| |
| ▲ | glimshe an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not the exact same. People aren't giving Anthropic billions because they are idiots or dislike the Chinese. I don't disagree that Anthropic has no long term moat but they have been a LOT better than the Chinese models since the beginning. As programmers, we're natural optimizers. And we frequently deliver solutions that aren't always the best, but just "good enough". Guess what, the Chinese models, Mistral, Argon etc, aren't "good enough" for a lot of tasks. That's why people pay for Claude. | | |
| ▲ | etempleton 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It isn’t just the Chinese models, though. Google Carbon just came out and from what I have heard is very competitive in direct comparisons and cheaper. Then there is Grok, Muse, etc. I feel fairly confident that there is not enough room for all of these to be successful businesses. Maybe enough room for two at the current valuations, but Google can just lurk in the background forever. Open AI and Anthropic don’t have that luxury. The minute they falter, for even a short period it is pretty much over. | | | |
| ▲ | irthomasthomas 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can you share any example prompts where Chinese models aren't good enough? | |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As programmers we don’t make the decisions. If anthropic allows the c suite to fire 1000 people but China only 900 people, then anthropic can only coat 10% more than China to be worthwhile. | |
| ▲ | echelon an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The delta between "good enough" and "great" is shrinking. | | |
| |
| ▲ | cyanydeez an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | ok, but the valid business prop is to be a dependent on anthropic, indistinguishable from just being a second class citizen, since your entire networth can't be extracted from anthropic. Go nuts with it, but we're at the SciFi dystopia test with: how do mega corporations even form? Well, this is certainly the plausible reality, they just start aggregating random income streams because their product is essentially the only thing that makes the business profitable. Without it, it can't compete. Hopefully this sounds skeptical, but I don't see how you can have an independent business and be entirely dependent on third party for your operations. | | |
| ▲ | solyin 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't see how you can have an independent business and be entirely dependent on third party for your operations. All businesses are reliant on multiple third parties doing their thing in order for the business to be viable. A lot of companies exist at the whims of Amazon or Walmart. | |
| ▲ | intrasight 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no such thing as an "independent company". They are all dependent on the federal government to protect them from the marauding herds. | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I don't see how you can have an independent business and be entirely dependent on third party for your operations This isn't new though. A ton of software companies are already completely dependent on AWS or Azure or whatever. | |
| ▲ | sandworm101 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | >> I don't see how you can have an independent business and be entirely dependent on third party for your operations Like a lumber mill that buys logs from a logging company? Who subcontracts to individual fallers? Who buy their chainsaws from a chainsaw company, their fuel from a petrochemical company? No business isn't entirely dependent on third parties. That's what it means to exist in a healthy economy. A "farm-to-table" megacorp that owns everything from the source of every raw material through to the finished product is a nightmare, an entity that needs to be reigned in and broken up. Capitalism is a competitive game, but a game that can never be allowed to end. |
|
|
