| ▲ | adi2907 3 hours ago |
| Once OpenAI and Anthropic are public, every such announcement will become a reliable sell signal |
|
| ▲ | gr_norm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Agree, I don't necessarily see a strong argument favoring OpenAI or Anthropic here. In the interest of perspective, can anyone (perhaps playing devil's advocate) give one? The open models are now good enough for what I want to do with them, let alone any future improvements. And factoring in efficiency gains, a model in the ~70b range starting to satisfy my needs would completely obviate the need to pay others for inference. This does not seem far-fetched to me, comparing with where open models were at this time last year. What am I missing? |
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Hardware and electrical costs including power usage and electric wiring/outlet costs of such machine. Unless you are spending more than a max subscription (200 a month+) its cheaper to use the cloud. But things are priced cheaper in the cloud now to lock you in and restrictions around hosted models are getting worse. If you only have a $300 dollar laptop its probably not worth the upgrade. I'm personally excited by local AI but the experience for the average isn't the same. I'm willing to get .5/s running on 10-15 years old machines but what I can do with it is limited. | |
| ▲ | nimchimpsky 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | twelve40 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | coding on a laptop is only one use case you can't create a new drug by running a model on a laptop. You can't serve a customer support bot running on a laptop. You can't generate video in bulk for many users on a laptop. So there is still a case for paying others for inference. Does it justify the valuations? No idea, but some major use cases are still there. That's why they are rushing to implement, OpenAI creating a "deployment company", Anthropic having some pharma rumors, etc. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Surely all those use cases can be done right now without a closed model? I think GP was asking specifically about the use case for closed models. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ycui7 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can they still go public ? MiniMax M3 Pro is also coming, then DeepSeek-v4-Pro GA, then GLM5.5. There will only be bad news for them in the coming few weeks/months. |
| |
|
| ▲ | int32_64 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not so simple, if such a headline can get them closer to the regulatory capture they want to lock in American businesses and forbid them from using Chinese AI. |
| |
| ▲ | OtomotO an hour ago | parent [-] | | But the US are the country of freedom! That's what Hollywood has been telling me my entire life! |
|
|
| ▲ | MangoCoffee 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| US AI labs really rub me the wrong way, especially with the doom and scare tactics they use. Both Altman and Dario keep talking about how AI will replace workers and how we should regulate LLMs for national security, Dario’s main point. LLMs are useful. We can all see that in agentic coding. But replacing everyone’s job? Hardly. And what’s with the scare tactic of trying to get the US government to ban foreign models? LLMs are useful, and dare I say they’re on par with the internet. Making them cheaper and affordable is good for everyone. The fear mongering from Anthropic and OpenAI looks like an attempt to corner the US market into using only US models so they can keep the profits, especially since China has proven that LLMs are a commodity. US AI labs should work on making LLMs cheaper or better harness. Altman and Dario are not trustworthy. |
| |
| ▲ | EMIRELADERO 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You are right to feel that way about the frontier labs, especially Anthropic. From https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ > "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone." | | |
| ▲ | usef- 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be fair, we're simultaneously mocking anthropic for believing in safety so much and also for them thinking they're the only ones that care enough about it. It's true that no one else seems to care as much. Judging by reactions from everyone, all their safety talk is very bad PR. | | |
| ▲ | red_green_yell an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The criticism isn't that they believe in safety too much. It's that they patently using safety as a red herring with the actual goal of regulating away competition that they know the cannot beat. | | |
| ▲ | usef- an hour ago | parent [-] | | The people involved have been talking about safety long before they had any users or a company. "Concrete Problems in AI Safety" by Dario and another founder was published 2016, anthropic was founded 2021. Among a bunch of other examples, including other founders. If safety is seen as a joke now, it was really seen as a joke back then. The reason they keep shooting themselves in the foot with bad PR is because they truly believe in risks. (so far they're also the only ones that have had their models banned, during a rare time they had a clear lead, and the only ones frustrating users with high safety controls. I can't see how this is maximising market position) |
| |
| ▲ | t43562 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What they believe now or care about is fundamentally not very relevant: allowing them a monopoly would be a big mistake. Google was supposed to do no evil and it probably started that way but nothing guarantees the future other than having alternatives. | |
| ▲ | nullsanity 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | usef- 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If there are genuine society risks in a tech I don't want to discourage CEOs from talking about them. I feel like we've spent decades talking about how evil chemical companies (etc.) were about covering up issues in the 20th century. But yes, that's different to being a reason to ban external models. | |
| ▲ | dmix 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sam drank the "superintelligence" kool aid early on and said 30-40% of jobs could be impacted by AI, but recently admitted he was wrong > “My scorecard, at the highest level, would be we’ve been roughly right on technological predictions and pretty wrong on the social and economic implications” https://www.cxtoday.com/ai-automation-in-cx/sam-altman-softe... I agree re: Dario quietly pushing for government control. He also said LLMs would replace a lot of entry-level information jobs, doubling the unemployment rate from 4-5% to 10%. Yale did a study recently showing little impact on employment in high-AI exposed jobs https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/ai-probably-not-yet-reas... | | |
| ▲ | conception 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I imagine it will be a long tail. Most companies won’t fire people for AI but probably won’t immediately replace a person that leaves, if at all. | | | |
| ▲ | twelve40 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | but this crap may take forever to play out even if the outcome is well-known. Self-driving is "here", it's obvious that once it's cheap enough having a human behind a car wheel or a freight truck wheel is an absurd waste of human life (kinda like digging canals with bare hands instead of an excavator), yet truckers and uber drivers are still employed. But everyone knows the writing is on the wall for them. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | aurareturn an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It'll sell after 1-2 times, then the market will get jaded and ignore. |
|
| ▲ | _jayhack_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Only the ones that beat expectations |
