-10 trillion over the next 5 years.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 28, 2026, 1:10 PM UTC

kazga wrote: post #881

mold_aid wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, "workaday professionals will find $200/month a particularly good deal, such that there will be widespread adoption" sounds either credulous enough to support the diagnosis or dishonest enough to dismiss. I am a "knowledge worker" who is doin' fine, has a lot of templated written work/report writing, and there is no way in hell I am justifying that kind of spending to my boss or my family.

"I firmly believe this technology will create business value" is so obviously and categorically different from "Humanity has birthed a silicon god that I have also developed romantic feelings for" that I'm not sure if your comment is even trying to be in good faith

Post by tlongo » Thu, May 28, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #510

mbesto wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My core point is more that April 2026 was the point when Anthropic and OpenAI finally appeared to have figured out a credible business model. How so? What's specifically changed? We still don't know what their unit economics are and everything you've documented is basically speculation at this point.

> What's specifically changed? 1. Both Anthropic and OpenAI significantly increased the prices of their latest models. They're clearly not trying to offer the lowest-price-possible to drum up demand any more. 2. Both Anthropic and OpenAI no longer let enterprise companies buy discounted almost-all-you-can-eat subscriptions. Those big enterprises are now paying full API prices. 3. According to reasonably well-sourced…

Post by somewhereoutth » Thu, May 28, 2026, 1:43 PM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #606

somewhereoutth wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the huge discrete stepwise training spend is critical. Maybe investors will realise that "the only winning move is not to play". And so we are left with (as was) frontier models getting more and more out of date as whoever their post bankruptcy custodians are tries to eek pennies on the dollar for inference on their decaying property. Perhaps along with local and/or highly specialized models still feeding on the…

> frontier models getting more and more out of date Why are they getting out of date? Is it because we have new content from the internet that the older models did not have? Or are we simply trying to increase the size of the training data? In other words not more up-todate in terms of time the content was created vs. wanting to use bigger training-input-sets?