7 ms·

OpenAI's fall from grace as investors race to Anthropic

217 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago

cmiles8 7mo ago
tl;dr nobody wants OpenAI shares and the secondary market has completely dried up. “We literally couldn’t find anyone in our pool of hundreds of institutional investors to take these shares“ This doesn’t bode well for an IPO. The market is smelling a stinker. Get your popcorn ready for a mad scramble to salvage investments if indeed the shark has been jumped.
- aniekann 7mo ago
  not to mention the drama that's followed the company from the very beginning. It think its getting to a point where the character issues can no longer be ignored bc it's directly affecting business
- igtt 7mo ago
  I think the IPO and subsequent quarterly earnings where they will be pressured by analysts will pop it all. I was watching a recent Jensen Huang Q&A with analysts and it was essentially “just trust me bro”. They’re all interconnected - once there’s a correction for one player, all get affected. Can’t wait to finally get this over with so we can finally move on. The gap between hype and reality needs to be corrected.
- delfinom 7mo ago
  Nah you see, the NASDAQ is giving them a out just like SpaceX. Short-circuit the index joining time and allow them to get into index funds within days. After that you shift all the losses onto 401ks as the original investors cash out and the 401ks blindly buy the shares as part of the index.
brookst 7mo ago
I don’t know how OpenAI screwed this up. They had the best tech, the largest installed base, the best brand recognition. And somehow instead of prosecuting the lead in all areas, they got all hubristic and sloppy and just failed to iterate on the core product, while also failing to respond quickly when Anthropic showed that coding agents are the flywheel that makes the whole company faster. It’s like they thought they had an unassailable monopoly and speedran to the lazy incumbent position, all in a matter of months.
- morcutt 7mo ago
  Sam lost the plot for me. He took too many interviews which led me to not trust him. Last straw came with him standing by Anthropic one day then throwing them under the bus the next. He showed little awareness on why that is problematic.
  - tombert 7mo ago
    That's why I changed as well. I got really irritated how Altman tried to get the social credit by having principles, only to change them the moment it was convenient.
  - jimbokun 7mo ago
    I have appreciated Amodei’s brutal honesty about their intentions. On podcasts his attitude is basically “oh yeah all of you are basically fucked our products will take everyone’s jobs in a couple years.” Altman is a lot more coy and comes across as saying what’s politically expedient at any given point in time.
    - bayarearefugee 7mo ago
      > On podcasts his attitude is basically “oh yeah all of you are basically fucked our products will take everyone’s jobs in a couple years.” I also appreciate his honesty, and don't really understand why the others don't emulate it because there's no cost to them to be honest. At every level of society we've decided to stick our heads in the sand and pretend like this very large tsunami isn't racing toward the coast, so as someone producing this technology you can be honest (and mostly ignored by people in denial), or be cagey and mistrusted (like Sam Altman).
      - nostrebored 7mo ago
        Because it isn’t honest, it is investor hype that these frontier labs need people to believe despite obviously hitting the sublinear part of the improvement curve. “It’s so dangerous, we’ve reached AGI, we just have to release models that are obviously incapable of abstraction for your safety”
majormajor 7mo ago
> The large gap between OpenAI’s $852-billion valuation and Anthropic’s $380 billion has investors rushing to grab equity in the latter before it rises, according to Augment co-founder Adam Crawley. Interesting, so there are a lot of people still eager to invest in valuations of well greater than a-quarter-trillion, but OpenAI's latest raise has sucked up all the oxygen for enthusiasm of that valuation going even higher. Which could be a "dumb money" move ("competitor number lower, already-big-number is scary") or a "smart money" move ("Anthropic is gaining position-wise, and currently is lower valued, let's bet on the one we think is better positioned") or some mix of both. OpenAI just raised a shit-ton so clearly there is plenty of money out there who don't think there's a bubble or even a blown opportunity there. But the wider community doesn't think they have the competition in the bag, while still being willing to invest in big-AI-cos at absolutely enormous valuations. If local hardware/models get good enough to take 80%-90% of what people use subscriptions for today... hoo boy. Big-AI is a bet I wouldn't be confident placing billions on. Unless your horizon is more "wait for IPO or next raise or positive news, then get out ASAP" than "hold for 5+ years."
- nothinkjustai 7mo ago
  Vibe coding requires the sota models to work at all, but someone who knows what they are doing and uses the AI more responsibly can absolutely use the cheaper Chinese models for coding, and they’re often faster too. If I was one of the big players my entire focus would be on lobbying for regulation and outright banning of local models.
  - storus 7mo ago
    Yeah, Qwen3 coder for Claude Code and 3.5 for OpenClaw replaced my full-stack use of Opus 4.6 already; it's fine for basic web apps, k8s/docker infra setup, optimizing AI models etc. with only slightly higher error rate than Opus. Upcoming 3.6 together with Gemma4 might make it even better (still to test). OpenAI's memory spot market play might have been directed at local inference as well.
    - nothinkjustai 7mo ago
xhevahir 7mo ago
Odd timing...Everything I've read about Claude the last several days suggests that its users are disappointed, even furious at what's happened to its performance.
- lallysingh 7mo ago
  It's been working great for me. I haven't seen any changes.
  - drewnick 7mo ago
    Same, mostly. However today in particular Claude can't do front-end development with any competence. Never seen this before. I think the rumor is they are rolling out a new model and have to divide their infra across the new model vs the current model.
- nickvec 7mo ago
  Now that they’ve relegated OpenClaw to pay-as-you-go API usage, I hope the compute overload issues they’ve been facing will ease up some.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- Syntaf 7mo ago
  I probably use a couple thousand session hours monthly between work & personal; very pleased with the results I get. But I’m not necessarily oozing about it online — vocal minority and all.
  - Syntaf 7mo ago
    Self-edit: a couple thousand session hours is probably hyperbolic; it's likely closer to a thousand after discussing usage with another user in a separate thread. Maybe a better metric: Across work + personal I have 1,000+ sessions in the last 30 days, longest session was 3d 20h
hgoel 7mo ago
I wonder how much of this is associated with Scam Altman's personal negative PR and Anthropic's recent PR wins. I'm inclined to think there isn't much of an association becauss investors don't seem very concerned with morality, but I know ~dozen developers that either switched to, or started using Claude in the past month or so, while not knowing anyone that uses Codex.
- igtt 7mo ago
  The issue is investors want discipline. They want to see the CEO communicate a path to profitability. Anthropic has - purely by focusing. OAI in contrast is all over the place and they haven’t shown they’ve learned. Zuckerberg got punished for his metaverse nonsense and investors were correct to be skeptical and reflect that in the stock price. Altman thinks he’s a god and the rules don’t apply to him. More fool him.
  - FireBeyond 7mo ago
    > Altman thinks he’s a god and the rules don’t apply to him. The Sam curse. Took down Bankman-Fried before him...
  - jcranmer 7mo ago
    > Zuckerberg got punished for his metaverse nonsense and investors were correct to be skeptical and reflect that in the stock price. Did they? It's been a little less than 5 years since Zuckerburg announced the all-in plan on the metaverse. In that 5 year period, Meta's stock price has gone up by 84%... which is middle of the pack for MAGMA, less than Apple (91%) and Google (157%), but above Amazon (24%) and Microsoft (47%). It's also comfortably above the S&P 500 (59%).
    - igtt 7mo ago
      [dead]
  - solid_fuel 7mo ago
    > Zuckerberg got punished I think it's hard to grasp just how much money he poured into this folly. $80 Billion. For an idea that any random person on the street could have torn apart. He read Ready Player 1 and decided that was what the future should be. Then he tried to make it. He ruined the Oculus brand and stole all the oxygen from other VR development just to make a lesser copy of our own world, but one where he could be admin. Seattle just opened a new transit line, spanning from downtown Seattle to Bellevue. It's 33 miles long and cost $3.7 billion. It was already carrying 2 million people per year [0] even before the entire line was finished and on the opening day after completion it reached 200,000 riders. Further from home, the entirety of the Artemis II program cost $93 billion [1] and lists an estimated $4 billion per launch. One last example - the panama canal would cost an estimated $50 - $75 billion if you built it today. [2] The panama canal reshaped trade routes and the global economy. Where is Meta's moon landing? Where is their impact? Zuckerberg spent enough money to build a new transit system for an entire city. Enough money to land astronauts on the moon. Enough to connect oceans together. He poured this money down a hole chasing his own vanity and a vision of the future that no one wanted. How, after all that, did he get punished? He's still CEO. "Meta" is still overvalued. They're still regarded as a serious tech company. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Line_(Sound_Transit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Line_(Sound_Transit) [1] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/artemis-2-cost-explained-how-much-did-nasa-spend-on-latest-moon-mission-who-is-paying-for-it/ar-AA1ZVEhy https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/artemis-2-cost-explaine... [2] https://www.mikegravel.org/how-much-would-the-panama-canal-cost-today-to-make/ https://www.mikegravel.org/how-much-would-the-panama-canal-c...
whoopdeepoo 7mo ago
Both of these valuations are absolutely absurd. I guess Anthropic looks good in comparison, but I don't want to hold that bag. The Chinese models are catching up in quality while being a fraction of the price. The market will speak, how many devices that contributed to this thread were made in the USA? Sure you can argue the Chinese companies are heavily subsidized, but no major LLM lab is remotely close to making a profit this decade.
lateforwork 7mo ago
[dead]
mitchbob 7mo ago
https://archive.ph/ExQkj https://archive.ph/ExQkj
the_cat_kittles 7mo ago
let me know when they scrap the data centers, id love to get some good deals on hvac equiptment. these companies cannot possibly make enough money when you can run something on your own computer that works mostly as good
yalogin 7mo ago
Anthropic is not meaningfully better. Their stance is “the good guys have to make money to be in the fight with the bad guys” and so they do all the things their perceived bad guys do. I don’t know how they can do any different, but we just trust them to be good? What is the difference?
- jes5199 7mo ago
  somewhat better leadership, I think
- henry2023 7mo ago
  The difference is no mass surveillance of US Citizens and no killing weapons without human supervision. OpenAI is fine with those as long as they are "legal"... So pretty much they don't care at all. I agree Anthropic is no saint but it's much, much better than OpenAI.
- xnx 7mo ago
  Approximately same service for half the valuation is definitely better. That said, Anthropomorphic is also very overvalued
- jimbokun 7mo ago
  I just appreciate the honesty of Amodei telling us pretty much straight up we’re all fucked because the AIs are taking all the jobs in a couple years or less.
  - honeycrispy 7mo ago
    He's just another con-man. Fear of missing out is an amazing motivator for investors. The more he shouts doom, the more people with very deep pockets throw money at him. It's all evil.
  - depressedpanda 7mo ago
    Honesty? Sounds like investor hype to me.
epitrochoid413 7mo ago
OpenAI is being squeezed from both sides. ChatGPT's chat quality has recently dropped hard. While Claude is pricier, it actually takes the effort to think through complex tasks. All the while, Chinese models are providing cheaper alternatives.
naveen99 7mo ago
And x.ai is at $2T now, while qwen baba is under $200B…
- Archonical 7mo ago
  Isn't XAi's valuation paired with X and SpaceX?
- rchaud 7mo ago
  Silicon Valley valuation numbers are entirely made up to boost their IPO. Actual value is only determined after these companies go public. Allbirds, the shoe brand, went public at $4bn in 2021 and sold its assets last week for $39 million. > Neil Saunders, the managing director of the consultancy and market analysis firm GlobalData said: “Allbirds has gone from being a high flyer to a dead parrot.” He said its early success “was driven by Silicon Valley hype, more than deep popularity with consumers in the American hinterland”. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/02/eco-shoe-brand-allbirds-sold-american-exchange-group https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/02/eco-shoe-br...
dartharva 7mo ago
I am not a finance pro, but is it not normal and expected for secondary equity markets to be hesitant against large unloads of pre-money company stocks, even in cases where the company in question isn't in water like OpenAI is? Does this not say more about the failure of the investors themselves in balancing their portfolio properly than OpenAI itself?
binarysolo 7mo ago
My loose understanding as someone adjacent to the AI model space is that you have good models that are costly and cheap models that are decent, so a lot of the publicly visible fights where Claude and ChatGPT leapfrog each other is the companies doing cost-benefit of how much optimization to do on the models before your userbase revolts because the agent "used to be great and now kinda sucks". As a small business owner whose team is entirely in Google Workspace (Drive, Gmail, Chat -- so inbuilt RAG right there), I wonder if Gemini will be the darkhorse. As a user Gemini's a distinct third in "AI smarts", but most business owners aren't power users who are gonna setup Codex or Code to slurp up their work emails and internal docs/SOPs. The article feels a touch clickbait-y since people love a good fight between the top players and OAI's lost a buncha public goodwill over the past year.
- anakaine 7mo ago
  As a government based person who has witnessed multiple states (not in the US) move all operations off GCP because Google doesnt address sovereign risk, local data and hosting privacy requirements,and contracts well at all, where Microsoft and AWS do, I doubt Gemini will have as large a dark horse moment as it could. Copilot Enterprise can span across similar domains, and whilst it is very expensive per user it has the benefit of having existing contracts in place which it can bolt in to.
  - binarysolo 7mo ago
    Ooh good point. Out of curiosity, have you compared the relative effectiveness of ChatGPT and Claude vs Copilot? Given your existing enterprise contract, does copilot have a monopoly on your AI usage due to its superior compliance?
    - anakaine 7mo ago
      In the handful of contexts Ive seen across departments and states, no, ive not seen such a comparison. Ive seen state custom implementations of GPT (eg 4o), and Copilot, but not Claude. Claude is likely out there for the same reason Google is - navigating those same localisation / legal issues is complex for government departments. Copilot has a far easier path to monopoly because it can be pushed down existing Microsoft contracts, MS has put in the work for international jurisdictions in terms of data compliance in existing products and thus can extend upon that with Copilot, and they have a foothold in a good many places. One thing that is interesting with Copilot is that if you set it to Work mode, it can treat your organisational SharePoint sites and OneDrive locations as sources, but do so in a manner that respects what you as a user has access to.
BSOhealth 7mo ago
The latest Opus routinely tells me the latest GPT Pro responses are much better. The GPT responses cost 10x more than GPT at least. And GPT takes 10’s of minutes. So unless and until I’m needing and ready for a really expensive “math checker” it gets left alone.
Gud 7mo ago
Google “does Anthropic make a profit” and you will get endless responses about how they’re “earning revenue”. It’s a pretty obvious tactic. What’s interesting is that they’re both still losing money on their models and are essentially giving away compute for free, although lossy. They’ve bought up computing power and are now renting it back to the rest of us, with a decent HMI, while subsidising us to use it.
Duplicake 7mo ago
People are so late to Anthropic, I used Claude 1.3 back when it released, and I've stood by Claude since the early days. I don't think people quite realized the potential of Anthropic
- dgellow 7mo ago
  Mind sharing with us? What is the potential being missed?
  - Duplicake 7mo ago
    the potential of them to overtake OpenAI when everyone was investing in it
pheijkoop 7mo ago
IMO This says a lot more about the investor herd mentality and FOMO than it does about the technological or any other kind of merit of Anthropic vs OpenAI.
kazinator 7mo ago
Idiot investors who will lose their money when Google wins. Or even if it doesn't, for that matter.
TechRemarker 7mo ago
I switched to Anthropic briefly to try out Code, it was great (having never tried such a product) and better than their chat bot which found prettier and nicer to talk to but far more often wrong. Then shortly after Codex was released which made that more accessible and instantly preferred that compared to Code since much more generous allotments for $20 plan. Claude constantly kept hitting. And Code actually had a more robust UI and was more accurate when doing the same project side by side vs Claude Code. But imagine many haven't tried Codex recently since all we hear about is Claude Code. So while they may have momentum, at least for me with no stake in the game, Codex finding far better, but I suppose that could all change again on a whim.
- runako 7mo ago
  > much more generous allotments for $20 plan > imagine many haven't tried Codex recently since all we hear about is Claude Code My theory is Codex allotments are higher because the demand isn't there (yet). Claude users hit their limits because there is so much more usage.
jjfoooo4 7mo ago
Both companies have the same issue: the unit economics are bad, and there’s no moat. I’ve been primarily on Claude for the last 6 months or so, but have been hitting rate limits. I switched work to Codex seamlessly, just like I could switch to any other provider seamlessly
- oofbey 7mo ago
  The unit economics at this point are about utilization. Their cost is well below what they’re charging, but only when there is enough traffic to keep the GPUs busy. So the game is about increasing demand to level the load. GPT has negligible moat because they gave up on all their integrations. Claude code is starting to develop one as people start to build things that require Claude Code specifically, not just any LLM.
  - jjfoooo4 7mo ago
    > Claude code is starting to develop one as people start to build things that require Claude Code specifically, not just any LLM. I hate to be a "source?" guy, but I'm curious if you have any examples of this. Skills and MCP are really the only extensions on CC itself I'm aware of, and these are both supported in Codex. Things like Dispatch / remote sessions is something CC has that Codex does not, but these features are quite easy to replicate (and I expect Codex to do so in short order).
    - oofbey 7mo ago
      I agree that’s a great question which I don’t really know the answer to. These tools have been moving in lock step for some time now. One will innovate and within 2-3 weeks the others have that feature. Where I sit the mind share all seems to be going to Claude though. The moat develops when people build something that only works on one - even if the others have the same features it doesn’t matter unless they’re literally binary compatible. Skills are just prompts at the end of the day with nothing more specialized than a file naming convention. Having written several orchestrators I’ll say that the code to invoke the tool is pretty equivalent but it’s the details that matter. Exact CLI flags and json fields.
runako 7mo ago
The main point here > large gap between OpenAI’s $852-billion valuation and Anthropic’s $380 billion IIRC Anthropic's revenue is either roughly at parity with or larger than OpenAI's, and Anthropic is growing faster[1]. All indicators are that Anthropic should be worth more than OpenAI. Given that, one could reasonably expect the relative valuations to change a great deal. In any case, it's not clear why OpenAI would command such a price premium over Anthropic. 1 - OpenAI says they are doing $2B/mo run rate https://openai.com/index/accelerating-the-next-phase-ai/ https://openai.com/index/accelerating-the-next-phase-ai/ Anthropic's run rate increased from $12B to $19B in the period between February 12 and the end of the month. If the implied growth rates held through March, Anthropic may well be larger than OpenAI now.

217 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago

tl;dr nobody wants OpenAI shares and the secondary market has completely dried up. “We literally couldn’t find anyone in our pool of hundreds of institutional investors to take these shares“ This doesn’t bode well for an IPO. The market is smelling a stinker. Get your popcorn ready for a mad scramble to salvage investments if indeed the shark has been jumped.

aniekann 7mo ago
not to mention the drama that's followed the company from the very beginning. It think its getting to a point where the character issues can no longer be ignored bc it's directly affecting business
igtt 7mo ago
I think the IPO and subsequent quarterly earnings where they will be pressured by analysts will pop it all. I was watching a recent Jensen Huang Q&A with analysts and it was essentially “just trust me bro”. They’re all interconnected - once there’s a correction for one player, all get affected. Can’t wait to finally get this over with so we can finally move on. The gap between hype and reality needs to be corrected.
delfinom 7mo ago
Nah you see, the NASDAQ is giving them a out just like SpaceX. Short-circuit the index joining time and allow them to get into index funds within days. After that you shift all the losses onto 401ks as the original investors cash out and the 401ks blindly buy the shares as part of the index.

brookst 7mo ago

I don’t know how OpenAI screwed this up. They had the best tech, the largest installed base, the best brand recognition. And somehow instead of prosecuting the lead in all areas, they got all hubristic and sloppy and just failed to iterate on the core product, while also failing to respond quickly when Anthropic showed that coding agents are the flywheel that makes the whole company faster. It’s like they thought they had an unassailable monopoly and speedran to the lazy incumbent position, all in a matter of months.

morcutt 7mo ago
Sam lost the plot for me. He took too many interviews which led me to not trust him. Last straw came with him standing by Anthropic one day then throwing them under the bus the next. He showed little awareness on why that is problematic.
- tombert 7mo ago
  That's why I changed as well. I got really irritated how Altman tried to get the social credit by having principles, only to change them the moment it was convenient.
- jimbokun 7mo ago
  I have appreciated Amodei’s brutal honesty about their intentions. On podcasts his attitude is basically “oh yeah all of you are basically fucked our products will take everyone’s jobs in a couple years.” Altman is a lot more coy and comes across as saying what’s politically expedient at any given point in time.
  - bayarearefugee 7mo ago
    > On podcasts his attitude is basically “oh yeah all of you are basically fucked our products will take everyone’s jobs in a couple years.” I also appreciate his honesty, and don't really understand why the others don't emulate it because there's no cost to them to be honest. At every level of society we've decided to stick our heads in the sand and pretend like this very large tsunami isn't racing toward the coast, so as someone producing this technology you can be honest (and mostly ignored by people in denial), or be cagey and mistrusted (like Sam Altman).
    - nostrebored 7mo ago
      Because it isn’t honest, it is investor hype that these frontier labs need people to believe despite obviously hitting the sublinear part of the improvement curve. “It’s so dangerous, we’ve reached AGI, we just have to release models that are obviously incapable of abstraction for your safety”

majormajor 7mo ago

> The large gap between OpenAI’s $852-billion valuation and Anthropic’s $380 billion has investors rushing to grab equity in the latter before it rises, according to Augment co-founder Adam Crawley. Interesting, so there are a lot of people still eager to invest in valuations of well greater than a-quarter-trillion, but OpenAI's latest raise has sucked up all the oxygen for enthusiasm of that valuation going even higher. Which could be a "dumb money" move ("competitor number lower, already-big-number is scary") or a "smart money" move ("Anthropic is gaining position-wise, and currently is lower valued, let's bet on the one we think is better positioned") or some mix of both. OpenAI just raised a shit-ton so clearly there is plenty of money out there who don't think there's a bubble or even a blown opportunity there. But the wider community doesn't think they have the competition in the bag, while still being willing to invest in big-AI-cos at absolutely enormous valuations. If local hardware/models get good enough to take 80%-90% of what people use subscriptions for today... hoo boy. Big-AI is a bet I wouldn't be confident placing billions on. Unless your horizon is more "wait for IPO or next raise or positive news, then get out ASAP" than "hold for 5+ years."

nothinkjustai 7mo ago
Vibe coding requires the sota models to work at all, but someone who knows what they are doing and uses the AI more responsibly can absolutely use the cheaper Chinese models for coding, and they’re often faster too. If I was one of the big players my entire focus would be on lobbying for regulation and outright banning of local models.
- storus 7mo ago
  Yeah, Qwen3 coder for Claude Code and 3.5 for OpenClaw replaced my full-stack use of Opus 4.6 already; it's fine for basic web apps, k8s/docker infra setup, optimizing AI models etc. with only slightly higher error rate than Opus. Upcoming 3.6 together with Gemma4 might make it even better (still to test). OpenAI's memory spot market play might have been directed at local inference as well.
  - nothinkjustai 7mo ago

xhevahir 7mo ago

Odd timing...Everything I've read about Claude the last several days suggests that its users are disappointed, even furious at what's happened to its performance.

lallysingh 7mo ago
It's been working great for me. I haven't seen any changes.
- drewnick 7mo ago
  Same, mostly. However today in particular Claude can't do front-end development with any competence. Never seen this before. I think the rumor is they are rolling out a new model and have to divide their infra across the new model vs the current model.
nickvec 7mo ago
Now that they’ve relegated OpenClaw to pay-as-you-go API usage, I hope the compute overload issues they’ve been facing will ease up some.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
Syntaf 7mo ago
I probably use a couple thousand session hours monthly between work & personal; very pleased with the results I get. But I’m not necessarily oozing about it online — vocal minority and all.
- Syntaf 7mo ago
  Self-edit: a couple thousand session hours is probably hyperbolic; it's likely closer to a thousand after discussing usage with another user in a separate thread. Maybe a better metric: Across work + personal I have 1,000+ sessions in the last 30 days, longest session was 3d 20h

hgoel 7mo ago

I wonder how much of this is associated with Scam Altman's personal negative PR and Anthropic's recent PR wins. I'm inclined to think there isn't much of an association becauss investors don't seem very concerned with morality, but I know ~dozen developers that either switched to, or started using Claude in the past month or so, while not knowing anyone that uses Codex.

igtt 7mo ago
The issue is investors want discipline. They want to see the CEO communicate a path to profitability. Anthropic has - purely by focusing. OAI in contrast is all over the place and they haven’t shown they’ve learned. Zuckerberg got punished for his metaverse nonsense and investors were correct to be skeptical and reflect that in the stock price. Altman thinks he’s a god and the rules don’t apply to him. More fool him.
- FireBeyond 7mo ago
  > Altman thinks he’s a god and the rules don’t apply to him. The Sam curse. Took down Bankman-Fried before him...
- jcranmer 7mo ago
  > Zuckerberg got punished for his metaverse nonsense and investors were correct to be skeptical and reflect that in the stock price. Did they? It's been a little less than 5 years since Zuckerburg announced the all-in plan on the metaverse. In that 5 year period, Meta's stock price has gone up by 84%... which is middle of the pack for MAGMA, less than Apple (91%) and Google (157%), but above Amazon (24%) and Microsoft (47%). It's also comfortably above the S&P 500 (59%).
  - igtt 7mo ago
    [dead]
- solid_fuel 7mo ago
  > Zuckerberg got punished I think it's hard to grasp just how much money he poured into this folly. $80 Billion. For an idea that any random person on the street could have torn apart. He read Ready Player 1 and decided that was what the future should be. Then he tried to make it. He ruined the Oculus brand and stole all the oxygen from other VR development just to make a lesser copy of our own world, but one where he could be admin. Seattle just opened a new transit line, spanning from downtown Seattle to Bellevue. It's 33 miles long and cost $3.7 billion. It was already carrying 2 million people per year [0] even before the entire line was finished and on the opening day after completion it reached 200,000 riders. Further from home, the entirety of the Artemis II program cost $93 billion [1] and lists an estimated $4 billion per launch. One last example - the panama canal would cost an estimated $50 - $75 billion if you built it today. [2] The panama canal reshaped trade routes and the global economy. Where is Meta's moon landing? Where is their impact? Zuckerberg spent enough money to build a new transit system for an entire city. Enough money to land astronauts on the moon. Enough to connect oceans together. He poured this money down a hole chasing his own vanity and a vision of the future that no one wanted. How, after all that, did he get punished? He's still CEO. "Meta" is still overvalued. They're still regarded as a serious tech company. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Line_(Sound_Transit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Line_(Sound_Transit) [1] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/artemis-2-cost-explained-how-much-did-nasa-spend-on-latest-moon-mission-who-is-paying-for-it/ar-AA1ZVEhy https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/artemis-2-cost-explaine... [2] https://www.mikegravel.org/how-much-would-the-panama-canal-cost-today-to-make/ https://www.mikegravel.org/how-much-would-the-panama-canal-c...

whoopdeepoo 7mo ago

Both of these valuations are absolutely absurd. I guess Anthropic looks good in comparison, but I don't want to hold that bag. The Chinese models are catching up in quality while being a fraction of the price. The market will speak, how many devices that contributed to this thread were made in the USA? Sure you can argue the Chinese companies are heavily subsidized, but no major LLM lab is remotely close to making a profit this decade.

lateforwork 7mo ago

[dead]

mitchbob 7mo ago

https://archive.ph/ExQkj https://archive.ph/ExQkj

the_cat_kittles 7mo ago

let me know when they scrap the data centers, id love to get some good deals on hvac equiptment. these companies cannot possibly make enough money when you can run something on your own computer that works mostly as good

yalogin 7mo ago

Anthropic is not meaningfully better. Their stance is “the good guys have to make money to be in the fight with the bad guys” and so they do all the things their perceived bad guys do. I don’t know how they can do any different, but we just trust them to be good? What is the difference?

jes5199 7mo ago
somewhat better leadership, I think
henry2023 7mo ago
The difference is no mass surveillance of US Citizens and no killing weapons without human supervision. OpenAI is fine with those as long as they are "legal"... So pretty much they don't care at all. I agree Anthropic is no saint but it's much, much better than OpenAI.
xnx 7mo ago
Approximately same service for half the valuation is definitely better. That said, Anthropomorphic is also very overvalued
jimbokun 7mo ago
I just appreciate the honesty of Amodei telling us pretty much straight up we’re all fucked because the AIs are taking all the jobs in a couple years or less.
- honeycrispy 7mo ago
  He's just another con-man. Fear of missing out is an amazing motivator for investors. The more he shouts doom, the more people with very deep pockets throw money at him. It's all evil.
- depressedpanda 7mo ago
  Honesty? Sounds like investor hype to me.

epitrochoid413 7mo ago

OpenAI is being squeezed from both sides. ChatGPT's chat quality has recently dropped hard. While Claude is pricier, it actually takes the effort to think through complex tasks. All the while, Chinese models are providing cheaper alternatives.

naveen99 7mo ago

And x.ai is at $2T now, while qwen baba is under $200B…

Archonical 7mo ago
Isn't XAi's valuation paired with X and SpaceX?
rchaud 7mo ago
Silicon Valley valuation numbers are entirely made up to boost their IPO. Actual value is only determined after these companies go public. Allbirds, the shoe brand, went public at $4bn in 2021 and sold its assets last week for $39 million. > Neil Saunders, the managing director of the consultancy and market analysis firm GlobalData said: “Allbirds has gone from being a high flyer to a dead parrot.” He said its early success “was driven by Silicon Valley hype, more than deep popularity with consumers in the American hinterland”. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/02/eco-shoe-brand-allbirds-sold-american-exchange-group https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/02/eco-shoe-br...

dartharva 7mo ago

I am not a finance pro, but is it not normal and expected for secondary equity markets to be hesitant against large unloads of pre-money company stocks, even in cases where the company in question isn't in water like OpenAI is? Does this not say more about the failure of the investors themselves in balancing their portfolio properly than OpenAI itself?

binarysolo 7mo ago

My loose understanding as someone adjacent to the AI model space is that you have good models that are costly and cheap models that are decent, so a lot of the publicly visible fights where Claude and ChatGPT leapfrog each other is the companies doing cost-benefit of how much optimization to do on the models before your userbase revolts because the agent "used to be great and now kinda sucks". As a small business owner whose team is entirely in Google Workspace (Drive, Gmail, Chat -- so inbuilt RAG right there), I wonder if Gemini will be the darkhorse. As a user Gemini's a distinct third in "AI smarts", but most business owners aren't power users who are gonna setup Codex or Code to slurp up their work emails and internal docs/SOPs. The article feels a touch clickbait-y since people love a good fight between the top players and OAI's lost a buncha public goodwill over the past year.

anakaine 7mo ago
As a government based person who has witnessed multiple states (not in the US) move all operations off GCP because Google doesnt address sovereign risk, local data and hosting privacy requirements,and contracts well at all, where Microsoft and AWS do, I doubt Gemini will have as large a dark horse moment as it could. Copilot Enterprise can span across similar domains, and whilst it is very expensive per user it has the benefit of having existing contracts in place which it can bolt in to.
- binarysolo 7mo ago
  Ooh good point. Out of curiosity, have you compared the relative effectiveness of ChatGPT and Claude vs Copilot? Given your existing enterprise contract, does copilot have a monopoly on your AI usage due to its superior compliance?
  - anakaine 7mo ago
    In the handful of contexts Ive seen across departments and states, no, ive not seen such a comparison. Ive seen state custom implementations of GPT (eg 4o), and Copilot, but not Claude. Claude is likely out there for the same reason Google is - navigating those same localisation / legal issues is complex for government departments. Copilot has a far easier path to monopoly because it can be pushed down existing Microsoft contracts, MS has put in the work for international jurisdictions in terms of data compliance in existing products and thus can extend upon that with Copilot, and they have a foothold in a good many places. One thing that is interesting with Copilot is that if you set it to Work mode, it can treat your organisational SharePoint sites and OneDrive locations as sources, but do so in a manner that respects what you as a user has access to.

BSOhealth 7mo ago

The latest Opus routinely tells me the latest GPT Pro responses are much better. The GPT responses cost 10x more than GPT at least. And GPT takes 10’s of minutes. So unless and until I’m needing and ready for a really expensive “math checker” it gets left alone.

Gud 7mo ago

Google “does Anthropic make a profit” and you will get endless responses about how they’re “earning revenue”. It’s a pretty obvious tactic. What’s interesting is that they’re both still losing money on their models and are essentially giving away compute for free, although lossy. They’ve bought up computing power and are now renting it back to the rest of us, with a decent HMI, while subsidising us to use it.

Duplicake 7mo ago

People are so late to Anthropic, I used Claude 1.3 back when it released, and I've stood by Claude since the early days. I don't think people quite realized the potential of Anthropic

dgellow 7mo ago
Mind sharing with us? What is the potential being missed?
- Duplicake 7mo ago
  the potential of them to overtake OpenAI when everyone was investing in it

pheijkoop 7mo ago

IMO This says a lot more about the investor herd mentality and FOMO than it does about the technological or any other kind of merit of Anthropic vs OpenAI.

kazinator 7mo ago

Idiot investors who will lose their money when Google wins. Or even if it doesn't, for that matter.

TechRemarker 7mo ago

I switched to Anthropic briefly to try out Code, it was great (having never tried such a product) and better than their chat bot which found prettier and nicer to talk to but far more often wrong. Then shortly after Codex was released which made that more accessible and instantly preferred that compared to Code since much more generous allotments for $20 plan. Claude constantly kept hitting. And Code actually had a more robust UI and was more accurate when doing the same project side by side vs Claude Code. But imagine many haven't tried Codex recently since all we hear about is Claude Code. So while they may have momentum, at least for me with no stake in the game, Codex finding far better, but I suppose that could all change again on a whim.

runako 7mo ago
> much more generous allotments for $20 plan > imagine many haven't tried Codex recently since all we hear about is Claude Code My theory is Codex allotments are higher because the demand isn't there (yet). Claude users hit their limits because there is so much more usage.

jjfoooo4 7mo ago

Both companies have the same issue: the unit economics are bad, and there’s no moat. I’ve been primarily on Claude for the last 6 months or so, but have been hitting rate limits. I switched work to Codex seamlessly, just like I could switch to any other provider seamlessly

oofbey 7mo ago
The unit economics at this point are about utilization. Their cost is well below what they’re charging, but only when there is enough traffic to keep the GPUs busy. So the game is about increasing demand to level the load. GPT has negligible moat because they gave up on all their integrations. Claude code is starting to develop one as people start to build things that require Claude Code specifically, not just any LLM.
- jjfoooo4 7mo ago
  > Claude code is starting to develop one as people start to build things that require Claude Code specifically, not just any LLM. I hate to be a "source?" guy, but I'm curious if you have any examples of this. Skills and MCP are really the only extensions on CC itself I'm aware of, and these are both supported in Codex. Things like Dispatch / remote sessions is something CC has that Codex does not, but these features are quite easy to replicate (and I expect Codex to do so in short order).
  - oofbey 7mo ago
    I agree that’s a great question which I don’t really know the answer to. These tools have been moving in lock step for some time now. One will innovate and within 2-3 weeks the others have that feature. Where I sit the mind share all seems to be going to Claude though. The moat develops when people build something that only works on one - even if the others have the same features it doesn’t matter unless they’re literally binary compatible. Skills are just prompts at the end of the day with nothing more specialized than a file naming convention. Having written several orchestrators I’ll say that the code to invoke the tool is pretty equivalent but it’s the details that matter. Exact CLI flags and json fields.

runako 7mo ago

The main point here > large gap between OpenAI’s $852-billion valuation and Anthropic’s $380 billion IIRC Anthropic's revenue is either roughly at parity with or larger than OpenAI's, and Anthropic is growing faster[1]. All indicators are that Anthropic should be worth more than OpenAI. Given that, one could reasonably expect the relative valuations to change a great deal. In any case, it's not clear why OpenAI would command such a price premium over Anthropic. 1 - OpenAI says they are doing $2B/mo run rate https://openai.com/index/accelerating-the-next-phase-ai/ https://openai.com/index/accelerating-the-next-phase-ai/ Anthropic's run rate increased from $12B to $19B in the period between February 12 and the end of the month. If the implied growth rates held through March, Anthropic may well be larger than OpenAI now.