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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by mintplant »

vidarh wrote: post #888
plaidfuji wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be additional major leaps forward, and there may not. I kind of struggle to imagine what the next step actually is. Certainly there will be improvements in performance (speed) and cost. But at a point you reach a barrier where the limiting factor is the specificity of the human prompt and our ability to manage all the code we’re generating. Somewhat oversimplifying; writing software and building apps was a…

I am currently eating lunch. Meanwhile Claude is triaging and writing reproducers for 70+ tickets nobody has had time to look at. Next it will attempt to fix them. I have not read the tickets. I will not look at the code until there are review ready PRs and a code review bot have done the first pass. In other words, most of the prompting will also go away.

Are you not concerned that you, too, will go away?

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

#943

Post by j45 »

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's a lot more things that are going to be built that weren't built before as well.

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

#944

Post by Alex-Programs »

cainxinth wrote: post #295
tariky wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried almost all OS models on opencode, none of them is on levels as opus 4.7. In latest experiment I used opus for implementation plan then used cursor composer 2.5 for execution. I must say that combo is really good. Main drawback of claude code is that is super slow. So when paired with composer that is super fast it flies.

No one is claiming that OS is as good. They are saying it isn't that far behind SOTA commercial products. So why pay exorbitantly just to get something only a few percent better than the free option? But there have been very good open source office apps for decades and few enterprises use them, so perhaps this is just the nature of B2B purchasing committees and 'nobody getting fired for buying IBM.'

Because failures compound. My productivity has substantially improved since I switched from open models to a Codex subscription, because it doesn't need hand holding, and it doesn't pull stupid tricks occasionally.

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

#945

Post by empath75 »

overgard wrote: post #482

Anthropic isn't actually profitable from what I'm reading, a discount briefly pushed them into the black. This guy makes the case well: https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle... I'm skeptical that their current price raise is sufficient, and I'm also skeptical that most users/businesses will accept more significant price raises that will be needed. Especially for individual users, $200 a month i…

If you're an investor in Anthropic you probably _don't want them_ to be profitable right now. They should be spending literally 100% of their money and then some on training and compute.

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

#946

Post by implexa_founder »

CachedaCodes wrote: post #3

Ai has become indispensable but maybe not at all cost. My company just had a company-wide meeting to talk about how they're restricting who can use which models and instructing us the "be more responsible with company's tokens". And it's not an small company by any means.

[dead]

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

#947

Post by Npovview »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #489
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a tiny little company ($150MM annual rev with 9% net) and we are already looking at dropping $100k on hardware to run local models because, for us, they're "good enough." Our estimated spend for AIaaS would exceed that cost in less than a year. In a few years, there will be hardware capable of running frontier models good enough for most things at accessible prices for even tiny companies.

I get the impression the hive mind hasn't come to terms with the point that a model is optimised for certain tasks. It's like having someone ask you "is that a good hammer?". Good for what? There are claw hammers, sledgehammers, ball-peen hammers, club hammers, mallets, .... Yes, in a pinch, they can all bang in nails, but you wouldn't choose a dead blow hammer for that if you had a choice. The Gemini Flash is very g…

Yes exactly, we will have specialized models soon. These will be trained with plugin architecture with a core reasoning model asking plugin models to do stuff on its behalf. I don't need chinese or russian knowledge in my workflow.

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

#948

Post by pydry »

noddingham wrote: post #920
MichaelDickens wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being pedantic, but I don't want to lose the meaning of the term: "AI psychosis" doesn't refer to someone who thinks AI is really good. It refers to someone who develops symptoms of psychosis from talking to an LLM, e.g. believing they have developed a new Grand Unified Theory of physics.

Fair and I would edit if I still had time. How about "AI brain fry"?

It's definitely a form of psychosis - contact with reality has been lost in both cases.

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

#949

Post by bmau5 »

aerhardt wrote: post #132

I find this analysis confusing. PMF for coding was likely reached some time last year. Profitability, which is different, we don’t know. The article kind of confuses both without making a strong economic case or using numbers in a compelling way. I don’t understand what the Uber case has to do with this either. The Uber COO clearly said that at least in terms of ROI he’s not seeing the results either. My take is the…

PMF implies profitability. I could give away dollars for $0.80 and have unlimited demand but it doesn't mean I've found PMF.

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

#950

Post by nchie »

simonw wrote: post #650
bradleyjg wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a _huge_ shift. Most people I know cite +20%-40% velocity with these tools, against the actual work their company cares about doing. We all have our own observations and mine don’t significantly diverge. But that’s bottom up. At this point shouldn’t we be seeing it top down? If we are beyond potential and into significant productivity gains, why isn’t that showing up for the customers? Why didn’t delta airli…

> Why didn’t delta airlines get significantly more operationally efficient in the last 3 months due to the introduction of better software? The coding agents got good in November. Most individual engineers didn't fully clock this until January/February. This means that companies didn't really figure it out until March/April. Assuming companies like Delta have adopted coding agents (which would be pretty fast) it stil…

>The coding agents got good in November.

Maybe irrelevant to your point, but I'd argue they were really good already in May if one used the right workflow (planning etc.). They've become better, but they're not saving me significantly more time now than they did 12 months ago.

Post reply on HN