| ▲ | brookst 3 hours ago |
| 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 they had an unassailable monopoly and speedran to the lazy incumbent position, all in a matter of months. |
|
| ▲ | Art9681 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Aside from the fabricated drama and the trend chasing, OpenAI still has the best overall model and API service. Anthropic is really good, no doubt. But gpt-5.4 is a better model than even Opus, even if its a marginal advantage. I use both. |
|
| ▲ | neya 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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... |
| |
| ▲ | phinnaeus an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Why pick elixir specifically here? I’m using opus/sonnet via Claude code for a moderately complex personal project built on phoenix and have had a good experience | | |
| ▲ | neya a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | Claude is good, I'm definitely not saying it's bad. But if you work with LiveView, it will tend to choose more complexity over simplicity. Weirdly enough I have a feeling it's trained more on Python/Ruby (Object oriented paradigms) style code than functional code, so it tries to get things done not so functionally. | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, I've been building a fairly complex app with Claude and it has been great. Backend stack is a Go service, with TS front end and a solver running or-tools in Python. I do think I do a good job of being very structured at breaking down my requirements and acceptance criteria (thanks dual lives as a devops and SRE guy and then PM). Extensive unit testing, discipline in use of sessions and memories and asking it to think of questions it should be asking me before even formulating a plan. |
| |
| ▲ | ls612 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Claude Code is IMO the benchmark today. For all of the various contexts I’ve used it in it has mostly oneshot the tasks I’ve given it and is very user friendly for someone who is not a professional software engineer. To the extent it fails I can usually figure out quickly why and correct it at a high level. | | |
| ▲ | csharpminor 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think Codex is a better fit for professional software engineers. It's able to one-shot larger, more complex tasks than Claude and also does better context management which is really important in a large codebase. On the other hand, I think Claude is more friendly/readable and also still better at producing out-of-the-box nice looking frontend. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | morcutt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | tombert 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's why I changed as well. I got really irritated how Altman tried to get the social credit by having principles, only to change them the moment it was convenient. | |
| ▲ | palmotea 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. It should have become clear to all that he was an untrustworthy person when he was fired from OpenAI by its then-board. My understanding is their complaint was he was lying, untrustworthy, and manipulative; and enough stories came out at the time to confirm that. | |
| ▲ | jimbokun an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | taurath 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | We still think Amodei is honest and his hype recycling is not ultimately incredibly self serving? | |
| ▲ | bayarearefugee 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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.” I also appreciate his honesty, and don't really understand why the others don't emulate it because there's no cost to them to be honest. At every level of society we've decided to stick our heads in the sand and pretend like this very large tsunami isn't racing toward the coast, so as someone producing this technology you can be honest (and mostly ignored by people in denial), or be cagey and mistrusted (like Sam Altman). | | |
| ▲ | nostrebored 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Because it isn’t honest, it is investor hype that these frontier labs need people to believe despite obviously hitting the sublinear part of the improvement curve. “It’s so dangerous, we’ve reached AGI, we just have to release models that are obviously incapable of abstraction for your safety” |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tombert 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's clearly because they didn't hire me after I applied :) In all seriousness, I use Codex for work and Claude at home, and I feel like nowadays they're actually pretty competitive with each other. I don't know that it's that far behind. I agree that they clearly erroneously assumed that no one would be able to catch up with them, though. OpenAI had such a head start that that should have been by itself a moat. |
| |
| ▲ | phist_mcgee 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Does it matter that codex is now as good as claude code? Check dev spaces like twitter and discord and all anyone talks about is claude-code, openclaw, opus 4.6 etc. The mindshare went to anthropic. | | |
| ▲ | efromvt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just like OpenAI's original moat, I don't think that's particularly durable. I've already seen plenty of people swing back to preferring codex, and it'll probably swap again with the next model drop. Openclaw is potentially better integrated with ChatGPT at this point because of the explicit subscription support. | |
| ▲ | nickstinemates 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | that's why openai bought openclaw | | |
| ▲ | phist_mcgee 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean they hired the guy who created it. It's not exactly like openclaw is a real product. | | |
| ▲ | oofbey 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Also not like it’s a particularly good piece of tech. It was the first to show a new category. But jeebus the design and security are a nightmare. Any of the numerous other claws are better choices for anything serious. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hsuduebc2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yea. In my opinion the value provided for 20$ is better. I wonder how much of antropic value is the hype around claude code coming from every snake oil sales man promoting claude code as best to use with open claw to summarize your emails. | | |
| ▲ | jimbokun an hour ago | parent [-] | | Claude Code became the default brand for an AI coding harness, much like ChatGPT was synonymous with AI chat bot. Even now when I hear Codex I have to stop and think “oh yeah that’s OpenAI’s competitor to Claude Code.” | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | oezi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Coding assistants won't win this game. They sure will win the hearts of developers, but to scale you need mass adoption and products for which users want to pay substantially. OpenAI is falling behind in the small features in their chat and app offering and have failed to innovate in their expensive offerings. Codex btw is getting very competitive. It is fast and no longer far behind. |
| |
| ▲ | nayroclade 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The strategic playbook of the web era said: Get a huge userbase of normies, then figure out how to monetise them (usually via advertising). OpenAI stumbled into the userbase via ChatGPT, but it's unclear if the strategy or the economics apply to AI. Anthropic tried to compete in the consumer market, but couldn't, so focussed on coding and enterprise, and it looks like that's actually turning into a smart choice, at least right now, because it turns out people will pay subscription costs for agents that do their job for them. | | |
| ▲ | chromacity 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There are three possible paths that sort of substantiate current valuations: 1) Business: LLMs become essential to every company, and you become rich by selling the best enterprise tools to everyone. 2) Consumer: LLMs cannibalize search and a good chunk of the internet, so people end up interacting with your AI assistant instead of opening any websites. You start serving ads and take Google's lunch. 3) Superhuman AGI: you beat everyone else to the punch to build a life form superior to humans, this doesn't end up in a disaster, and you then steal underpants, ???, profit. Anthropic is clearly betting on #1. Google decided to beat everyone else to #2, and they can probably do it better and more cheaply than others because of their existing infra and the way they're plugged into people's digital lives. And OpenAI... I guess banked on #3 and this is perhaps looking less certain now? | |
| ▲ | phist_mcgee 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But will they pay the unsubsidized cost when anthropic needs to turn a profit? | | |
| ▲ | igtt 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And they actually can’t increase the price much. Token generation is the metric Jensen Huang keeps pushing to temper analysts, which also affect nvidia’s future expected cash flows of course. If increasing the price causes that metric to drop, the whole narrative falls apart and fear will spread in the stock market. They’re all racing very close to the edge. Some closer than others. |
|
| |
| ▲ | igtt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The reality is given how much OAI has raised, they have to get to a place where they are doing insane revenues… We’re talking on the level of meta, google and probably more if they keep raising money. They really went all in with hubris and they’re gonna get punished eventually. | |
| ▲ | 7e 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Agents increase the velocity of OpenAI and Anthropic; whomever has the best in-house agent moves the quickest. | | |
| ▲ | maxnevermind 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Any publicly available evidence to back that up? There have been post-exit blog posts from OpenAI employees on HN before and it did sound like the only black magic they use there is that many employees work 16 hrs a day during launch of new features. I know that some current Claude Code devs are doing interviews where they claim that they use Claude Code extensively but they clearly have a conflict of interest while they are still employed at Anthropic, so it would be like asking a barber if you need a haircut. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | xnx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Same thing happened to Blackberry. Tech head start wasn't that big and product wasn't that sticky. |
| |
| ▲ | jimbokun an hour ago | parent [-] | | iOS had an API and a platform. Is there any equivalent for turning an AI LLM into a sticky platform? Right now seems like it’s pretty easy to use harnesses and tooling across models, including open weight and locally running ones. |
|
|
| ▲ | oofbey 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Classic SV hubris. Talk to OpenAI people and they’re so convinced they’re untouchable, they don’t bother worrying about things like revenue, or product strategy. All they cared about was being the first to AGI. Well it looks like that isn’t happening soon enough. And now they have zero moat except brand recognition, which is quickly getting eroded. |
|
| ▲ | tqi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Despite what the folks here like to believe about themselves, I think the reality is we as attuned to what is in fashion and on trend as everyone else, just about different stuff. Last year it was Chatgpt, this year Claude is the new hotness. Things move so fast we barely have time to form our own opinion, so we fall back on what we read or hear from others. In 12 months who knows what it will be... Gemini? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Long term, my feeling is Anthropic's focus on enterprise is the most obviously lucrative but also least defensible application of LLMs. If (more likely when) open source models reach the point of being "good enough" then it's a race to the bottom on pricing. Maybe it will be like AWS vs GCP et al, but I kinda doubt it. |
|
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Investors do not care about the product, the users, etc. They care about cash. There are lots of ways to make cash that don't involve having a good product. But if you commit to spending a trillion dollars on hardware, then borrow hundreds of billions in the short term, and it turns out there's no way to recoup the cost, the investors go looking for better returns. This would've worked back in the old days of a bull market, angels looking for the next whale (with "modest" $5BN investments), and startups with no rivals. But in a bear market with multiple competitors trading on a commodity? Lol. Finally the bubble bursts. |
|
| ▲ | hmartin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What kind of OI slop is this? 5.4 Extra high >> Opus 4.6 |
| |
| ▲ | noosphr 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Depends on your work flow. I find that for human in the loop Gemini beats both. | | |
| ▲ | neya 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Been my experience as well, but generally the anti-Google sentiment here is pretty loud so you'll never see anyone praising Gemini here pretty much | | |
| ▲ | TheCowboy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Some of that, sure. But realistically, a lot people are just don't want to pay for every frontier model provider out there as they're released. Not just money, but also time trying them out. (Recommend people at least try out their multimodal model.) It doesn't help that Google offers a bunch of confusing plans in multiple places. I ended up just pasting all their AI plan URLs, at least that I could find, into Claude so I didn't have to figure it out. | |
| ▲ | zbrozek 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think Antigravity w/Gemini is a great product; it's been super useful on a bunch of my hobby projects. It's especially wonderful when writing firmware and needing to add support for a new chip. I can point it at a PDF datasheet and it'll do a much better job of reading it and parsing out all of the register fields than anything else. Saves me enormous amounts of time. | |
| ▲ | gabriel-uribe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is anti-Google sentiment still pretty loud? People seem excited about Gemini catching up + Gemma 4 |
|
|
|