19 ms·

How will OpenAI compete?

• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• neom 7mo ago
  Not many folks talking about this: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/nvidia-still-hasnt-sold-a-single-h200-to-china-nearly-three-months-after-getting-the-green-light-from-the-white-house-u-s-commerce-official-says-department-hasnt-approved-any-sales-during-a-house-hearing https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell... The WH has said it hasn't approved any sales, but it's not clear China is buying, and it seem they are making good progress on their huawei ascend chips. If China is basiclly at parity on the full stack (silicon, framework, training, model), and it starts open weighting frontier models at $0.xx/M tokens, then yeah, moat issues all around one would imagine? Not surprised to see Anthropic complaining like this: https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... - but I don't know how you go back from it at this point?
  • danpalmer 7mo ago
    Not surprising, Nvidia's margin was just a huge incentive for companies/countries to develop their own solutions. You don't have to be 100% as good if you're 80% cheaper. It's unsurprising that this is being driven by Chinese companies/labs who often have a lot less funding than the US, and the big tech companies (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) who will benefit the most from having their own compute. I've never believed in Nvidia's moat, and it seems OpenAI's moat (research) has gone and surprisingly is no longer a priority for them.
    • neom 7mo ago
      Feels a bit crazy saying this but I can imagine a weird future where we have some outlawed Chinese tokens situation under some national security guise. No clue how that would work but nothing surprises me anymore.
      • samrus 7mo ago
        Shit is about to get alot more cyberpunk than we're used to, thats for sure
    • cosmic_cheese 7mo ago
      It seems like it’s really only China that’s pursuing the route of doing more with smaller/cheaper models, too, which also has a lot of potential to give the whole bubble a good shake. To me it seems like the most obvious thing to do. More efficient models both make up for whatever you lost by using cheaper hardware and let you do more with the hardware you have than the competition can. By comparison the ever-growing-model strategy is a dead end.
      • danpalmer 7mo ago
        I think you might be underestimating the use of small models in proprietary systems. The progress from China is very visible because it's very open, but the big tech companies are doing this too for cost savings.
    • hrmtst93837 7mo ago
      [flagged]
  • nsoonhui 7mo ago
    it seem they are making good progress on their huawei ascend chips This is interesting to me. I thought that the reason for deepseek delay was because of the insistence ( by the politicians) to use huawei chip[0]. But that was last year August. Anything changes in between? [0]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/deepseeks-launch-new-ai-model-delayed-by-huawei-chip-issues-ft-reports-2025-08-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/deepseeks-launch-new-ai-...
    • neom 7mo ago
      GLM-5 was trained entirely^ on Huawei Ascend chips. https://z.ai/blog/glm-5 https://z.ai/blog/glm-5 / https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/articles/chinas-ai-startup-zhipu-releases-132222546.html https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/articles/chinas-ai-startup-zhipu-r... (^edit, I don't know for certain entirely is accurate - edit again, found a chinese source saying their image model is end to end ascend, or at least, domestic: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1994775762516080044 https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1994775762516080044 & https://www.guancha.cn/economy/2026_02_12_806895.shtml https://www.guancha.cn/economy/2026_02_12_806895.shtml)
      • SXX 7mo ago
        And evdn this information might be not very reliable because both US and China government wouldnt be happy about fact that some models might happen to be trained on some "shadow datacenter" full of Nvidia GPUs.
  • re-thc 7mo ago
    China doesn't need to buy it. They can continue their policy and look good. They've already found a better route. Buy it elsewhere e.g. in Singapore. Train their models there using Nvidia hardware. Ship the result and fine tune back in China. So "China" is and has always been buying it. No difference. The politics can keep raging.
• johnfn 7mo ago
  This article is significantly better written than most anti-OpenAI/AI articles, and for that I am really grateful. I am generally an AI booster (lol), so I am happy to read well-considered thought pieces from people who disagree with me. That being said... > The one place where OpenAI does have a clear lead today is in the user base: it has 8-900m users. The trouble is, there’re only ‘weekly active’ users: the vast majority even of people who already know what this is and know how to use it have not made it a daily habit. Only 5% of ChatGPT users are paying, and even US teens are much more likely to use this a few times a week or less than they are to use it multiple time a day. This really props up the whole argument, because the author goes on to say that OpenAI's users are not really engaged. But is "only" 5% of users paying of a 8-900M user base really so inconsequential? What percentage of Meta's users are paying? Google's? I would be curious to see the author dig deeper here, because I am skeptical that this is really as bad as the author suggests. Moving on to another section: > If the next step is those new experiences, who does that, and why would it be OpenAI? The entire tech industry is trying to invent the second step of generative AI experiences - how can you plan for it to be you? How do you compete with this chart - with every entrepreneur in Silicon Valley? Er, are any of these startups training foundation models? No? Then maybe that is how you compete? I suppose the author would say that the foundation model isn't doing much for OpenAI's engagement metrics (and therefore revenue), but I am not sure I agree there. Still, really good article. I think it really crystalizes the anti-OpenAI argument and it gives me a lot of interesting things to think about.
  • wesammikhail 7mo ago
    > But is "only" 5% of users paying of a 8-900M user base really so inconsequential? What percentage of Meta's users are paying? Google's? I would be curious to see the author dig deeper here, because I am skeptical that this is really as bad as the author suggests. The difference is in the unit economics. OpenAI has to spend massively per free user it serves. The others you mentioned have SaaS economics where the marginal cost of onboarding and serving each non-paying user is essentially zero while also gaining money from these free users via advertising. Hence, the free users are actually a net positive rather than an endless money sink. Keep also in mind that AI has always been, and will always be, a commodity. The moment you start forcing people to convert into paying customers is the moment they jump ship at scale. Just something to keep in mind.
• boxingdog 7mo ago
  The main problem with OpenAI/Anthropic is that their only moat is their models, and it has been proven that you can clone a model through distillation. Although the performance is not exactly the same, it gets very close to the original.
• sinenomine 7mo ago
  People underestimate the lead OAI has with their post-5.2 models. The author does not strike me as someone who closely follows the progress frontier labs make in US and around the world.
  • hyperbovine 7mo ago
    Agreed, compare the frontier models from Google and OAI. It’s like night and day. Anyone who says “the tech has caught up” has not spent even one day using Gemini 3.1 to try and accomplish something complicated.
    • PunchTornado 7mo ago
      I think the vast majority of coding us done through claude and gemini
  • energy123 7mo ago
    It's a joint ignorance of how these frontier models get baked and what consumers want. Many pundits think it's just a matter of scraping the internet and having a few ML scientists run ablation experiments to tune hyperparameters. That hasn't been true for over a year. The current requirements are more org-scale, more payoff from scale, more moat. The main legitimate competitive threat is adversarial distillation. Many pundits also think that consumers don't want to pay a premium for small differences on the margin. That is very wrong-headed. I pay $200/month to a frontier lab because, even though it's only a few % higher in benchmark scores, it is 5x more useful on the margin.
    • nick32661123 7mo ago
      You pay to OpenAI or which one do you use? Do you switch regularly?
      • energy123 7mo ago
        I pay OpenAI but I would also be a happy Anthropic customer. My view is that OpenAI, Anthropic and Google have a good moat. It's now an oligopolistic market with extreme barriers to entry due to needed scale. The moat will keep growing as the payoffs from scale keep growing. They have internal scale and scope economies as the breadth of synthetic data expands. The small differences between the labs now are the initial conditions that will magnify the differences later. It wouldn't be surprising to also see consolidation of the industry in the next 2 years which makes it even more difficult to compete, as 2 or 3 winners gobble up everyone and solidify their leads. When people worry about frontier lab's moat, they point to open weights models, which is really a commentary that these models have zero cost to replicate (like all software). But I think the era of open weights competition cannot be sustained, it's a temporary phenomenon tied to the middle-ground scale we're in where labs can still do that affordably. The absolute end of this will be the end-game of nation state backed competition.
• gradus_ad 7mo ago
  These very valid points apply to all companies trying to make money off of proprietary models, which means margins are going to collapse in a vicious price war that will make Uber vs Lyft seem tame. As margins collapse capex will collapse. Unfortunately valuations have become so tied to AI hype any reduction in capex will signal maybe the hype has gotten ahead of itself, meaning valuations have gotten ahead of themselves. So capex keeps escalating. None of this takes into account the hoarding effects at play with regards to GPU acquisition. It's really a dangerous situation the industry is caught in.
  • wombatpm 7mo ago
    Couple of observations: Companies use to hoard talent. Now they are hoarding compute, RAM, and GPUs. Deepseek showed that there are possibly less expensive ways to train, meaning the future eye watering expenses may not happen. Bigger models may not scale. The future may be federations of smaller expert models. Chat GPTX doesn’t need to know everything about mental health, it just needs to recognize the the Sigmund von Shrink mental health model needs to answer some of my questions.
    • chipgap98 7mo ago
      Deepseek showed that distillation is possible. Their results are possible without someone else doing the leading edge training
    • johnsmith1840 7mo ago
      Echoing the other comment they showed another big thing which is that the output if an AI model is the AI model. If you mass prompt scrape their AI you can recreate it almost exactly. Very dangerous if you think about it that the product itself is the raw building block for itself. Openai spends 1B$ on their model, releases it and instantly it gets scrapped by a million bots to build some country or company their own model.
• darig 7mo ago
  [dead]
• com2kid 7mo ago
  Sometimes I like to imagine what this would be like if the technology had appeared 25 years ago. First off, nonetheless open publishing stuff. Everything would have been trade secrets. Next off no interoperable json apis instead binary APIs that are hard to integrate with and therefore sticky. Once you spent 3 or 4 months getting your MCP server setup, no way would you ever try to change to a different vendor! The number of investors was much smaller so odds are you wouldn't have seen these crazy high salaries and you wouldn't have people running off to different companies left and right. (I know, .com boom, but the .com boom never saw 500k cash salaries...) Imagine if Google hadn't published any papers about transformers or the attention paper had been an internal memo or heck just word2vec was only an internal library. It has all been a net good for technological progress but not that good for the companies involved.
  • deepfriedbits 7mo ago
    Could they have even trained the models 25 years ago? Wikipedia was nothing close to what it is today and I know folks here like to mourn the fall of the open web, but it's still orders of magnitude larger today than it was in 2001. YouTube, so many information stores that simply didn't exist then.
    • com2kid 7mo ago
      The book archives are a big one as well, all the journals that have been published digitally throughout the 2000s, and all the newspapers. Though with some types of models (specifically voice) it has been discovered that a smaller high quality dataset is better than a giant dataset filled with errors.
    • hattmall 7mo ago
      Maybe not 25,but IBM Watson beat humans at Jeopardy over 10 years ago. The technology has been there, the difference is the willingness to burn money on it in hopes of capturing exponential revenue from disrupting industries. Obviously the costs have come down but if IBM felt like burning 100 Billion in 2012 I'm pretty sure they could have a similarly impressive chat bot. Just not sure how they would have ever recouped the revenue.
• Buttons840 7mo ago
  Tech companies are one of the jewels in America's (USA's) crown. If we build a bunch of huge AI companies, rivals will probably continue to release open AI models which undermine the US's influence in the world.
• rafaelmn 7mo ago
  I keep hearing about how the app integrations will be where the AI value is and then I see the actual app integrations and they are between useless and mildly helpful. From what I can see Anthropic's big bet is that they will solve computer use and be able to act as an autonomous agent. Not so sure how fast they will progress on that. OpenAI on the other hand - I have no idea what they are planning - all I'm reading is AI porn and ads. Google seems to be lackluster at executing with Gemini but they are in the best position to win this whole thing - they have so much data (index of the web, youtube, maps) and so many ways to capitalize on the models - it's honestly shocking how bad they are at creating/monetizing AI products.
  • edgyquant 7mo ago
    Ai porn and ads may be a bigger market than anthropics b2b
    • jjmarr 7mo ago
      OpenRouter top apps are 50/50 between AI girlfriends and coding assistants as a general rule.
  • vrosas 7mo ago
    Google is doing a much better job integrating AI into existing products. Gemini CLI and such seem just like a way to keep the leading competitors humble (a la iOS vs android). They're also building AI tooling tailored to specific companies (like the Goldman thing just announced) and have the cloud infra to back it up. I really only see Anthropic and Google surviving in 10 years.
• theptip 7mo ago
  I think this take underestimates a couple points: 1) the opportunities for vertical integration are huge. Anthropic originally said they didn’t want to build IDEs, then realized the pivot to Claude Code was available to them. Likewise when one of these companies can gobble up Legal, Medical, etc why would they let companies like Harvey capture the margins? 2) oss models are 6-12 months behind the frontier because of distillation. If labs close their models the gap will widen. Once vertical integration kicks off, the distillation cost becomes higher, and the benefit of opening up generic APIs becomes lower. I can imagine worlds where things don’t turn out this way, but I think folks are generally underrating the possibilities here.
  • arctic-true 7mo ago
    To go vertical they’d need to illustrate the value-add, a problem that the vertical competitors already have. Why use Claude for Accountants at $300/month when regular Claude will do the same thing for much less? The stock answer is that Claude for Accountants keeps your data more secure and doesn’t train on it. But a) I think the enterprise consumer is much less likely to trust a model creator not to stick its hand in the cookie jar than a middleman who needs the trust to survive, and b) the vertical competitors typically don’t use the absolute most up-to-date models in their products anyway, so why not just go open-source and run everything in-house? 6 months is a long time in tech, but it’s the blink of an eye in most white-collar professions.
    • Davidzheng 7mo ago
      Once the majority of work at a company can be done by AI, Anthropic has an alternative revenue stream to selling AIs to that company--directly competing with that company with a completely integrated AI system. There's of course many barriers to entry/various advantages of incumbents--but it's possible to see a world in which the company selling the AI has a huge advantage too.
    • theptip 7mo ago
      The point is that in this hypothetical you can get public access to Claude Opus 6, but they internally use Claude Opus 7 (Accounting Finetune) which is both cheaper to operate and higher IQ. So they (or their wholly owned subsidiary) can sell accounting services cheaper than anyone on the outside. Regarding the diffusion/distillation time, I assume it gets harder to distill in the world where frontier labs don’t give API access to their newest models.
• re-thc 7mo ago
  Wasn't OpenAI's moat buying up all the RAM or Nvidia cards?
• d--b 7mo ago
  Worth noting that it’s not a winner-takes all situation. There’s definitely space for differentiation. Anthropic is in favor with developers and generally tech people, while OpenAi / Gemini are more commonly used by regular folks. And Grok, well, you know… We have yet to see who’s winning in the “creative space”, probably OpenAI. As these positionings cristallize, each company is likely going to double down on their user’s communities, like Apple did when specifically targeting creative/artsy people, instead of cranking general models that aren’t significantly better at anything.
  • system2 7mo ago
    I categorize it like this: Claude: Programmers ChatGPT: LGBTQ/Liberals, with a lot of censorship Grok: Joe Rogan
    • ftchd 7mo ago
      DeepSeek: Jìan-Yáng
  • chasd00 7mo ago
    > Worth noting that it’s not a winner-takes all situation. I think it has to be for the financials to work out. Whoever is not the winner and takes all goes bankrupt.
• shubhamjain 7mo ago
  Everyone is actually underestimating stickiness. The near billion users OpenAI has is actually a real moat and might translate into decent chunk of revenue. My wife, for example, uses ChatGPT on a daily basis, but has found no reason to try anything else. There are no network effects for sure, but people have hundreds and thousands on conversation on these apps that can't be easily moved elsewhere. Understandable that it would be hard to get majority of these free users to pay for anything, and hence, advertising seems a good bet. You couldn't have thought of a more contextual way of plugging in a paid product. I think OpenAI has better chance to winning on the consumer side than everyone else. Of course, would that much up against hundreds of billions of dollars in capex remains to be seen.
  • pm90 7mo ago
    > My wife, for example, uses ChatGPT on a daily basis, but has found no reason to try anything else. Ads might change that. If we know anything, nobody beats Google with ad based monetization. OAI is absolutely correct to be scared.
  • morkalork 7mo ago
    I commute on the train, I see students studying with it. I go for brunch on the weekend, I see parents consulting it while at the table with their infants. I'm at work, colleagues are using it all day. I leave work and I overhear the random woman smoking in the alleyway talking on her cellphone saying "so I asked chatgpt". It's mind-bogglingly pervasive, the last time something had such a seizmic cultural impact like this was I dunno, Facebook? And secondly, it's all one specific brand. I'm not encountering co-pilot or gemini in the meat-space.
    • goolz 7mo ago
      How many of those people are paying? I think many say “use ChatGPT” to mean any LLM. As you noted it seems you just see ChatGPT in the wild but that is anecdotal. It is certainly pervasive right now. But I know a lot of people currently switching to Gemini. I personally prefer claude models for all my work. If I were them I would be very worried. They are never giving us AGI and I am skeptical they are worth .5 trillion. Their cash burn is insane. Once ads and price hikes come, people will migrate to companies that can still afford to subsidize (like Google). Plus I heard they lowered projections recently? Sam honestly comes off as a grifter.
• system2 7mo ago
  This is confirmation bias. HN and other tech people are focusing on the programming aspect of AI more than anything else. The average user does not use it for that, and they don't care. ChatGPT became something like Kleenex.
  • kdheiwns 7mo ago
    Kleenex was exactly what I had in mind when reading other comments. And just like Kleenex, where people use whatever tissue they find and forget the word "tissue" even exists, ChatGPT seems to be becoming a genericized term that just means "AI chatbot."
• modeless 7mo ago
  > The models have a very large user base, but very narrow engagement and stickiness, and no network effect or any other winner-takes-all effect so far that provides a clear path to turning that user base into something broader and durable. I think this is clearly wrong. Users provide lots of data useful for making the models better and that is already being leveraged today. It seems like network effects are likely in the future too. And they have several ways to get stickiness including memory.
• throwaway13337 7mo ago
  These sorts of doom articles are interesting in that they are from the perspective of tech company valuations. Why is this the important perspective? For the humanity perspective, this doom is very optimistic. It says that these LLMs currently disrupting the platforms cannot themselves be the next platforms. Maybe no one will have 'the ability to make people do something that they don't want to do' sort of power with this next stage in computing. Sounds good to me.
• ryanlitalien 7mo ago
  I speak native English and barebones high school Spanish. I recently visited Costa Rica and almost every time there was a language barrier issue (unknown word or phrase), the local folks opened ChatGPT, said what they were trying to say in Spanish and then had ChatGPT convert it to English. It was everywhere.
  • kshacker 7mo ago
    I have done that at my home. My wife calls maids. They are there. I need to go to restroom. Ask my wife. She is struggling to communicate. It took me 3 seconds to realize ChatGPT could help. And it did.
    • hattmall 7mo ago
      Nice that ChatGPT does that, its also true that Google Translate and other APPs have had this functionality for a decade or more. I was getting live German translated on my phone in 2015 with no problems.
      • freakynit 7mo ago
        I have been using google lens heavily to scan posters/flyers/information displays in other languages and get it translated to english in like 2-3 seconds. So freakin helpful.
      • akkad33 7mo ago
        Google translate was not very good, it didn't get context. Deepl was better
      • matwood 7mo ago
        Yes, there have been translation apps for along time, but the LLMs are much better. If the phrases can have dual meanings the LLMs will often explain so you end up with a better understanding of what was said/needs to be said. The LLMs can pull more context from the web, so if you're dealing with more complex topics that may have acronyms they are much better at getting to a correct translation.
• paradox_hash 7mo ago
  [dead]
• XCSme 7mo ago
  Same question for Atrophic. Personally I only see Google (Gemini), X (Grok) and the Chinese models having a chances to still be alive in 1-2 years.
  • XCSme 7mo ago
    Anthropic* lol, unintentional...
  • simonw 7mo ago
    Anthropic are making a very convincing play for business and "enterprise" customers - first with Claude Code and now with Cowork and especially Claude for Excel. The revenue growth they've announced has been extremely impressive over the past year.
    • XCSme 7mo ago
      Well, the public reception seems to be changing, after tweets like this: https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253 https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253 Also, I liked Anthropic because they were focused a lot on safety, but after the Pentagon stuff, it seems like they dropped their focus on safety.
  • selkin 7mo ago
    X has only brand recognition right now, and an extremely toxic one. Big customers may buy but won't give them logos, people who are offended by Musk's worldview won't pay them either. You don't do well with a toxic brand: just look at Ye having to buy full page apologies ads to try and sell a record.
    • XCSme 7mo ago
      X? Don't they have the biggest budget and largest GPU farm? Also grok-4.1-fast was one of the top models for a long time, especially in real world usage.
  • AussieWog93 7mo ago
    It's funny you say that, I thought this would be an article about how Anthropic have managed to produce a better (coding) product than OpenAI despite having 1/10th of the funding. The new versions of Opus (4.5 and 4.6) are absolutely amazing - first time I've felt it necessary to throw hundreds of dollars in a single month at Cursor. I heard similar things about the older models too (Sonnet 3.5 beating GPT-4 etc.) but sadly only jumped on the Cursor train in the last 12 months or so.
• anupshinde 7mo ago
  If you were forced to choose just one of all the competing players, which is "the one" you will use? For me, the choice is ChatGPT, not for its Codex or other fancy tooling - just the chat. Not that Claude Code or Cowork is less important. Not that I like Codex over Claude Code.
  • nozzlegear 7mo ago
    Right now? Claude, so long as they don't fold to the Pentagon's demands. It's important to me that the company at least have a pretense of ethics. If they fold, I may just use open models via DDG – I don't find code assistants very useful for my workflow anyway.
    • yoyohello13 7mo ago
      Same. I wish it wasn’t the case, but even making a show of caring about ethics is about as much as we can hope to get from a company these days.
• 0xbadcafebee 7mo ago
  OpenAI lost the race to nerds' hearts. In the latest benchmarks, OpenAI is simultaneously cheaper (like 50% less?) and scores hire in coding and tool use benchmarks (GPT-5.3-Codex trounces Opus 4.6), yet all the coders want to marry Anthropic. I don't think OpenAI understands how to sell, if they even had a product to sell.
  • agentifysh 7mo ago
    I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot of people that were turned off by Anthropic, especially with the weekly usage limits. that in comparison to Codex is on the last side. And actually Codex is one of the few products that I think OpenAI has executed really well on. there's just no real equivalent in terms of actual usage that you can get for the same amount of money. Gemini is great, but it seems to be still in a state of flux. Way too much products stretched too thin. Anthropic is also okay, but it's very limited in the weekly usage you can get out of it.
    • newswasboring 7mo ago
      What I also observe is Anthoropic pissed a lot of people off when they removed external tool usage from the subscription. OpenAI won some points and usage in codex. But what conclusions can you really draw from a few reddit posts...
  • monadicmonad 7mo ago
    its because benchmarks are nonsense and when you actually use OI models for programming they suck
• consumer451 7mo ago
  https://paulgraham.com/fundraising.html https://paulgraham.com/fundraising.html I would love to dunk on this or something, but the lesson is that it's all about distribution. Sama is really good at that, and also.. gotta give props for a lot of forward thinking like the orb, which now makes a lot of sense to me, as non-Apple/Google proof of personhood.
  • dawsmik 7mo ago
    His competitors aren't too bad at it either.
• agentifysh 7mo ago
  I think this is the best article on open AI that I've ever read. A lot of content these days will try to paint OpenAI in sensational ways that really doesn't get to the bottom of whether open AI has an economic mode, and this article does a very thorough job of explaining why OpenAI doesn't have power like the other platforms. And so this goes back to my theory that open AI's execution is basically to get it itself in a position where the market cannot afford to have it implode. Basically, it wants to or it needs to be too big to fail. And I think we're already kind of seeing the politicization, if you will, sort of the rocket race between two superpowers or large powers on the AI front, and I think that Might be a viable strategy.
  • Schlagbohrer 7mo ago
    Altman said that in an interview, that the government would bail out OpenAI.
    • schaefer 7mo ago
      does anyone have a citation/reference for this?
  • chasd00 7mo ago
    I don't see OpenAI being too big to fail happening, the public is already very skeptical of AI. Also, there are other options available and therefore not a national security issue. Finally, OpenAI failing has no impact on employment or like societal disruption. In fact, it may increase employment if OpenAI fails. The only other way to reach too big too fail status is if allied countries risk collapse if it goes under ( like the big banks in the financial crisis ) which I don't see happening either.
  • Lramseyer 7mo ago
    Yeah, I was a bit surprised that the author didn't mention that facet of Open AI. It did mention infrastructure goals, but the reality is that Open AI's infrastructure spending commitments have inflated the stock prices of quite a few hardware companies (like Micron and WD) and caused a strain on the market. The real danger here is how over-leveraged Open AI is. No other AI player is as exposed. Their massive spending commitments are all precariously balanced on the other end by their user base, and if that evaporates, the whole thing will fall apart and that could crash the stocks of other players ...and by crash, I mean bring them down to a realistic value. But the economy is counting on this to work, which is why I believe that Open AI's strategy here really is to make the market exposed to Open AI's risks.
• dlev_pika 7mo ago
  > what a platform really achieves is to harness the creative energy of the entire tech industry, so that you don’t have to invent everything yourself and massively more stuff gets built at massive scale I hear this, but every time I look the platforms have captured another use case that the startup ecosystem built (eg images, knowledge summarization, coding, music). The sector is already littered with the corpses of the innovators that got swallowed by the platforms’ aggressiveness to do it all.
• daxfohl 7mo ago
  One trillion capex per year? Does that mean they need everyone on the planet to get $100/yr subscriptions to stay solvent? Without a monopoly? Or a product that most people use much?
  • ProgrammerMatt 7mo ago
    Of course not. It could be half the people on the planet need to pay $200/yr
    • bdangubic 7mo ago
      1/10000th would not pay $20/year
  • keeda 7mo ago
    So far it's been more like triple-digit billions per year, and most of that has been coming from the Big Tech companies' operating cash flows. Debt recently entered the picture, however.
  • Andrex 7mo ago
    Maybe most of that is floating between them and nVidia back and forth.
• seizethecheese 7mo ago
  Great article, but I think this is a stretch: "nor does OpenAI have consumer products on top of the models themselves that have product-market fit." I would argue chatgpt is in the top 10 products of all time with regard to product market fit.
  • npinsker 7mo ago
    Isn't this kind of splitting hairs? Technically you're right, but he's obviously talking about a product that itself, independently from its underlying model, has a "strong, clear competitive lead" over would-be competitors.
• mrcwinn 7mo ago
  To say "except for distribution" OpenAI has few advantages is like saying "except for location" this retail store really doesn't stand a chance.
• siliconc0w 7mo ago
  I've churned off OAI in favor of maxing out Claude. Better coding model and less creepy engagement hacking in the chat interface.
  • svnt 7mo ago
    I get plenty of creepy engagement hacking with claude’s chat too now. Before memory it was better.
    • Gnocchi_ 7mo ago
      You can always turn it off
      • jondwillis 7mo ago
        Always, eh?
      • siliconc0w 7mo ago
        I want some useful memory but it seems hardcoded to try shoehorn in personal details or tidbits from past conversations into responses. Even if I specifically ask it not to in my personalization prompt.
        • svnt 7mo ago
          It is interesting that both "customer support" comments here suggesting "you're just using it wrong" are from very recent accounts with very little karma.
• daxfohl 7mo ago
  I just wonder how long it'll take local models to be good enough for 99% of use cases. It seems like it has to happen sooner or later. My hunch is that in five years we'll look back and see current OpenAI as something like a 1970's VAX system. Once PCs could do most of what they could, nobody wanted a VAX anymore. I have a hard time imagining that all the big players today will survive that shift. (And if that particular shift doesn't materialize, it's so early in the game; some other equally disruptive thing will.)
  • bandrami 7mo ago
    Yesterday I asked mistral to list five mammals that don't have "e" in their name. Number three was "otter" and number five was "camel". phi4-mini-reasoning took the same prompt and bailed out because (at least according to its trace) it interpreted it as meaning "can't have a, e, i, o, or u in the name". Local is the only inference paradigm I'm interested in, but these things have a way to go.
    • mattnewton 7mo ago
      Models will always struggle with this specific task without tool use, because of the way they tokenize things. I think a bit of prompt engineering, asking it to spell out each work or giving it the ability to run a “contains e” python function on a lot of animal names it generates or searches for solves this. Lots of local ai use cases I think are solvable similarly once local models get good at tool use and have the proper harness.
      • bandrami 7mo ago
        The problem with tool use is that I usually find I only need it for one component of a pipeline. So in this case mentally I would be tooling it as cat /usr/share/dict/words | print_if_mammal | grep -v 'e' but I don't know of a good way to incorporate an LLM into a pipeline like that (I know there's a Python API). What I'm actually interested in is "is this the name of a mammal?" but I don't know of the equivalent of a quiet "batch mode" at least for ollama (and of course performance). I guess ultimately I would want to say "write a shell utility that accepts a line from standard input and prints it to standard output if that is the name of a mammal", and then use that utility in that pipeline. Or really to have an llmfilter utility that lets you do something like cat /usr/share/dict/words | llmfilter "is this a mammal?" | grep -v "e" and now that I've said that I think I'll try to make one.
• readitalready 7mo ago
  All they need to do is fund thousands of vibe coders to create apps and utilities for people using their model. Like, why do I STILL have to do taxes and accounting with external tools? Why doesn't OpenAI have their own tax filing service for the people? OpenAI should just drop their API service and build everything themselves. It's exactly what they did with ChatGPT. Build thousands of things, not just a few.
  • oblio 7mo ago
    > Like, why do I STILL have to do taxes and accounting with external tools? Why doesn't OpenAI have their own tax filing service for the people? Legal liability.
  • leptons 7mo ago
    Is ChatGPT going to convince the IRS that it wasn't you that tried to cheat on your taxes, and that it was all a simple "hallucination"?
• daxfohl 7mo ago
  Well there's the whole race to ASI thing. Whoever gets there first, the world is theirs. The thing will learn how learn, an intelligence feedback loop, make its own apps, find more efficient algorithms, deploy itself to more locations, bankrupt all competitors, embed itself in everyone's lives, and create a complete monopoly for the parent company that can never be touched. Until it goes rogue anyway. (Aside, it's interesting how perceptions of these things have changed in one year: a whole article on OpenAI's future that makes no mention of AGI/ASI)
  • danielparsons 7mo ago
    Seems like anthropic is the only company that really believes in AGI still, considering their neglect of the consumer market and continued worries about AI ethics
    • slfnflctd 7mo ago
      I don't think "believes in" is the right choice of words. It's more like "can't rule the future possibility completely out so we should at least take some precautions", which seems entirely reasonable and it's a shame not all of these companies are doing so.
  • johnsmith1840 7mo ago
    Because it's a fantasy for an unknown amount of time. 1 year? 10? 50? Never? There hasn't been a single proper breakthrough in continual learning that would enable it. Anyone that studies CL will also get super pissed at it the problem and solution counteract each other to our current understanding but a fruit fly does it no problem!
  • rhubarbtree 7mo ago
    Why will it do all these things? Many people say we’re at AGI already and I’m wondering why everyone hasn’t died yet.
    • latexr 7mo ago
      > Many people say we’re at AGI already and I’m wondering why everyone hasn’t died yet. That’s like saying “many people say the Earth is flat and I’m wondering why anyone hasn’t fallen off the edge yet”. “Many people say” doesn’t translate to reality. Maybe AGI will kill us all, maybe it won’t (I think we’re doing a fine job of that ourselves, no need for a machine’s help), but we’re definitely not at AGI, except in the minds of a few deluded people (or scammers).
• danielparsons 7mo ago
  sammy boy needs to pull a rockefeller and buy up all the competitors. Maybe that's what all these backroom deals about datacentre investment will amount to...
  • danielparsons 7mo ago
    This was poorly worded but indeed rockefeller was the richest man ever by selling a commodity. But he did it by merging with all his competitors. Not sure Altman could pull that off here because most of the other models are attached to massive tech co's that can use AI as a loss leader for other profitable services.
• selkin 7mo ago
  I stopped reading once Evans emphasized consumer product. That was never a good strategy to sell SaaS, and I don't see how that changes.
• nojs 7mo ago
  > There is no equivalent of the network effects seen at everything from Windows to Google Search to iOS to Instagram, where market share was self-reinforcing and no amount of money and effort was enough for someone else to to break in or catch up. What is the network effect of Google Search?
  • johnsmith1840 7mo ago
    Companies competing to buy ad space and SEO of every website on too of it.
  • 2001zhaozhao 7mo ago
    The main direct network effect is that Google uses heuristic data from users to improve their search rankings. (e.g. which links they click, whether someone returns quickly to Google after clicking on a link, etc) Other factors that favor Google at scale: - Sites often allow only the biggest search engine crawlers and block every other bot to prevent scraping. This has been going on for more than a decade and is especially true now with AI crawlers going around. - Google search earns more per search than competitors due to their more mature ad network that they can hire lots of engineers to work on to improve ad revenues. They can also simply serve more relevant ads since their ad network is bigger. - Google can simply share costs (e.g. index maintenance) among many more users.
• Jean-Papoulos 7mo ago
  Their existing users is an edge, but that's not much for the scale they're operating at. Users are lazy and even if you tell them "Gemini is 50 % better !" if ChatGPT isn't bad they won't switch.
• spiderfarmer 7mo ago
  For me Codex beats Claude.
  • ecekyn 7mo ago
    Same here. I moved from claude code to codex. But switching costs are so low that I will just bounce between them depending on which one is better at the time. I think for developers at least, openai don't have stickiness.
    • spiderfarmer 7mo ago
      I use Codex for stuff that touches the UI. Codex is better and faster at the backend stuff. And I usually instruct it on where to copy UI elements from. A basic Claude Code plus a basic Codex subscription is just 40 euros and it beats a single 200 euro Pro subscription. For me at least.
• keiferski 7mo ago
  I have only dabbled with Claude and other AI tools, but from what I can tell, only ChatGPT has folders and a robust organization system. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong here.) This matters a lot to me, as I use AI as something of an ongoing project organizer, and not purely for specific prompts. So at least for me, it would be a huge hassle to move to another platform, on par with moving from one note-taking software to another (e.g., Evernote to IA Writer.)
  • gverrilla 7mo ago
    Check Claude Projects. Also Claude Code. Both have "folders".
    • keiferski 7mo ago
      Ah I see. I didn’t notice these before. Thanks!
• water9 7mo ago
  This is what they need to compete: https://www.cnx-software.com/2026/02/22/taalas-hc1-hardwired-llama-3-1-8b-ai-accelerator-delivers-up-to-17000-tokens-s/ https://www.cnx-software.com/2026/02/22/taalas-hc1-hardwired... Demo: https://chatjimmy.ai/ https://chatjimmy.ai/
• bg24 7mo ago
  If Codex 6.0 is better than Opus 4.9, things will flip. While OpenAI has too many common enemies and trying to box them into a consumer company, they are equally enterprise focused. They need to absolutely do well with foundation model - everything else depends on that.
  • vkazanov 7mo ago
    Well, codex is better than opus right now. I have both subscriptions, and use claude for grunt work + codex for reviews. Codex is comparable at code writing but does much better with tools, skills and ad hoc investigations, say, lauching emacs and inspecting internal emacs state on the go.
    • karmasimida 7mo ago
      Same, I also have both subscriptions (100 Max and 200 Pro), and I am considering canceling MAX plan but would give it another month on watch. The doomer sentiment is quite baffling to me, what trouble is OpenAI in? Definitely not after GPT 5.3. They have the model and they have the compute, people just don't realize it yet. Might be I am in a twitter bubble, most people seem already team Codex
• yanhangyhy 7mo ago
  maybe openai is another docker.. and we are waiting for the 'k8s'
• sreekanth850 7mo ago
  Open AI seems to be jack of all trades.i randomly use chatgpt for random questions, never for a serious task. They should check how anthropic is laserfocussed on coding and b2b segment.
  • moomoo11 7mo ago
    Codex 5.3 is way better than opus 4.6
    • christophilus 7mo ago
      I’ve used Claude Code almost exclusively since its release. In the last week or two, I gave Codex a spin. So far, I’m impressed. It does seem to have reached parity. And, it doesn’t run out of tokens nearly as fast as the equivalent Claude plan.
      • moomoo11 7mo ago
        I stopped using Claude Code because Anthropic lies about the token usage. There were multiple github issues about it, and they just ignore/close them. Codex 5.3 feels magical, I can have it continue in a single session for hours and it doesn't choke one bit. It is insane lol
    • sreekanth850 7mo ago
      My experience is completely the opposite. For generic, low-complexity CRUD tasks, Codex works fine. But when it comes to complex bug fixing, it completely fails, especially with middleware pipelines and complex authentication issues. Gemini also shines, codex is absolutely terrible for complex coding.
      • coreyburnsdev 7mo ago
        complete opposite experience here
• gorgoiler 7mo ago
  ”In browsers, the last successful product innovations were tabs and merging search with the URL bar.” I see the point Ben is making even though there are a lot of nerdier innovations he’s skipping over — credential management, APIs (.closest!), evergreen deployments, plugin ecosystems, privacy guards, etc. One aspect that model execution and web browsers share is resource usage. A Raspberry Pi, for example, makes for a really great little desktop right up until you need to browse a heavy website. In model space there are a lot of really exciting new labs working on using milliwatts to do inference in the field, for the next generation of signal processing. Local execution of large models gets better every day. The future is in efficiency.
• kennyloginz 7mo ago
  They have already succeeded. Never had a plan to compete.
• Figs 7mo ago
  > The one place where OpenAI does have a clear lead today is in the user base: it has 8-900m users. There is no way that number is an accurate reflection of the number of actual human users of their service. I could believe they have 8-900m bot/fraud accounts in their databases, maybe, but not real users.
  • flumpcakes 7mo ago
    I suspect I am one of those 1bn users by their metric. I have an account, and I sometimes query it. I also query Claude and Gemini. I have zero loyalty, if I run out of tokens on one, I will just pick up the conversation on another provider. Perhaps I am using them wrong, but the amount of babysitting I have to do anyway, I don't find it that tedious to stay on the same topic during a swap. There's no way I would spend $200 a month on any of them, not even $20 considering how few 'tokens' you get. I can see how these tools would be useful to my workflow, but I cannot use them as they are priced 100x too high for me to be reliable. I have a feeling that would be true for the vast majority of these AI tool users. I really am not sure how these companies are supposed to become profitable. But SV is a bit insane that way.
    • cmsp12 7mo ago
      i used to use them that way until I got a IDE with AI and is way better for my development than copying and pasting into the chat. It can have the whole project as context,plan features with me, etc. I use it a lot in a way that I cant see why I would go to programming without it right now. It takes time to adjust to it to learn how it works and all but it's worth it
• Cthulhu_ 7mo ago
  ChatGPT is not OpenAI's product, it's the demo. The product is selling their technology to tens or hundreds of thousands of companies that embed it in e.g. customer support chat services.
• Traster 7mo ago
  On the broader point, I think it's right to say that OpenAI has challenges. It simply has no differentiation beyond branding and arguably there are quite a few obvious ways it messed up and lost momentum (the board fight, trying to go in every direction at once etc.) Today you have a phone in your pocket and you have apps on your home screen. Facebook is on your home screen, Whatsapp or X or Bluesky or whatever have a place on your home screen. Google basically is the safari app on iPhone. I don't know how many people have ChatGPT on their home screen. And soon, there will be some AI in your home screen from Apple (served by Google or another big hitter)that will be an incredible advantage. That means OpenAI either needs to build up history with users very quickly and use that as stickiness before Apple nukes that distribution. Or they need to find a way of being another device that every living person has in their pocket. Every attempt at doing that so far has been a comical failure and the way OpenAI are behaving makes me think their attempt will be no different.
  • ghostcluster 7mo ago
    OpenAI has the best cross-thread memory system in ChatGPT amongst all the frontier LLMs and it's not even close.
    • appplication 7mo ago
      Is this a market advantage that is a moat? I don’t see why this wouldn’t be at best a few months lead over the competition. It’s certainly not meaningful to user acquisition.
    • owebmaster 7mo ago
      And the reason I stopped using it
• mgaunard 7mo ago
  As far as I can tell Google Gemini has the best overall integrations (Android, WearOS, Google Home) with the only voice recognition that actually works (Gemini Live). Anthropic Claude has the best integrations with coding; what would make sense is for them to focus on that segment. Other AI companies don't have anything really compelling. Meta has a model that's fully open-source, but then that's not particularly useful outside of helping them remain somewhat relevant, but not market-leading.
  • fragmede 7mo ago
    Model available != open source
  • karmasimida 7mo ago
    > Anthropic Claude has the best integrations with coding Disagree, Codex is neck and neck with A/ on coding front
  • sauercrowd 7mo ago
    The tide seems to be shifting on codex, but also lets not forget openai has a brand that none of the others have - it's _the_ AI. Sure Google can go against that, but it's openai is definitely in a much better spot. It's pretty important for a consumer market.
    • owebmaster 7mo ago
      This thing about openai brand is changing fast. In the dev circles I'm part of, everybody dislikes OpenAI and prefer Claude. How long it'll take for the same to happen with the normies?
      • frde_me 7mo ago
        You see, in my circles (me included), people are shifting _to_ codex since 5.3 codex came out. The only places where I hear people say claude is better is: - Frontend design - Random computer use tasks But people trust codex for large scale architecture and changes
• MarcLore 7mo ago
  [dead]
• karmasimida 7mo ago
  It would be an unpopular opinion but I am here to say it: OpenAI has the best model, that is how they are going to compete. Their chatbot business could be in trouble, but Gemini needs a LOT of work to make it better to use too. Coding wise, it has become very competitive. They need to sell better and sell aggressively
• epolanski 7mo ago
  > Every few weeks they leapfrog each other. There is variation within those capabilities, it’s possible to drop off the curve (Meta, for now) or fail to get onto it (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, for now), or remain six months behind the frontier (China), or rely heavily on other people’s work (China, again) I really dislike this narrative where it's always China = bad, and US companies = good. These labs all copy from each other. OpenAI and Anthropic have "distilled" each other models too and routinely poach key researchers from competitors. Not only that, there's evidence Sonnet 4.6 has heavily distilled Deepseek R1 too, in fact, if you ask Sonnet 4.6 in Chinese who it is, it will tell you it's a Deepseek model. Chinese are the only ones publishing papers on their models non stop. The whole AI race is entirely based on blatant copyright infringements and copying each other.
• fosron 7mo ago
  My father uses ChatGPT extensively. My friend, whos an electrician, but has 0 things to do with computers, even called it Chat once and I said who? Because for me its ChatGPT. He also uses it extensively. Although I would bet they won't be willing to pay, advertisements will eventually hit them. And with inference prices going down, with distilled models being used, OpenAI will profit, and people will still hapily use it for whatever random queries they have. Exposure is the currency and OpenAI will have infinites of it for the foreseeable future.
  • storus 7mo ago
    Chat.com is ChatGPT so likely that's why he called it Chat.
    • fosron 7mo ago
      Oh damn i missed it. Could be that, but were from a non-english country so not sure.
• bradley13 7mo ago
  I'm not a huge fan of OpenAI as a company, but I subscribe to ChatGPT. I regularly try put the competition, but (for me) ChatGPT deliveres better results. Give me an open source or non-American product that delivers the same quality, and I'll switch in an instant. FWIW, this is how capitalism is supposed to work! Competition is driving AI forward at a fantastic pace!
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
• 999900000999 7mo ago
  Google might step up soon and they already have a massive user base. Google “How to send a get request using Java”. >import java.net.URI; import java.net.http.HttpClient; import java.net.http.HttpRequest; import java.net.http.HttpResponse; public class GetRequestExample { public static void main(String[] args) { // Define the URL String url = "https://api.example.com/data"; https://api.example.com/data"; // 1. Create an HttpClient instance HttpClient client = HttpClient.newHttpClient(); // 2. Create an HttpRequest object for a GET request HttpRequest request = HttpRequest.newBuilder() .uri(URI.create(url)) .GET() // Default method, but good to be explicit .build(); try { // 3. Send the request and receive the response synchronously HttpResponse<String> response = client.send(request, HttpResponse.BodyHandlers.ofString()); // 4. Process the response System.out.println("Status code: " + response.statusCode()); System.out.println("Response body: " + response.body()); } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } Vs Chat GPT > import java.net.URI; import java.net.http.HttpClient; import java.net.http.HttpRequest; import java.net.http.HttpResponse; public class GetRequestExample { public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { HttpClient client = HttpClient.newHttpClient(); HttpRequest request = HttpRequest.newBuilder() .uri(URI.create("https://api.example.com/data")) .GET() .build(); HttpResponse<String> response = client.send( request, HttpResponse.BodyHandlers.ofString() ); System.out.println("Status: " + response.statusCode()); System.out.println("Body: " + response.body()); } } Chat GPT is a bit clearer, but both are good. It’s really Google’s race to lose, but we are talking about Google here. They’re very hit or miss outside of Search
• barrkel 7mo ago
  OpenAI is the Yahoo of AI.
• mark_l_watson 7mo ago
  Hopefully this is on-topic: I would hope that some people would opt for private chat services. I evaluated both Proton’s Lumo+ and DuckDuckGo’s Duck.ai services. I like both services but only wanted to pay for one and I chose Lumo+ because chat history is stored with my Proton data and is available in all my devices, Duck.ai stores chat history on current access device. Both services are also very usable with their free plans. At least some of us in HN talk about limiting the data we give to Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. Isn’t it just as important to limit what we share with non-privacy preserving AIs? Note: tech friends have asked me how I can use slightly weaker AI models and be happy about it: I still use Gemini Plus (and Anthropic via AntiGravity) for technical work: everything I do as a software developer is open source and all of my writing (20+ books) is Open Content so I don’t care about privacy and being direct-marketed based on my tech work. To me it makes sense to use the best AI just for tech work and a private AI for everything else. Think about this if a family member has a serious health problem, or something else private: do you want to use open web searches and open AI chats, or do you want to use private web search and private AI access? Why not make privacy your default, except in special situations?
  • ignoramous 7mo ago
    > DuckDuckGo's Duck.ai services ... what we share with non-privacy preserving AIs. Duck.ai's Privacy Policy goes: As noted above, we call model providers on your behalf so your personal information (for example, IP address) is not exposed to them. In addition, we have agreements in place with all model providers that further limit how they can use data from these anonymous requests, including not using Prompts and Outputs to develop or improve their models, as well as deleting all information received once it is no longer necessary to provide Outputs (at most within 30 days, with limited exceptions for safety and legal compliance). This is not much different to the BigLabs, tbh. Otoh, privatemode.ai, confer.to, trymaple.ai are at least attempting Apple AI-like confidentiality.
    • y-c-o-m-b 7mo ago
      That's a fair point, but DuckDuckGo has been a privacy champion for years, so I would give them far more weight in actually adhering to these policies as a middle-man than to directly trust the others. The priorities are different.
• cess11 7mo ago
  I think this article spends to little time on what it calls "user data". It is likely the best data pump in this segment, because it has the most 'regular' users, i.e. people who aren't IT specialists or whatever, but give the best profit when advertised to, surveilled and so on. They'll have their guard down more often than the claudinistas and geminites, and be cheaper to somehow exploit. I also think that more half-serious business ideas have been initially implemented against OpenAI services, i.e. most likely to fail due to a lack of proficiency in how to make an organisation work even if the core idea is sound and worthwhile pursuing.
• cmrdporcupine 7mo ago
  They won't. They'll seek regulatory capture.
• freejazz 7mo ago
  Who cares? OpenAI doesn't care about how it affects entire industries
• builderhq_io 7mo ago
  [flagged]
• foozebox 7mo ago
  [dead]
• waffletower 7mo ago
  The juxtaposition of quotations at the head of this article will seem even more silly as AI progresses. The user-centric culture that Steve Jobs championed at Apple is quite orthogonal to the trajectory of artificial intelligence. AI has been under collective development for decades. Along this trajectory ChatGPT was the discovery of a viable "product". Remembering OpenAI's documented history, ChatGPT was not the result of building a tool towards solving a specific user need. It is no accident that Apple does not know what to do with AI yet. I am hoping that they can learn from Anthropic's tool empowerment lead and from the possibilities of OpenClaw, and instrument thoughtful AI integrations for their products. OpenAI can learn from them too, but they aren't in a particularly advantageous incumbent position like Apple and Google. But whatever Apple may do, it will only be a fraction of the AI story, regardless of its consumer success. Comparing the markets of OpenAI and Anthropic highlights this diversity.
• browningstreet 7mo ago
  Ever since OpenAI stuck the "Memory almost full" ad banner at the bottom of every chat, I've moved away from them. I have Grok in my car, Alexa+ on my alexas, Gemini Plus from my Google Workspace account, Microsoft Copilot at work, Claude Code because I like it, Opencode because it's free enough -- by spreading my chats around I'm not beholden to any single of them. None of these can't be moved away from immediately. Even with my github repos, I use Antigravity, Claude Code, Opencode, and I might try Codex. I use one of them as a primary more than the other, but they're as close to interchangeable as possible.
• unixhero 7mo ago
  I just cancelled my paid Plus subscription. I do not want to give away money.
• dpbosssnetin 7mo ago
  [dead]
• LZ_Khan 7mo ago
  A very obvious and likely to happen strategy is to turn the emotional manipulation dial up. Make users more dependent on validation and attention the model provides. They're already doing it, but wonder how far they'll take it.
• rolodexter2023 7mo ago
  In consumer search, Google paid to be the default because defaults are basically behavioral gravity. Most people don’t churn defaults. In AI, the equivalent isn’t just “the search box,” it’s the assistant that sits inside the apps where you already spend your cognitive budget—design, docs, email, IDE, CRM, ticketing, finance—so your prompts stop being little one-off spells and start being operations with permissions, audit trails, and repeatability.
• rolodexter2023 7mo ago
  Think more like what Microsoft did by being everywhere enterprises already were: integrations, admin controls, compliance posture, procurement-friendly packaging. OpenAI doesn’t need to “invent all experiences” if it can be the default inference layer that’s easiest to buy, govern, and instrument inside large orgs—especially if it can show auditors a cleaner story than “random employees piping data into a consumer chatbot.” This is the less sexy but very real wedge: the assistant becomes a governed interface to computation.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]