6 ms·

The frontier labs commonly trade spots at the top of the benchmarks with each new model release. The timing of these price cut discussions says to me OpenAI ha

The frontier labs commonly trade spots at the top of the benchmarks with each new model release. The timing of these price cut discussions says to me OpenAI has no imminent release that will be edging out Mythos/Fable. If so the question becomes when can they do so, or is this possibly a turning point where Anthropic keeps the crown to themselves for the foreseeable future.

stingraycharles 4mo ago
It seems that OpenAI lacks a clear target audience, they try to be everything for everyone. Anthropic is targeting professionals / enterprise users. I don’t fully understand why OpenAI lacks this focus, as clearly identifying a target market is one of the first things you do with a business strategy. But instead they just seem to throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
- kennywinker 4mo ago
  They keep asking chatgpt how to monetize and it keeps giving slop answers?
- jillesvangurp 4mo ago
  I think this is too simplistic. Codex is increasingly useful for business usage. I use it for both technical stuff and doing non technical things with my inbox, google drive, etc. It's pretty good for that. And it's pretty clear that business users are very much untapped potential at this point. They need proper agents with tunable guard rails and all the rest. It seems very competent at coding tasks as well. I don't think Anthropic has a huge edge on that front. It's more of a neck and neck race with proponents in both camps. I ignore most benchmarks at this point; I don't think they have much relevance for normal users. I think it's actually necessary for both to try out different approaches. Nothing is set in stone yet when it comes to the UX of these things.
- broodbucket 4mo ago
  They have the consumer market but want the enterprise market, because it's a lot more lucrative, so they're probably going to just keep chasing that even though there's no signs they'll stop losing to Anthropic. They don't need to do that much to keep the consumer market because of momentum.
  - ralph84 4mo ago
    Questionable whether the enterprise market really is the most lucrative. The biggest of big tech all have significant revenue from the consumer market. Compare Apple, Google, Meta, to IBM, Salesforce, ServiceNow.
    - broodbucket 4mo ago
      Enterprise market is paying by token and using a lot of tokens. Consumer market is paying a subscription that they can't raise too high or they'll lose users to competition. Seems to me that the enterprise market scales a lot higher.
      - skeptic_ai 4mo ago
        Have you seen many corporations complaining and caping usage to 20-200usd per developer per month. I doubt will change much. Many are considering on premise now.
      - byzantinegene 4mo ago
        it's really not much compared to the amount they are spending on training. 100 developers at $200 per month is just $20000
        naveen99 4mo ago
        $240,000
      - WarmWash 4mo ago
        The consumer market by and large pays $20/mo to get tokens in response to stuff like "My friend hurt my feelings and I don't know how to approach the problem" routed to whatever the default model is.
- harrouet 4mo ago
  OpenAI actually never had a focus. Their VC pith was: once the AI is good enough, it will find our business model. They've raised money on that. With that said you are right, it seems OpenAI got numbed by ChatGPT's initial success and tried to be the go-to brand for consumers... which is Google's playground. Meanwhile, Anthropic led the B2B market with a clever segmented approach, and got well-paying customers.
- solumunus 4mo ago
  Because they gained a HUGE amount of “normal” users and I think they feel desperate to monetise that. It’s their potential massive edge on competition, they just haven’t found any way to realise it and I suspect they won’t.
- ethbr1 4mo ago
  > I don’t fully understand why OpenAI lacks this focus, as clearly identifying a target market is one of the first things you do with a business strategy Resource curse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse I've been inside companies that have struggled with this, and the real internal story goes like this: 1. Surprise product growth 2. Revenue go brr, org expands 3. Everyone gets promoted as org expands 4. Because the product sold itself, there was little selection pressure on the sales / customer success orgs to evaluate their effectiveness 5. Leadership gets saturated with people who just aren't very good at their job 6. None of those people get fired/demoted, because the company never had to develop "What to do with a bad leader?" muscles 7. This eventually manifests as an increasing (customer) <-> (engineering) disconnect (as sales/cs aren't doing their job) 8. People begin to ask why the company isn't doing (insert obvious thing) 9. It's because VP-of-whatever is chasing fantasies instead of reporting customer needs to engineering Tl;dr - Don't trust promotions made during the good times. Continuously reevaluate leaders.
mattjoyce 4mo ago
At the right price, these model don't need to be the best, good enough will do. I think we're fast approaching good enough for most users.
- boc 4mo ago
  OTOH, using the best is a competitive advantage when time = money. It's like giving your engineers a slow laptop because it's cheaper. It may be cheaper but not worth the cost.
  - bushbaba 4mo ago
    Not necessarily, inference speed also has huge time aspect. For example anthropic takes nearly twice as long as OpenAI models for my tasks with both having similar success rates.
  - lelanthran 4mo ago
    > OTOH, using the best is a competitive advantage when time = money. It's like giving your engineers a slow laptop because it's cheaper. It may be cheaper but not worth the cost. That doesn't imply giving your devs the best laptop makes any difference. How much more productive will your devs be if you upgrade them from a 32GB RAM, 8-core laptop to a 768GB RAM 96-core threadripper? In your analogy, Kimi may not be the 4-core celeron with 4GB of RAM, it's more like the 8-core AMD with 32GB of RAM.
    - knollimar 4mo ago
      768GB seems oddly specific for Kimi
  - atraac 4mo ago
    Unless your job is purely producing code pointlessly, this is not a really good comparison. Most of the time really is spent on understanding the problem and figuring out solutions, not waiting on CPU.
- kouteiheika 4mo ago
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
d--b 4mo ago
The benchmark is not everything, the LLMs have their “personality” and GPT is annoying AF. Also, I don’t about others, but I personally strongly dislike OpenAI’s leadership’s hypocrisy. I find them losing the race highly satisfying.
SilverElfin 4mo ago
I don’t think Mythos/Fable matter in attracting customers. The typical use is not going to be on the most expensive model, especially with all its frustrating gotchas like refusing harmless prompts and forcing companies to have their data retained. If OpenAI can offer an alternative to Opus but with better pricing, it will boost their revenue at Anthropic’s cost, in time for the IPO.
lelanthran 4mo ago
> If so the question becomes when can they do so, or is this possibly a turning point where Anthropic keeps the crown to themselves for the foreseeable future. This specific crown (Best Performing Model) appears to be made out of thorns: pay 100x more for maybe a 10% improvement in capabilities. Not sure what the goal is, here.
- mnicky 4mo ago
  It's simple I think - over time the price will go down. According to some analyses the price for equal intelligence declined 10-1000x per year, depending on the domain. It probably won't be the same again but I still think we can bet on radically cheaper Mythos level intelligence in the future.
jrsj 4mo ago
> The timing of these price cut discussions says to me OpenAI has no imminent release that will be edging out Mythos/Fable. Initially I had the same thought but I think this might actually have more to do with Fable being removed from the Claude subscription later this month. At that point it becomes cost prohibitive to use for most tasks anyways & this is the perfect opportunity to compete on price, especially given enterprise customers are already looking to improve spend management

stingraycharles 4mo ago

It seems that OpenAI lacks a clear target audience, they try to be everything for everyone. Anthropic is targeting professionals / enterprise users. I don’t fully understand why OpenAI lacks this focus, as clearly identifying a target market is one of the first things you do with a business strategy. But instead they just seem to throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.

kennywinker 4mo ago
They keep asking chatgpt how to monetize and it keeps giving slop answers?
jillesvangurp 4mo ago
I think this is too simplistic. Codex is increasingly useful for business usage. I use it for both technical stuff and doing non technical things with my inbox, google drive, etc. It's pretty good for that. And it's pretty clear that business users are very much untapped potential at this point. They need proper agents with tunable guard rails and all the rest. It seems very competent at coding tasks as well. I don't think Anthropic has a huge edge on that front. It's more of a neck and neck race with proponents in both camps. I ignore most benchmarks at this point; I don't think they have much relevance for normal users. I think it's actually necessary for both to try out different approaches. Nothing is set in stone yet when it comes to the UX of these things.
broodbucket 4mo ago
They have the consumer market but want the enterprise market, because it's a lot more lucrative, so they're probably going to just keep chasing that even though there's no signs they'll stop losing to Anthropic. They don't need to do that much to keep the consumer market because of momentum.
- ralph84 4mo ago
  Questionable whether the enterprise market really is the most lucrative. The biggest of big tech all have significant revenue from the consumer market. Compare Apple, Google, Meta, to IBM, Salesforce, ServiceNow.
  - broodbucket 4mo ago
    Enterprise market is paying by token and using a lot of tokens. Consumer market is paying a subscription that they can't raise too high or they'll lose users to competition. Seems to me that the enterprise market scales a lot higher.
    - skeptic_ai 4mo ago
      Have you seen many corporations complaining and caping usage to 20-200usd per developer per month. I doubt will change much. Many are considering on premise now.
    - byzantinegene 4mo ago
      it's really not much compared to the amount they are spending on training. 100 developers at $200 per month is just $20000
      - naveen99 4mo ago
        $240,000
    - WarmWash 4mo ago
      The consumer market by and large pays $20/mo to get tokens in response to stuff like "My friend hurt my feelings and I don't know how to approach the problem" routed to whatever the default model is.
harrouet 4mo ago
OpenAI actually never had a focus. Their VC pith was: once the AI is good enough, it will find our business model. They've raised money on that. With that said you are right, it seems OpenAI got numbed by ChatGPT's initial success and tried to be the go-to brand for consumers... which is Google's playground. Meanwhile, Anthropic led the B2B market with a clever segmented approach, and got well-paying customers.
solumunus 4mo ago
Because they gained a HUGE amount of “normal” users and I think they feel desperate to monetise that. It’s their potential massive edge on competition, they just haven’t found any way to realise it and I suspect they won’t.
ethbr1 4mo ago
> I don’t fully understand why OpenAI lacks this focus, as clearly identifying a target market is one of the first things you do with a business strategy Resource curse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse I've been inside companies that have struggled with this, and the real internal story goes like this: 1. Surprise product growth 2. Revenue go brr, org expands 3. Everyone gets promoted as org expands 4. Because the product sold itself, there was little selection pressure on the sales / customer success orgs to evaluate their effectiveness 5. Leadership gets saturated with people who just aren't very good at their job 6. None of those people get fired/demoted, because the company never had to develop "What to do with a bad leader?" muscles 7. This eventually manifests as an increasing (customer) <-> (engineering) disconnect (as sales/cs aren't doing their job) 8. People begin to ask why the company isn't doing (insert obvious thing) 9. It's because VP-of-whatever is chasing fantasies instead of reporting customer needs to engineering Tl;dr - Don't trust promotions made during the good times. Continuously reevaluate leaders.

mattjoyce 4mo ago

At the right price, these model don't need to be the best, good enough will do. I think we're fast approaching good enough for most users.

boc 4mo ago
OTOH, using the best is a competitive advantage when time = money. It's like giving your engineers a slow laptop because it's cheaper. It may be cheaper but not worth the cost.
- bushbaba 4mo ago
  Not necessarily, inference speed also has huge time aspect. For example anthropic takes nearly twice as long as OpenAI models for my tasks with both having similar success rates.
- lelanthran 4mo ago
  > OTOH, using the best is a competitive advantage when time = money. It's like giving your engineers a slow laptop because it's cheaper. It may be cheaper but not worth the cost. That doesn't imply giving your devs the best laptop makes any difference. How much more productive will your devs be if you upgrade them from a 32GB RAM, 8-core laptop to a 768GB RAM 96-core threadripper? In your analogy, Kimi may not be the 4-core celeron with 4GB of RAM, it's more like the 8-core AMD with 32GB of RAM.
  - knollimar 4mo ago
    768GB seems oddly specific for Kimi
- atraac 4mo ago
  Unless your job is purely producing code pointlessly, this is not a really good comparison. Most of the time really is spent on understanding the problem and figuring out solutions, not waiting on CPU.
kouteiheika 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

d--b 4mo ago

The benchmark is not everything, the LLMs have their “personality” and GPT is annoying AF. Also, I don’t about others, but I personally strongly dislike OpenAI’s leadership’s hypocrisy. I find them losing the race highly satisfying.

SilverElfin 4mo ago

I don’t think Mythos/Fable matter in attracting customers. The typical use is not going to be on the most expensive model, especially with all its frustrating gotchas like refusing harmless prompts and forcing companies to have their data retained. If OpenAI can offer an alternative to Opus but with better pricing, it will boost their revenue at Anthropic’s cost, in time for the IPO.

lelanthran 4mo ago

> If so the question becomes when can they do so, or is this possibly a turning point where Anthropic keeps the crown to themselves for the foreseeable future. This specific crown (Best Performing Model) appears to be made out of thorns: pay 100x more for maybe a 10% improvement in capabilities. Not sure what the goal is, here.

mnicky 4mo ago
It's simple I think - over time the price will go down. According to some analyses the price for equal intelligence declined 10-1000x per year, depending on the domain. It probably won't be the same again but I still think we can bet on radically cheaper Mythos level intelligence in the future.

jrsj 4mo ago

> The timing of these price cut discussions says to me OpenAI has no imminent release that will be edging out Mythos/Fable. Initially I had the same thought but I think this might actually have more to do with Fable being removed from the Claude subscription later this month. At that point it becomes cost prohibitive to use for most tasks anyways & this is the perfect opportunity to compete on price, especially given enterprise customers are already looking to improve spend management