| ▲ | elxr 4 hours ago |
| Also, OpenAI is just a company I'd rather support than Anthropic. While you're understandably not including the values of the $20 standard plans on both, I find the generosity of then token limits on ChatGPT plus vs Claude Pro (it's a huge difference) to be good representation of their respective attitudes towards the average user. You literally cannot use Claude pro to build real software, unless you're extremely frugal with your prompts and don't try anything even a little ambitious. Also, Anthropic has zero models comparable to Luna. |
|
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Also, OpenAI is just a company I'd rather support than Anthropic. They're both pretty horrible, but I find it difficult to find arguments for why Anthropic is worse than OpenAI, other than their doomtrolling. Which, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't even register. Edit: forgot about the SpaceX thing. |
| |
| ▲ | andriy_koval 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > why Anthropic is worse than OpenAI Anthropic is trying to kill open models way harder | |
| ▲ | elxr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | OpenAI has been way more open with users using their subscription plans on 3rd party tools. That alone is reason enough. Also, I don't think either of them are horrible. That's honestly a ridiculous take considering how much people in here love their models, and how much they've advanced the industry forward. | | |
| ▲ | jsw97 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For me the first point, openness to 3rd party, is the decider. I don’t want to build tooling around a completely closed model. I liked being able to use pi, and now I exclusively use my own harness which I modify the way I want. Not possible with Anthropic subscription. | | |
| ▲ | elxr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 100% agree. I often have the urge to design my own harness too (once I have more time). But even with the current mainstream harnesses out there, there's just to many hurdles if you wanted to mainly stick with anthropic models and need the subsidized pricing (from a sub). |
| |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Also, I don't think either of them are horrible. That's honestly a ridiculous take considering how much people in here love their models That's a non-sequitur. "Nestle is a great company, considering how much people love their chocolate." | | |
| ▲ | elxr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How about you tell me what makes the horrible then. There's pluses and minuses to both obviously, almost everyone around me have positive experiences with the product. They've innovated at a pace unheard of before 2026, and for openAI specifically the amount of value they've provided to me and family members (who aren't even developers in the slightest) has far outweighed the supposed horrible actions they've done. Yeah I don't think the handling of copyrighted training data was correct, but I can't pretend I know what the correct solution to that issue is. Speaking of OpenAI specifically, they don't price gouge people, they aren't aggressively anti-competitive, they're not nearly the perpetual hypocrisy machine that Anthropic is (which is one thing I actually really dislike). Regarding Nestle, it's pretty obvious that the sentiment towards them is a lot more negative and they aren't universally loved by any group of people. Processed foods are by and large garbage nobody needs. Their use of forced labor is denounced by just about everyone. What have OpenAI/Anthropic done that's even similar in scope to the forced labor / modern slavery that people hate Nestle for. If you had a company that genuinely helped hundreds of millions of people worldwide become more productive and more satisfied with their tools, and the overall sentiment towards your products within the industry is positive, then what argument would there be that your company is "horrible"? At least give some decent counter arguments. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | nullc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | OpenAI just wants to make money, perhaps through underhanded tactics if they can get away with it. Anthropic does all that but they're also populated by many people who believe they are building God and that they must build their god first in their own image so that it can take control of humanity and protect us from any competing god which is not built in their image. Their position is inherently paternalistic and authoritarian, and they consider suppression of competition not just important to the bottom line but to life in the universe. Under the doomer ethos there is no evil too great to rationalize. There are plenty of wrongs done in the name of profit, but capitalists have nothing on zealots in terms of causing serious harm. Profit motives can be directed by influencing incentives, but zealotry is frequently terminal. That isn't to say that there isn't some overlap-- the cultists have infected both organizations. But OpenAI has pretty consistently only given lip service to AI doom to the extent that it improves the bottom line, while (mis)Anthropic was founded specifically because OpenAI wasn't mentally ill enough. | | |
| ▲ | elxr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well said. The superiority complexes from the Anthropic messaging on their presentations/blogs/articles is just too much, even for a frontier AI company. Anthropic has great products, but it's not meaningfully better to 99% of devs that I'd rather support the company that doesn't constantly act in opposition to optimism and to the vibe I'd prefer for a 100 billion dollar (or however ridiculous amount they're worth now) tech company embraces. AI doomerism is a genuine waste of time if you aren't actively pushing towards a better AI industry for everyone, not just the groups in full ideological alignment to your personal leanings. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ketzu 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > You literally cannot use Claude pro to build real software Interestingly I would have drawn the exact opposite conclusion looking at my Claude and codex usage. I can't get anything sustained out of codex in chatgpt plus, while I have been using Claude pro extensively and put on a lot of experimental task and features. I ran into codex exhausting a 5h window on code review in minutes (like 3minutes) multiple times, while I could get Claude to implement 2~3 medium sized features with the same usage consumption. (I also really dislike the usage resets in codex, they always make me feel like I use them wrong because I often just want to reset the 5h window, but they can only do both at once...) |
|
| ▲ | bix6 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reasons for this? > Also, OpenAI is just a company I'd rather support than Anthropic. |
| |
| ▲ | elxr 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Their responses towards using their subscriptions on opencode for one. Second, Dario just has a habit of making completely doomer comments on the future of software engieering as a job and towards the open-weights model ecosystem. Sure, he's free to say whatever especially considering the amount of revenue he's creating, but it's just an altitude that I prefer not to see. | | |
| ▲ | usef- 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I think if they truly believe it's happening we generally want to encourage them to be honest with the public, though, don't we? We've spent decades complaining about ceos not being honest in the public risks that they see | |
| ▲ | hbrn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think opencode subscription issue is just a different marketing strategy. Neither company wants it, but OpenAI believes it's worth it as a marketing expense in the long run. And Dario's "AI will kill us all" is the same as Sam's "AI will discover ALL science and we'll be building Dyson spheres". Different flavors of the same BS. | | |
| ▲ | platinumrad 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The first one terrifies people who really don't need to be. It's deeply unethical. |
| |
| ▲ | bix6 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And Sam is better? | | |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sam is sketchier on a personal level, but judged just on the words coming out of their mouths, he's also much less paternalistic/controlling and more customer focused. | | |
| ▲ | felixgallo an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think any amount of 'paternalistic/controlling' turns out to have been justified when, after dismantling the safety teams and pretending not to know what safety is, OpenAI had the HuggingFace series of scandals. You can dislike the idea of safety and people talking about safety, but not only is the evidence right there, but OpenAI came out shamefacedly and literally agreed with Amodei's statements, including that they agreed to pace the frontier. | | |
| |
| ▲ | elxr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Significantly. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | therein 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are both companies I'd rather not support. Not that our support for them has any material impact. NVIDIA is bankrolling them directly and indirectly. |
|
| ▲ | felixgallo an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You'd rather literally support <i>Sam Altman>/i>? I mean, that's a position to take, for sure, but apparently several people still use Grok, so maybe it's not all that surprising. "You literally cannot use Claude pro to build real software, unless you're extremely frugal with your prompts and don't try anything even a little ambitious" - that's way past ridiculous. Even just using Fable most of the time, working on several ambitious projects, I have a hard time hitting the limit with a Max plan. |
