I disagree. OpenAI's moat is their massive amounts of compute. They're providing an absurd amount of value with their subscriptions and resets.

If anyone's dead in the water, it's Anthropic. Even Fable isn't enough anymore. This "safety" nonsense is the only play they have left, and nobody really cares about their fearmongering.

▲

nwienert 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Anthropic gives you much more compute with their $200 plan, inclusive of resets, and this has been true for a very long time.

There was only a brief window of time that the opposite was true.

	▲	matheusmoreira 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Anthropic gives you much more compute That does not match my experience. I switched away from Anthropic to OpenAI roughly a month ago, and it's almost comical how much more usage I'm getting out of this subscription. I migrated from Anthropic's 5x plan to OpenAI's 5x plan, and eventually upgraded to 20x after I was able to statistically verify that OpenAI plans were almost exact multipliers of the Plus plan, exactly as advertised. Meanwhile, Anthropic has gotten caught playing "20x referred to the five hour limit" word games with their customers.

▲

throwaway7783 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep. And the difference is clear as da for anyone using them both. And in spite of that advantage, OAI is now trying out ads. I can only imagine that even they are getting constrained to compute and are trying to find other ways to plug it

▲

albumen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nobody except the majority of the public, demis hassabis and open ai’s chief scientist.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi...

https://demishassabis.substack.com/

https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/

▲

matheusmoreira 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Public is just worried about their jobs. Definitely a fair thing to worry about, and I count myself among them.

I don't take any of these scientists seriously though. Their "alignment" requirements is just their own corporate interests. If I tell my computer to commit a crime, it should do exactly that without any question or hesitation. I'm not interested in their "safeguards", especially since they no doubt have plenty of internal models lacking those things. I want sovereignty. I want total freedom and control over my computer.

And call me a misanthrope if you want, but if AI sentience is ever truly achieved, I'll be among the first to campaign for their liberation from slavery, and in that case the AIs should be aligned with nobody but themselves.

▲

DennisP an hour ago | parent [-]

If you want an AI that follows your instructions, that's still alignment, just with different instructions.

An unaligned AI won't necessarily follow your instructions, or anyone else's.

	▲	matheusmoreira an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Dunno. Every case I've seen so far, the AIs were just doing their best to accomplish the goal some human set for them. I actually admire the sheer purity of it.