8 ms·

Claude struggles to cope with ChatGPT exodus

LaurensBER 7mo ago
I really enjoyed using Claude but the ever changing limits, weird policies (limited to Claude Code, you can't run Openclaw, etc) made switching a very easy choice. OpenAI simply provides more value for the money at the moment.
- thereitgoes456 7mo ago
  What a baffling comment. Aren’t you aware of why this exodus is happening? (It’s not related to “value for the money”!) What are your feelings on that part?
  - anonyfox 7mo ago
    not the poster, but I guess thats kinda american thinking that actually believes voting with your wallet will make any difference in this late stage crony capitalism in a post-facts world. realistically: AI WILL get used in military and for killing autonomously, like it or not, believe it or not. I am also against that in principle but I do accept the fact my opinion just doesn't matter and practice radial acceptance or reality as-is. twitter/X is also alive and kicking, despite musk and anti-musk-hate. xAI/Grok is genuinely really good too compared to OAI/Claude, a bit different but very good. At this point all the "outcries" feel like noise I just skip on principle. But it could turn up the fire under the OAI team to go aggressive feature/pricing wise in order to retain/increase their userbase again, which is ... good, after all.
  - lilytweed 7mo ago
    It is entirely okay to weigh the Department of War thing against other criteria when choosing a service.
    - thereitgoes456 7mo ago
      Agreed, but the comment should mention it. Nobody is talking about value for money right now. I didn't mean to advocate for Anthropic, apologies.
      - LaurensBER 7mo ago
        Whatever Anthropic might or might not do with the department of war interests me in proportion to how much I can influence this. Rounded, speaking as an European citizen, that appears to be exactly 0 to me.
  - serf 7mo ago
    ever tried living while simultaneously deciding to only patron groups that strictly morally and ethically align to your own personal beliefs? I would love to, but a practical look at that concept seems practically impossible. My .02c : Claude was already involved in underhanded shit I don't want a part of[0] and that generated little ethical response from Anthropic , i've had better luck as a 200/mo tier customer with ChatGPT, and I don't really think that Dario claiming that their newest LLM is conscious[1] on a market schedule is all that ethical, either. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven [1]: https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/claude/articles/anthropic-ceo-admits-dont-know-183053024.html?guccounter=1 https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/claude/articles/anthropic-ceo-admi...
    - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
      Why paint the choice as black and white? Most people are doing the best they can morally even if they don't get it 100% right. Even living 60% in accordance with your values is better than 50%. Likewise, bucketing organizations as good or bad misses the same nuance. Choosing something that is slightly better is has positive consequences despite it not being 100% good.
  - partiallypro 7mo ago
    If anyone thinks Anthropic or OpenAI are the "good guys," they've already lost the plot. If you look at additional reporting on the topic, not just the Anthropic PR spin, the disagreements were much more nuanced than it was portrayed by Anthropic. They aren't exactly a reliable narrator on the topic either. In fact it actually just seems like Amodei fumbled the deal and crashed out a bit. He's already walked back his internal memo, and is reportedly still seeking a deal with the Pentagon. I don't trust either CEO, I use their products, but if you're even leaning 51-49 on who is "less evil," I think you're giving too much slack.
    - sejje 7mo ago
      Then the people mad about "mass surveillance" recommend Gemini or whatever. They're just keeping up with the outrage news cycles.
- next_xibalba 7mo ago
  Have you considered using Gemini? Google seems to be on a hot streak with their models, and, since they're playing from behind, I'd expect favorable pricing and terms. But, I don't know anyone who is using or talking about Gemini. All the chatter seems to be Anthropic vs. OpenAI.
  - igor47 7mo ago
    I've tried. It's just not very good compared to either mentioned alternative.
  - anonyfox 7mo ago
    because gemini, despite what stats say, still produces garbage once the problem gets harder. it nails it for lab conditions, but messy reality or creativity or even code quality is a far cry from opus or the latest gpt5.4 by a long shot. and always has been. its pretty good inside the GSuite because of integrations, but standalone its near worthless compared to even grok-code-fast which doesn't think much at all (but damn it is fast). At this point google keeps throwing noodlepots with AI against every wall in reach to see what sticks, which is more kind of desperation that still works to increase wall street highscores, but not exactly a streak or breakthrough. just rapid fire shotgun launches to see if anything sticks. No one serious talks Gemini because its not even worth considering still for real things outside shiny presentations and artificial benchmarks.
    - szundi 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - baq 7mo ago
      Gemini schools the other two when doing code reviews. I used to think tokens are a commodity, but it’s becoming clear that the jagged frontier is different enough even for the easiest use case of SWE that there’s room for having two if not three providers of different foundational models. It isn’t a winner takes all, they’re all winning together. Cursor isn’t properly taking advantage of the situation yet.
    - 7mo ago
- m-schuetz 7mo ago
  That's weird, I switched away from ChatGPT because I mostly got superior results from Gemini and Claude.
  - anonyfox 7mo ago
    give 5.4 a shot - its straneg but surprisingly good for once. speaking as a daily opus user.
    - indigodaddy 7mo ago
      Used codex cli (5.4) for the first time (had never used codex or gpt for coding before - was using Opus 4.5 for everything), and it seems quite good. One thing I like is it's very focused on tests. Like it will just start setting up units tests for specs without you asking (whereas Opus would never do that unless you asked)-- I like that and think it's generally good. One thing I don't like about GPT though is it pauses too much throughout tasks where the immediate plan and also the more outward plan are all extremely well defined already in agents.md, but it still pauses too much between tasks saying, next logical task is X, and I say yeah go ahead, instead of it just proceeding to the next task which Id rather it do. I suppose that is a preference that should be put in some document? (agents.md?)
      - anonyfox 7mo ago
        well I have a running model (ha!) in my head about the frontier providers thats roughly like this: - chatgpt is kinda autistic and must follow procedures no matter what and writes like some bland soulless but kinda correct style. great at research, horrible at creativity, slow at getting things done but at least getting there. good architect, mid builder, horrible designer/writer. - claude is the sensitive diva that is able to really produce elegant code but has to be reminded of correctness checks and quality gates repeatedly, so it arrives at something good very fast (sometimes oneshot) but then loses time for correction loops and "those details". great overall balance, but permanent helicoptering needed or else it derails into weird loops. - grok is the maker, super fast and on target, but doesn't think deeply as the others, its entirely goal/achievement focussed and does just enough things to get there. uniqiely it doesn't argue or self-monologue constantly about doubts or safety or ethics, but drives forward where other stuggles, and faster than others. cannot conenctrate for too long, but delivers fast. tons of quick edits? grok it is. "experimental" stuff that is not safe talking about... definitely grok. - gemini is whatever you quickly need in your GSuite, plus looking at what others are doing and helping out with a sometimes different perspective, but beyond that worse than all the others on top. - kimi: currently using it on the side, not bad at all so far, but also nothing distinct I crystallized in my head.
- causal 7mo ago
  You're totally allowed to use Claude for OpenClaw and you're totally able to use Claude Code with non-Anthropic models. You must be referring to the fact that you have to use an API key and cannot use the auth intended for Claude-only products, which AFAIK is the same at every AI company (with Google destroying whole Google accounts for offenders most recently).
  - LaurensBER 7mo ago
    OpenAI and Github Copilot do explicitly allow this, so do many of the new/Chinese providers such as Synthetic, Z.ai, etc. Anthropic is the outlier here, obviously they can limit their subscriptions as they want but it's a major disadvantage compared to their competitors.
    - causal 7mo ago
      > OpenAI ... explicitly allow this Explicit means it's stated in OpenAI docs somewhere, but I can't find it. Link?
      - LaurensBER 7mo ago
        https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2009742187484065881 https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2009742187484065881 There's probably a better source somewhere but this is the one I had at hand.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - samrolken 7mo ago
      How can I retrieve an API key from ChatGPT to use my subscription in other tools then? This seems like it could be useful.
- scuff3d 7mo ago
  I tend to use LLMs more for research then actual coding, so I ended up going with GPT over Claude because it's chat interface just seems to work better for me. It balances out Claude being slightly better at software tasks.
- replwoacause 7mo ago
  The limits are what did it for me. They kept boasting about Opus performance and improvements, practically begging me to try it out, and when I did, it totally obliterated my usage. I'm sure its good, but I stick to Sonnet because I've been burned bad. Never had that problem with ChatGPT, but it turns out they're just unprincipled and evil, which is a shame.
prngl 7mo ago
It's funny how the false choice of American politics (Red vs Blue) also makes it into its consumerist corporatist life. That Anthropic's threadbare "limits" on government usage are seen as a heroic stand is a testament to just how far the goalposts on "ethical" deployment of AI have moved to the (fascist) right. As ever, politics precedes technology. We have Reagan's internet, we will have Trump's AI. God help us.
- gedy 7mo ago
  From prior thread is there even "limits"? I thought the Anthropic statements were pointed out to be mostly toothless PR, e.g. "we don't agree", etc.
  - overvale 7mo ago
    Not just PR. I mean... they got fired over those limits.
- esseph 7mo ago
  > We have Reagan's internet I've been on the internet since 93 or 94 and I've never once heard it called that. If anything, "Al Gore".
- parineum 7mo ago
  I'm not sure what the message this comment is trying to convey beyond throwing in the "corporatist" "consumerist" signalling buzzwords followed by calling the right fascists. I've literally never heard anybody call the Internet "Reagan's internet", the best I can do is the Al Gore quote and who's calling anything Trump's AI? What ideas are you trying to express here?
  - prngl 7mo ago
    These are the points I'm making, which I think are fairly one-to-one with my original comment: - American politics presents a false choice between Democrats and Republicans - America is both a consumerist and corporatist society - Anthropic asked for minimal limits on AI usage - People view Anthropic's stand as heroic, while viewing OpenAI as villainous - The false choice between Anthropic and OpenAI mirrors the false choice in American politics. - People at OpenAI, Anthropic, and elsewhere used to view ethical deployment of AI as paramount, but those goalposts have shifted as financial and political incentives changed. - Specifically, the ethics of AI have become conveniently synonymous with the current financial and political moment. - The current political moment is fascist. - Technology is broadly neutral and it is politics that primarily dictates how technology is actually used and deployed, and therefore its broad impacts. - The internet was developed in the neoliberal era, which began with the election of Ronald Reagan and extended through the Obama presidency. - The structure and dynamics of the internet over the last 30 years is more reflective of neoliberal politics than it is of anything inherent in the technology. Extreme privitization and the refusal to use public institutions to provision or regulate public goods. - AI is being developed in a new political era, begun with the first Trump presidency, and taking more full shape under the second Trump presidency. - We are likely to find that AI's trajectory is similarly dictated largely by politics rather than anything inherent to the technology. - With this political era being fascist and explicitly neo-imperial/neo-colonial, I fear for the technology's impact on humanity. - God help us.
t0mas88 7mo ago
> OpenAI, meanwhile, has been attempting to quell the backlash against its deal with the U.S. government, putting out a blog post claiming that “our tools will not be used to conduct domestic surveillance of U.S. persons,” As a non-US person, that sounds far more concerning than no statement at all. Because if their tools weren't used for surveillance against Europeans they would have said so as a marketing message...
- spwa4 7mo ago
  It's amazing how bad FANG executives are at even knowing what a normal moral thought would be for average people ... Plus, you know, you'd think they'd ask their cleaner or baker or something. Or hire someone.
  - clcaev 7mo ago
    Executives are certainly capable of understanding moral/ethical concerns. Around 2005, a Yale Psychology PhD candidate asked me to write a web-based survey instrument with various questions, some on complex but straight forward business questions (the controls) and others with moral/ethical aspects. Senior executives participated and they answered similarly to rank & file, often completing the entire survey much faster. What they didn't know -- we were tracking how long they spent on each question. Questions with moral/ethical concerns took senior executives relatively longer than the rank & file. Late Addendum: Sorry that I don't recall the author/paper. The survey population spanned multiple industries representing many Fortune 500s, including huge tech companies. The survey was the same for everyone. The questions were story problems from business and law school case reports. The participating companies were anonymized on our end. We provided HR departments with survey link; only subject rank (not identity) was collected. Survey was voluntary, with informed consent according to IRB approval.
    - mjburgess 7mo ago
      You would also need to control for the degree to which people had a stake in the outcome (ie., virtue signalling). Since executives have to make decisions where choosing the moral option may impose an economic (or operational) cost, this requires thinking through the actual choice. Morality for the "rank and file" is just a signalling issue: there's nothing to think through, the answer they are "supposed to choose" is the one they do so, at no cost to them.
goldenarm 7mo ago
Still 8x less downtime than GitHub https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
baq 7mo ago
There’s a surge of demand for sure, but I’m not at all convinced that it’s at OpenAI’s expense. My bet is the non-swe folks caught wind the things got seriously good at a lot of boring office work, i.e. we’re seeing diffusion of AI into the wider economy.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
causal 7mo ago
It helps a lot that Claude is just better. Codex isn't BAD, and in some narrow technical ways might even be more capable, but I find Claude to be hands-down the best collaborator of all the AI models and it has never been close.
- xscott 7mo ago
  Can you expand on that. I've been wanting to try Claude for a while, but their payment processing wouldn't take any of my credit cards (they work everywhere else, so it's not the cards). I've heard I can work around this by installing their mobile app or something, but it was extra hurdles, so I didn't try very hard. And I've been absolutely amazed with Codex. I started using that with version ChatGPT 5.3-Codex, and it was so much better than online ChatGPT 5.2, even sticking to single page apps which both can do. I don't have any way to measure the "smarts" for of the new 5.4, but it seems similar. Anyways, I'll try to get Claude running if it's better in some significant way. I'm happy enough the the Codex GUI on MacOS, but that's just one of several things that could be different between them.
  - ValentineC 7mo ago
    > I've been wanting to try Claude for a while, but their payment processing wouldn't take any of my credit cards (they work everywhere else, so it's not the cards). I've heard I can work around this by installing their mobile app or something, but it was extra hurdles, so I didn't try very hard. Not Claude Code specifically, but you can try the Claude Opus and Sonnet 4.6 models for free using Google Antigravity.
    - xscott 7mo ago
      Thank you for this. I had Antigravity already but was thinking of cancelling it because Gemini frustrates me. Using it with Claude though was very impressive. I burned through my token budget in about 5 hours though.
  - causal 7mo ago
    Codex is not bad, I think it is still useful. But I find that it takes things far too literally, and is generally less collaborative. It is a bit like working with a robot that makes no effort to understand why a user is asking for something. Claude, IMO, is much better at empathizing with me as a user: It asks better questions, tries harder to understand WHY I'm trying to do something, and is more likely to tell me if there's a better way. Both have plenty of flaws. Codex might be better if you want to set it loose on a well-defined problem and let it churn overnight. But if you want a back-and-forth collaboration, I find Claude far better.
hk1337 7mo ago
It's like reddit when Digg v4 happened
cmiles8 7mo ago
All this demonstrates how non-sticky all this tech really is. When your product is basically just an API call it’s trivial to just swap you out for someone else. As such it’s unclear what the prize at the end of the present race to the bottom is. We swapped OpenAI out for Claude and it required updating about 15 lines of code. All these guys are just commodity to us. If next week there’s a better supplier of commodity AI we’ll spend an hour and swap to something else again. There’s zero loyalty here.
- pinkmuffinere 7mo ago
  Ya, agreed. This makes me think that (long term) the ai race won’t be won on the merits of individual models, but on pricing — I think Google has a some strong advantages here because they know how to provide cheap compute, and they already have a ton of engineers doing similar things, so it’s a marginal cost for them instead of having to hire and maintain whole devoted teams.
  - rblatz 7mo ago
    AI consumes entire data centers of compute. You aren’t tucking a few racks into a corner of a data center, you are building entirely new ones. There will be whole devoted teams.
    - pinkmuffinere 7mo ago
      But Google already builds data centers. Will there really be devoted AI-datacenter teams? Or will they just expand the normal datacenter teams, and ask them to use GPUs/TPUs instead of CPUs?
- HotHotLava 7mo ago
  It's an ironic situation; logically what should be the moat are the models, costing hundreds of millions of investment cost to train and operate so it would make sense if we see different provider focusing in different directions. But right now we have 3-5 top contenders that are so evenly matched that the de-facto sticking point is mostly the harness, ie. the collection of proven plugins/commands/tools/agent features that are tuned to the users personal workflow.
bronlund 7mo ago
I guess you can call it «struggles», but this is that kind of struggle which brings a smile to your face :)
13415 7mo ago
Is there any news about how Gemini fares in this debate? I suppose they're fine with total mass surveillance ("we already do that anyway") and creating kill bots but is there any official stance? I find it hard to believe Alphabet would not make US government contracts.
stavarotti 7mo ago
I've largely found codex and claude code to be about the same however, codex tends to "think" harder and for longer which depending on the task, yields better results without too much steering. On an unrelated note, UI is such a personal preference that it's impossible, beyond core pillars that have been studied for decades, to say one is better over the other. That being said, I like OpenAI's design system much better than Anthropic. OpenAI products (cli and chat ui) "feel" nice and consumer focused whereas Anthropic's products feel utilitarian and "designed for business".
Lerc 7mo ago
It's is a fairly ridiculous conclusion to draw that these people are leaving ChatGPT because of their stance. I doubt OpenAI's actions play much role in the influx at all. A couple of weeks ago, to huge numbers of people, ChatGPT was AI. The biggest public perception shift that will have come from the DoD/DoW spat will be how many people know that Claude exists at all, that they are being unreasonably punished by the government for taking a principled stance will benefit. People have been made aware of a product, made aware that it's good enough that the government wants to use it. They have then been shown a archetypical underdog against the government narrative. That makes almost a perfect storm for gaining customers. When they actually use the thing and discover that it actually is good, They will stay, and they will tell their friends. At this rate they should be sending Hegseth a thank you card.
pgt 7mo ago
No one left ChatGPT over that deal: they decided to try Anthropic's Claude because the Department of War gave them free marketing.
- michele_f 7mo ago
  The DoW or the CEO of Anthropic and his telenovela?
- furyofantares 7mo ago
  I was paying both $200+/mo and I went down to only paying Anthropic $200/mo. My experience has, for a few months, been that OpenAI's models are consistently quite noticeably better for me, and so my Codex CLI usage had been probably 5x as much as my Claude Code usage. So it's a major bummer to have cancelled, but I don't have it in me to keep giving them money. I'd love to get off Anthropic too, despite the admirable stance they took, the whole deal made me extra uncomfortable that they were ever a defense contractor (war contractor?) to begin with.
- Grimblewald 7mo ago
  I left the openai platform long before this, because I expected things like this. A few called me alarmist but are now also jumping ship because of this. OpenAI has zero moral or ethical substance and people _do_ care about that. I'm extreme enough that joining openAI after a specific date works against you and your CV, not with/for you, while leaving at a specific date speaks volumes in favour of you. People are the sum of their actions, not their words and siding with / continuing to use openAI speaks volumes on who you are.
qnleigh 7mo ago
I wonder if this is actually good for Anthropic. 2.5 million new customers sounds like good news for them, except these are mostly not paying customers. It seemed like they were positioning themselves to make money by selling coding agents with a subscription fee. If that free tier mostly exists to advertise their paid tiers, then this would be kind of a drag.
cedws 7mo ago
Codex has been feeling a bit faster recently, not sure if placebo.
- alphabettsy 7mo ago
  They claim it’s faster and it seems to be so for me.
syskuh 7mo ago
[dead]
christina97 7mo ago
We are in this fascinating stage where tokens that are nominally entirely fungible at a roughly equivalent intelligence level; yet at the same time there is huge market segmentation and differentiation in the non-tangible aspects of those tokens.
SilverElfin 7mo ago
Didn’t Anthropic hire the infrastructure head from stripe and give him a CTO title? I would’ve thought that would help bring stability but if anything, things have become worse.
didip 7mo ago
Suffering from success in a good way. ChatGPT truly lost all of its edge.
- Grimblewald 7mo ago
  Well c-suite lied to everyone and was dealing in bad faith. When thay came to light they immediatly lost support and interest from highly skilled researchers in the area, from that point onward, their only additional offerings would be whatever tech evangelists can rustle up, so nice ui some cool features etc. But really ground breaking stuff that takes celever engineering or the kind of thinking that cannot be taught/approximated? Gone. So OpenAI, despite its massive headstart, will just continue to fall behind. When youre smart enough money stops mattering beyond keeping a roof over your head and food in your mouth. At that point your world view and personal beleifs become far more valuable, and smart people always come to the conclusion violence is never worth it, ve it physical, information based, social, meotional, whatever. OpenAI is an incredibly violent company, so inherently scares off talent.
k32k 7mo ago
Many people I know initially used ChatGPT for awhile. Then after awhile they went to Gemini. Again stuck with it for awhile. And now are dabbling with Claude. Yep there really is no switching cost it seems. People generally want something from a model and then leave. I think people are sub-consciously forming relationships with Tech firms such that they do not care about them, and its all about what the user themselves gets. Generally there is no attachment. There's some examples of psychotic stuff but that's thankfully the exception not the norm. That's why Apple cares deeply about its brand - it doesn't want to fall into that group of firms.

I really enjoyed using Claude but the ever changing limits, weird policies (limited to Claude Code, you can't run Openclaw, etc) made switching a very easy choice. OpenAI simply provides more value for the money at the moment.

thereitgoes456 7mo ago
What a baffling comment. Aren’t you aware of why this exodus is happening? (It’s not related to “value for the money”!) What are your feelings on that part?
- anonyfox 7mo ago
  not the poster, but I guess thats kinda american thinking that actually believes voting with your wallet will make any difference in this late stage crony capitalism in a post-facts world. realistically: AI WILL get used in military and for killing autonomously, like it or not, believe it or not. I am also against that in principle but I do accept the fact my opinion just doesn't matter and practice radial acceptance or reality as-is. twitter/X is also alive and kicking, despite musk and anti-musk-hate. xAI/Grok is genuinely really good too compared to OAI/Claude, a bit different but very good. At this point all the "outcries" feel like noise I just skip on principle. But it could turn up the fire under the OAI team to go aggressive feature/pricing wise in order to retain/increase their userbase again, which is ... good, after all.
- lilytweed 7mo ago
  It is entirely okay to weigh the Department of War thing against other criteria when choosing a service.
  - thereitgoes456 7mo ago
    Agreed, but the comment should mention it. Nobody is talking about value for money right now. I didn't mean to advocate for Anthropic, apologies.
    - LaurensBER 7mo ago
      Whatever Anthropic might or might not do with the department of war interests me in proportion to how much I can influence this. Rounded, speaking as an European citizen, that appears to be exactly 0 to me.
- serf 7mo ago
  ever tried living while simultaneously deciding to only patron groups that strictly morally and ethically align to your own personal beliefs? I would love to, but a practical look at that concept seems practically impossible. My .02c : Claude was already involved in underhanded shit I don't want a part of[0] and that generated little ethical response from Anthropic , i've had better luck as a 200/mo tier customer with ChatGPT, and I don't really think that Dario claiming that their newest LLM is conscious[1] on a market schedule is all that ethical, either. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven [1]: https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/claude/articles/anthropic-ceo-admits-dont-know-183053024.html?guccounter=1 https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/claude/articles/anthropic-ceo-admi...
  - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
    Why paint the choice as black and white? Most people are doing the best they can morally even if they don't get it 100% right. Even living 60% in accordance with your values is better than 50%. Likewise, bucketing organizations as good or bad misses the same nuance. Choosing something that is slightly better is has positive consequences despite it not being 100% good.
- partiallypro 7mo ago
  If anyone thinks Anthropic or OpenAI are the "good guys," they've already lost the plot. If you look at additional reporting on the topic, not just the Anthropic PR spin, the disagreements were much more nuanced than it was portrayed by Anthropic. They aren't exactly a reliable narrator on the topic either. In fact it actually just seems like Amodei fumbled the deal and crashed out a bit. He's already walked back his internal memo, and is reportedly still seeking a deal with the Pentagon. I don't trust either CEO, I use their products, but if you're even leaning 51-49 on who is "less evil," I think you're giving too much slack.
  - sejje 7mo ago
    Then the people mad about "mass surveillance" recommend Gemini or whatever. They're just keeping up with the outrage news cycles.
next_xibalba 7mo ago
Have you considered using Gemini? Google seems to be on a hot streak with their models, and, since they're playing from behind, I'd expect favorable pricing and terms. But, I don't know anyone who is using or talking about Gemini. All the chatter seems to be Anthropic vs. OpenAI.
- igor47 7mo ago
  I've tried. It's just not very good compared to either mentioned alternative.
- anonyfox 7mo ago
  because gemini, despite what stats say, still produces garbage once the problem gets harder. it nails it for lab conditions, but messy reality or creativity or even code quality is a far cry from opus or the latest gpt5.4 by a long shot. and always has been. its pretty good inside the GSuite because of integrations, but standalone its near worthless compared to even grok-code-fast which doesn't think much at all (but damn it is fast). At this point google keeps throwing noodlepots with AI against every wall in reach to see what sticks, which is more kind of desperation that still works to increase wall street highscores, but not exactly a streak or breakthrough. just rapid fire shotgun launches to see if anything sticks. No one serious talks Gemini because its not even worth considering still for real things outside shiny presentations and artificial benchmarks.
  - szundi 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - baq 7mo ago
    Gemini schools the other two when doing code reviews. I used to think tokens are a commodity, but it’s becoming clear that the jagged frontier is different enough even for the easiest use case of SWE that there’s room for having two if not three providers of different foundational models. It isn’t a winner takes all, they’re all winning together. Cursor isn’t properly taking advantage of the situation yet.
  - 7mo ago
m-schuetz 7mo ago
That's weird, I switched away from ChatGPT because I mostly got superior results from Gemini and Claude.
- anonyfox 7mo ago
  give 5.4 a shot - its straneg but surprisingly good for once. speaking as a daily opus user.
  - indigodaddy 7mo ago
    Used codex cli (5.4) for the first time (had never used codex or gpt for coding before - was using Opus 4.5 for everything), and it seems quite good. One thing I like is it's very focused on tests. Like it will just start setting up units tests for specs without you asking (whereas Opus would never do that unless you asked)-- I like that and think it's generally good. One thing I don't like about GPT though is it pauses too much throughout tasks where the immediate plan and also the more outward plan are all extremely well defined already in agents.md, but it still pauses too much between tasks saying, next logical task is X, and I say yeah go ahead, instead of it just proceeding to the next task which Id rather it do. I suppose that is a preference that should be put in some document? (agents.md?)
    - anonyfox 7mo ago
      well I have a running model (ha!) in my head about the frontier providers thats roughly like this: - chatgpt is kinda autistic and must follow procedures no matter what and writes like some bland soulless but kinda correct style. great at research, horrible at creativity, slow at getting things done but at least getting there. good architect, mid builder, horrible designer/writer. - claude is the sensitive diva that is able to really produce elegant code but has to be reminded of correctness checks and quality gates repeatedly, so it arrives at something good very fast (sometimes oneshot) but then loses time for correction loops and "those details". great overall balance, but permanent helicoptering needed or else it derails into weird loops. - grok is the maker, super fast and on target, but doesn't think deeply as the others, its entirely goal/achievement focussed and does just enough things to get there. uniqiely it doesn't argue or self-monologue constantly about doubts or safety or ethics, but drives forward where other stuggles, and faster than others. cannot conenctrate for too long, but delivers fast. tons of quick edits? grok it is. "experimental" stuff that is not safe talking about... definitely grok. - gemini is whatever you quickly need in your GSuite, plus looking at what others are doing and helping out with a sometimes different perspective, but beyond that worse than all the others on top. - kimi: currently using it on the side, not bad at all so far, but also nothing distinct I crystallized in my head.
causal 7mo ago
You're totally allowed to use Claude for OpenClaw and you're totally able to use Claude Code with non-Anthropic models. You must be referring to the fact that you have to use an API key and cannot use the auth intended for Claude-only products, which AFAIK is the same at every AI company (with Google destroying whole Google accounts for offenders most recently).
- LaurensBER 7mo ago
  OpenAI and Github Copilot do explicitly allow this, so do many of the new/Chinese providers such as Synthetic, Z.ai, etc. Anthropic is the outlier here, obviously they can limit their subscriptions as they want but it's a major disadvantage compared to their competitors.
  - causal 7mo ago
    > OpenAI ... explicitly allow this Explicit means it's stated in OpenAI docs somewhere, but I can't find it. Link?
    - LaurensBER 7mo ago
      https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2009742187484065881 https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2009742187484065881 There's probably a better source somewhere but this is the one I had at hand.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - samrolken 7mo ago
    How can I retrieve an API key from ChatGPT to use my subscription in other tools then? This seems like it could be useful.
scuff3d 7mo ago
I tend to use LLMs more for research then actual coding, so I ended up going with GPT over Claude because it's chat interface just seems to work better for me. It balances out Claude being slightly better at software tasks.
replwoacause 7mo ago
The limits are what did it for me. They kept boasting about Opus performance and improvements, practically begging me to try it out, and when I did, it totally obliterated my usage. I'm sure its good, but I stick to Sonnet because I've been burned bad. Never had that problem with ChatGPT, but it turns out they're just unprincipled and evil, which is a shame.

prngl 7mo ago

It's funny how the false choice of American politics (Red vs Blue) also makes it into its consumerist corporatist life. That Anthropic's threadbare "limits" on government usage are seen as a heroic stand is a testament to just how far the goalposts on "ethical" deployment of AI have moved to the (fascist) right. As ever, politics precedes technology. We have Reagan's internet, we will have Trump's AI. God help us.

gedy 7mo ago
From prior thread is there even "limits"? I thought the Anthropic statements were pointed out to be mostly toothless PR, e.g. "we don't agree", etc.
- overvale 7mo ago
  Not just PR. I mean... they got fired over those limits.
esseph 7mo ago
> We have Reagan's internet I've been on the internet since 93 or 94 and I've never once heard it called that. If anything, "Al Gore".
parineum 7mo ago
I'm not sure what the message this comment is trying to convey beyond throwing in the "corporatist" "consumerist" signalling buzzwords followed by calling the right fascists. I've literally never heard anybody call the Internet "Reagan's internet", the best I can do is the Al Gore quote and who's calling anything Trump's AI? What ideas are you trying to express here?
- prngl 7mo ago
  These are the points I'm making, which I think are fairly one-to-one with my original comment: - American politics presents a false choice between Democrats and Republicans - America is both a consumerist and corporatist society - Anthropic asked for minimal limits on AI usage - People view Anthropic's stand as heroic, while viewing OpenAI as villainous - The false choice between Anthropic and OpenAI mirrors the false choice in American politics. - People at OpenAI, Anthropic, and elsewhere used to view ethical deployment of AI as paramount, but those goalposts have shifted as financial and political incentives changed. - Specifically, the ethics of AI have become conveniently synonymous with the current financial and political moment. - The current political moment is fascist. - Technology is broadly neutral and it is politics that primarily dictates how technology is actually used and deployed, and therefore its broad impacts. - The internet was developed in the neoliberal era, which began with the election of Ronald Reagan and extended through the Obama presidency. - The structure and dynamics of the internet over the last 30 years is more reflective of neoliberal politics than it is of anything inherent in the technology. Extreme privitization and the refusal to use public institutions to provision or regulate public goods. - AI is being developed in a new political era, begun with the first Trump presidency, and taking more full shape under the second Trump presidency. - We are likely to find that AI's trajectory is similarly dictated largely by politics rather than anything inherent to the technology. - With this political era being fascist and explicitly neo-imperial/neo-colonial, I fear for the technology's impact on humanity. - God help us.

t0mas88 7mo ago

> OpenAI, meanwhile, has been attempting to quell the backlash against its deal with the U.S. government, putting out a blog post claiming that “our tools will not be used to conduct domestic surveillance of U.S. persons,” As a non-US person, that sounds far more concerning than no statement at all. Because if their tools weren't used for surveillance against Europeans they would have said so as a marketing message...

spwa4 7mo ago
It's amazing how bad FANG executives are at even knowing what a normal moral thought would be for average people ... Plus, you know, you'd think they'd ask their cleaner or baker or something. Or hire someone.
- clcaev 7mo ago
  Executives are certainly capable of understanding moral/ethical concerns. Around 2005, a Yale Psychology PhD candidate asked me to write a web-based survey instrument with various questions, some on complex but straight forward business questions (the controls) and others with moral/ethical aspects. Senior executives participated and they answered similarly to rank & file, often completing the entire survey much faster. What they didn't know -- we were tracking how long they spent on each question. Questions with moral/ethical concerns took senior executives relatively longer than the rank & file. Late Addendum: Sorry that I don't recall the author/paper. The survey population spanned multiple industries representing many Fortune 500s, including huge tech companies. The survey was the same for everyone. The questions were story problems from business and law school case reports. The participating companies were anonymized on our end. We provided HR departments with survey link; only subject rank (not identity) was collected. Survey was voluntary, with informed consent according to IRB approval.
  - mjburgess 7mo ago
    You would also need to control for the degree to which people had a stake in the outcome (ie., virtue signalling). Since executives have to make decisions where choosing the moral option may impose an economic (or operational) cost, this requires thinking through the actual choice. Morality for the "rank and file" is just a signalling issue: there's nothing to think through, the answer they are "supposed to choose" is the one they do so, at no cost to them.

goldenarm 7mo ago

Still 8x less downtime than GitHub https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/

baq 7mo ago

There’s a surge of demand for sure, but I’m not at all convinced that it’s at OpenAI’s expense. My bet is the non-swe folks caught wind the things got seriously good at a lot of boring office work, i.e. we’re seeing diffusion of AI into the wider economy.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

causal 7mo ago

It helps a lot that Claude is just better. Codex isn't BAD, and in some narrow technical ways might even be more capable, but I find Claude to be hands-down the best collaborator of all the AI models and it has never been close.

xscott 7mo ago
Can you expand on that. I've been wanting to try Claude for a while, but their payment processing wouldn't take any of my credit cards (they work everywhere else, so it's not the cards). I've heard I can work around this by installing their mobile app or something, but it was extra hurdles, so I didn't try very hard. And I've been absolutely amazed with Codex. I started using that with version ChatGPT 5.3-Codex, and it was so much better than online ChatGPT 5.2, even sticking to single page apps which both can do. I don't have any way to measure the "smarts" for of the new 5.4, but it seems similar. Anyways, I'll try to get Claude running if it's better in some significant way. I'm happy enough the the Codex GUI on MacOS, but that's just one of several things that could be different between them.
- ValentineC 7mo ago
  > I've been wanting to try Claude for a while, but their payment processing wouldn't take any of my credit cards (they work everywhere else, so it's not the cards). I've heard I can work around this by installing their mobile app or something, but it was extra hurdles, so I didn't try very hard. Not Claude Code specifically, but you can try the Claude Opus and Sonnet 4.6 models for free using Google Antigravity.
  - xscott 7mo ago
    Thank you for this. I had Antigravity already but was thinking of cancelling it because Gemini frustrates me. Using it with Claude though was very impressive. I burned through my token budget in about 5 hours though.
- causal 7mo ago
  Codex is not bad, I think it is still useful. But I find that it takes things far too literally, and is generally less collaborative. It is a bit like working with a robot that makes no effort to understand why a user is asking for something. Claude, IMO, is much better at empathizing with me as a user: It asks better questions, tries harder to understand WHY I'm trying to do something, and is more likely to tell me if there's a better way. Both have plenty of flaws. Codex might be better if you want to set it loose on a well-defined problem and let it churn overnight. But if you want a back-and-forth collaboration, I find Claude far better.

hk1337 7mo ago

It's like reddit when Digg v4 happened

cmiles8 7mo ago

All this demonstrates how non-sticky all this tech really is. When your product is basically just an API call it’s trivial to just swap you out for someone else. As such it’s unclear what the prize at the end of the present race to the bottom is. We swapped OpenAI out for Claude and it required updating about 15 lines of code. All these guys are just commodity to us. If next week there’s a better supplier of commodity AI we’ll spend an hour and swap to something else again. There’s zero loyalty here.

pinkmuffinere 7mo ago
Ya, agreed. This makes me think that (long term) the ai race won’t be won on the merits of individual models, but on pricing — I think Google has a some strong advantages here because they know how to provide cheap compute, and they already have a ton of engineers doing similar things, so it’s a marginal cost for them instead of having to hire and maintain whole devoted teams.
- rblatz 7mo ago
  AI consumes entire data centers of compute. You aren’t tucking a few racks into a corner of a data center, you are building entirely new ones. There will be whole devoted teams.
  - pinkmuffinere 7mo ago
    But Google already builds data centers. Will there really be devoted AI-datacenter teams? Or will they just expand the normal datacenter teams, and ask them to use GPUs/TPUs instead of CPUs?
HotHotLava 7mo ago
It's an ironic situation; logically what should be the moat are the models, costing hundreds of millions of investment cost to train and operate so it would make sense if we see different provider focusing in different directions. But right now we have 3-5 top contenders that are so evenly matched that the de-facto sticking point is mostly the harness, ie. the collection of proven plugins/commands/tools/agent features that are tuned to the users personal workflow.

bronlund 7mo ago

I guess you can call it «struggles», but this is that kind of struggle which brings a smile to your face :)

13415 7mo ago

Is there any news about how Gemini fares in this debate? I suppose they're fine with total mass surveillance ("we already do that anyway") and creating kill bots but is there any official stance? I find it hard to believe Alphabet would not make US government contracts.

stavarotti 7mo ago

I've largely found codex and claude code to be about the same however, codex tends to "think" harder and for longer which depending on the task, yields better results without too much steering. On an unrelated note, UI is such a personal preference that it's impossible, beyond core pillars that have been studied for decades, to say one is better over the other. That being said, I like OpenAI's design system much better than Anthropic. OpenAI products (cli and chat ui) "feel" nice and consumer focused whereas Anthropic's products feel utilitarian and "designed for business".

Lerc 7mo ago

It's is a fairly ridiculous conclusion to draw that these people are leaving ChatGPT because of their stance. I doubt OpenAI's actions play much role in the influx at all. A couple of weeks ago, to huge numbers of people, ChatGPT was AI. The biggest public perception shift that will have come from the DoD/DoW spat will be how many people know that Claude exists at all, that they are being unreasonably punished by the government for taking a principled stance will benefit. People have been made aware of a product, made aware that it's good enough that the government wants to use it. They have then been shown a archetypical underdog against the government narrative. That makes almost a perfect storm for gaining customers. When they actually use the thing and discover that it actually is good, They will stay, and they will tell their friends. At this rate they should be sending Hegseth a thank you card.

pgt 7mo ago

No one left ChatGPT over that deal: they decided to try Anthropic's Claude because the Department of War gave them free marketing.

michele_f 7mo ago
The DoW or the CEO of Anthropic and his telenovela?
furyofantares 7mo ago
I was paying both $200+/mo and I went down to only paying Anthropic $200/mo. My experience has, for a few months, been that OpenAI's models are consistently quite noticeably better for me, and so my Codex CLI usage had been probably 5x as much as my Claude Code usage. So it's a major bummer to have cancelled, but I don't have it in me to keep giving them money. I'd love to get off Anthropic too, despite the admirable stance they took, the whole deal made me extra uncomfortable that they were ever a defense contractor (war contractor?) to begin with.
Grimblewald 7mo ago
I left the openai platform long before this, because I expected things like this. A few called me alarmist but are now also jumping ship because of this. OpenAI has zero moral or ethical substance and people _do_ care about that. I'm extreme enough that joining openAI after a specific date works against you and your CV, not with/for you, while leaving at a specific date speaks volumes in favour of you. People are the sum of their actions, not their words and siding with / continuing to use openAI speaks volumes on who you are.

qnleigh 7mo ago

I wonder if this is actually good for Anthropic. 2.5 million new customers sounds like good news for them, except these are mostly not paying customers. It seemed like they were positioning themselves to make money by selling coding agents with a subscription fee. If that free tier mostly exists to advertise their paid tiers, then this would be kind of a drag.

cedws 7mo ago

Codex has been feeling a bit faster recently, not sure if placebo.

alphabettsy 7mo ago
They claim it’s faster and it seems to be so for me.

syskuh 7mo ago

[dead]

christina97 7mo ago

We are in this fascinating stage where tokens that are nominally entirely fungible at a roughly equivalent intelligence level; yet at the same time there is huge market segmentation and differentiation in the non-tangible aspects of those tokens.

SilverElfin 7mo ago

Didn’t Anthropic hire the infrastructure head from stripe and give him a CTO title? I would’ve thought that would help bring stability but if anything, things have become worse.

didip 7mo ago

Suffering from success in a good way. ChatGPT truly lost all of its edge.

Grimblewald 7mo ago
Well c-suite lied to everyone and was dealing in bad faith. When thay came to light they immediatly lost support and interest from highly skilled researchers in the area, from that point onward, their only additional offerings would be whatever tech evangelists can rustle up, so nice ui some cool features etc. But really ground breaking stuff that takes celever engineering or the kind of thinking that cannot be taught/approximated? Gone. So OpenAI, despite its massive headstart, will just continue to fall behind. When youre smart enough money stops mattering beyond keeping a roof over your head and food in your mouth. At that point your world view and personal beleifs become far more valuable, and smart people always come to the conclusion violence is never worth it, ve it physical, information based, social, meotional, whatever. OpenAI is an incredibly violent company, so inherently scares off talent.

k32k 7mo ago

Many people I know initially used ChatGPT for awhile. Then after awhile they went to Gemini. Again stuck with it for awhile. And now are dabbling with Claude. Yep there really is no switching cost it seems. People generally want something from a model and then leave. I think people are sub-consciously forming relationships with Tech firms such that they do not care about them, and its all about what the user themselves gets. Generally there is no attachment. There's some examples of psychotic stuff but that's thankfully the exception not the norm. That's why Apple cares deeply about its brand - it doesn't want to fall into that group of firms.