new | show | ask | jobs Github

CoolestBeans 5 hours ago

- revenue growth at Anthropic slowing

- margins shrinking at Anthropic

- Google getting thwacked by missed earnings

- OpenAI missing funding target

- price war

- Microsoft revising capex projections down

- Plateauing of model capability improvement

What's weird to me is that you don't see a lot of people making deals that seem way too good to be true but yet the total numbers are absolutely gigantic. Throw on the fact that the stranded assets will have a shelf life, it really seems terrifying. Yet everything is being priced as pretty darn risky. I think maybe there can be a big slowdown without a dramatic pop. A sort of grind down. But there's not a lot of room for error to prevent a pop so I guess it will happen? I don't know its very weird.

Also of course this is all predicated on models not making another dramatic leap. The signals out of the cutting edge labs don't really suggest they have a model that would be as dramatic of a leap as Mythos was when it came out in the hopper. Their code quality seems about as mediocre as what the publicly available models can do. The OpenAI math results are very impressive but that's ripe picking for AI. Also they keep talking about a coordinated training slowdown which is textbook antitrust so they seem to want the government to force their hands off the "spend money on R&D" button.

So I don't really know. I guess I would say purely on vibes that this doesn't feel like a bubble but the size of the build out is just so massive that there really isn't a big window for a success case.

▲

Schlagbohrer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even Anthropic is having their most recent debt priced at 10% interest. Wall Street is seeing them as pretty high risk.

▲

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

> margins shrinking at Anthropic

Why is this? Competing on price, or compute somehow getting more expensive?

	▲	littlecranky67 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Competing with chinese open-weight model which can run openly or on independent providers. Once the temporary hardware shock is over and becomes more easily available, there will be tons of independent inference providers hosting open-weight models. And I suspect we will see dozens of custom, niche distilations from open-weight models being offered by smaller groups. Anthropic has no value proposition - just being 3-6months ahead in frontier models vs. open-weight doesn't justify trilion dollar valuation.
	▲	mike_hearn an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The first. There have been massive waves of price cuts in Q3. OpenAI and Anthropic keep slashing prices to take market share from each other, it seems.

▲

gniv 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To me these are arguments _against_ the bubble popping. The market reacted to all these signals. The semis took the brunt of it but even there it wasn't really dramatic. These are signs of a relatively healthy environment.

	▲	Fnoord 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The article's thread title (and proposition) is: > I'm not convinced the AI bubble exists You're arguing against the bubble popping. So you agree the bubble exists?

▲

iLoveOncall 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What's weird to me is that you don't see a lot of people making deals that seem way too good to be true

You gotta be kidding. HuggingFace, a website to download files, was sold for 13B.

▲

wyager 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Plateauing of model capability improvement

On what are you possibly basing this? The fact that there hasn't been a new model release in 6 weeks?

▲

grey-area 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Have the models become significantly more capable in the last 6 months? I'm not convinced we're still seeing massive improvements as we saw at the start. The output certainly isn't getting better, the software these companies produce is actually pretty buggy.

▲

origini an hour ago | parent | next [-]

For me personally? yes absoluttly.

Opus 5 vs. 5.5 is a clear stepup.

Problem is, you need to do a diverse set of experiments to recognize it. Blender support got relevant better,t he amount of corrections got less etc.

	▲	grey-area 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It does very much vary with the domain though. I haven't personally noticed much improvement, they're still useful but unreliable, in my view the idea of agents, harnesses etc has been a distraction and functions to cover up the lack of progress in the underlying models. But everyone has a different view of this, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

▲

Aeolos 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, without a question. Fable 5 and Opus 5.5 are a step-change above what we had before. On the open-weights side, GLM 5.3, DeepSeek 4.1 v1017, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are all significantly more capable in basically any task you can give them.

You can now have a model work on a task non-stop for a day or more. This was unthinkable 12 months ago, and unstable 6 months ago.

If you are searching for evidence of capability, just look at the amount of projects, blog posts and videos on game remixes, hardware reverse engineering, new compilers and runtimes that has started coming out in the last 6 months. Slop? Sure, but this kind of slop didn't exist at this level 6 or 12 months ago.

	▲	grey-area an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And yet we have to contrast that with reports like this of model capability falling recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50422069 It's really very hard to pin down progress in this domain, companies are definitely targeting benchmarks. One bit of evidence I would look at is the maths results this last year which have been impressive, that was a huge expensive brute force effort, but it is still good progress.
	▲	pixelstack an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		i am wondering in what potential world would average user or even business user require for model to work on a task for more than a couple of hours? Is assumption that models on average are used to build nextt SpaceX or something?