5 ms·

Yeah, but they have no moat. They gave up on video because three separate Chinese companies were kicking their ass (and for cheaper). Google has a better imag

by echelon 4mo ago

Yeah, but they have no moat. They gave up on video because three separate Chinese companies were kicking their ass (and for cheaper). Google has a better image model in the majority of cases. Much faster, too. Claude Opus and Fable are like a billion times better. It's not even funny. Codex can't do Rust at all. What does that leave them? Ads in ChatGPT? I've started to just rely on Google search blended with Gemini answers now because it's faster and doesn't spit out a 20-page essay of useless effusive prose. Open source models will eat them from the bottom. Will those enterprise contracts be renewed in a market full of alternatives? There's nothing sticky about this company. They're making a necklace with Jony Ive though, I guess?

chrisco255 4mo ago
They still have the most recognized AI brand name and they are still the most popular LLM. For most users, a 10% diff between Claude and GPT isnt going to move the needle plus it seems to be a horse race anyways. I think their user base is stickier than you would think. Still, it isn't as sticky as social media and it is cheaper to switch AIs than email accounts.
- echelon 4mo ago
  Look at the ChatGPT usage share. It's dropped dramatically in the last year. https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/16/chatgpts-market-share-slips-below-50-for-first-time/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/16/chatgpts-market-share-slip... This is not the winner take all market that OpenAI needs it to be.
  - chrisco255 4mo ago
    Its still dominant and a lot higher % wise if you count paying users. Gemini was integrated into Google search so its not necessarily people using Gemini as their daily assistant.
zozbot234 4mo ago
Opus 4.8 is quite weak. And GPT-Pro is very much available unlike Fable, it's just not hooked up to the Codex harness yet.
- qwytw 4mo ago
  Will it be? It's so obscenely slow and expensive and its not obvious it could provide a lot of value for non highly specialized tasks.
  - zozbot234 4mo ago
    So, just like Fable? You can shorten the thinking effort to tweak the "slow and expensive" part a little bit, but at the higher end being more meticulous than even Fable is actually a benefit.
Razengan 4mo ago
> Google has a better image model in the majority of cases. Not always. A couple months ago (before ChatGPT Images 2) I tried various prompts on both Google's Nano Banana or whatever and ChatGPT. "Capybara riding a tricycle. It has 7 tentacles instead of legs" Google got the number of tentacles completely wrong: https://i.postimg.cc/nzY30y7X/Capybara-Gemini-Nano.png https://i.postimg.cc/nzY30y7X/Capybara-Gemini-Nano.png and after some additions like spotted fur and multicolored tentacles, it was no contest: ChatGPT: https://i.postimg.cc/02c2LrxV/Capybara-Chat-GPT-before-Images-2.png https://i.postimg.cc/02c2LrxV/Capybara-Chat-GPT-before-Image... (although there's still kinda 1 extra tentacle) And Google still seems to have that odd choice of a European plaza/square/cobblestone street background for everything. > Claude Opus and Fable are like a billion times better. NOT at ALL: https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png Subscribed to Claude Opus for 2 months, with a few months gap between subscriptions to try different versions. The UX/UI around Anthropic's products was excruciatingly annoying, right from the payment process, and Claude's AI was often hilariously dumb and "trying too hard", constantly full of "oops, you're right" backtracking and often borderline dangerous. I tried Claude and ChatGPT Codex side by side on some tasks, with the same prompts. Each time, my confidence in Claude fell. I've been subscribed to the $20 ChatGPT plan for more than 1 year, and this month, I am trying the $100 plan for 1 month. ChatGPT Codex has been actually helpful and made me more productive enough that I can't imagine going back to coding without it.
- vunderba 4mo ago
  I use LLMs more in the context of peer-reviewing and also came to a similar conclusion, gpt-5.5 codex xhigh reasoning seemed to catch more edge cases and went "deeper" into analysis than Opus 4.7/4.8. My preliminary tests of Fable were pretty promising but that's DOA for everyone for now.
  - Razengan 4mo ago
    Claude often spent most of its output listing all the things that were already correct and working! "This is good" and most of its findings were false positive or outright wrong as in the screenshot I posted above.

by echelon 4mo ago

chrisco255 4mo ago

They still have the most recognized AI brand name and they are still the most popular LLM. For most users, a 10% diff between Claude and GPT isnt going to move the needle plus it seems to be a horse race anyways. I think their user base is stickier than you would think. Still, it isn't as sticky as social media and it is cheaper to switch AIs than email accounts.

echelon 4mo ago
Look at the ChatGPT usage share. It's dropped dramatically in the last year. https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/16/chatgpts-market-share-slips-below-50-for-first-time/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/16/chatgpts-market-share-slip... This is not the winner take all market that OpenAI needs it to be.
- chrisco255 4mo ago
  Its still dominant and a lot higher % wise if you count paying users. Gemini was integrated into Google search so its not necessarily people using Gemini as their daily assistant.

zozbot234 4mo ago

Opus 4.8 is quite weak. And GPT-Pro is very much available unlike Fable, it's just not hooked up to the Codex harness yet.

qwytw 4mo ago
Will it be? It's so obscenely slow and expensive and its not obvious it could provide a lot of value for non highly specialized tasks.
- zozbot234 4mo ago
  So, just like Fable? You can shorten the thinking effort to tweak the "slow and expensive" part a little bit, but at the higher end being more meticulous than even Fable is actually a benefit.

Razengan 4mo ago

> Google has a better image model in the majority of cases. Not always. A couple months ago (before ChatGPT Images 2) I tried various prompts on both Google's Nano Banana or whatever and ChatGPT. "Capybara riding a tricycle. It has 7 tentacles instead of legs" Google got the number of tentacles completely wrong: https://i.postimg.cc/nzY30y7X/Capybara-Gemini-Nano.png https://i.postimg.cc/nzY30y7X/Capybara-Gemini-Nano.png and after some additions like spotted fur and multicolored tentacles, it was no contest: ChatGPT: https://i.postimg.cc/02c2LrxV/Capybara-Chat-GPT-before-Images-2.png https://i.postimg.cc/02c2LrxV/Capybara-Chat-GPT-before-Image... (although there's still kinda 1 extra tentacle) And Google still seems to have that odd choice of a European plaza/square/cobblestone street background for everything. > Claude Opus and Fable are like a billion times better. NOT at ALL: https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png Subscribed to Claude Opus for 2 months, with a few months gap between subscriptions to try different versions. The UX/UI around Anthropic's products was excruciatingly annoying, right from the payment process, and Claude's AI was often hilariously dumb and "trying too hard", constantly full of "oops, you're right" backtracking and often borderline dangerous. I tried Claude and ChatGPT Codex side by side on some tasks, with the same prompts. Each time, my confidence in Claude fell. I've been subscribed to the $20 ChatGPT plan for more than 1 year, and this month, I am trying the $100 plan for 1 month. ChatGPT Codex has been actually helpful and made me more productive enough that I can't imagine going back to coding without it.

vunderba 4mo ago
I use LLMs more in the context of peer-reviewing and also came to a similar conclusion, gpt-5.5 codex xhigh reasoning seemed to catch more edge cases and went "deeper" into analysis than Opus 4.7/4.8. My preliminary tests of Fable were pretty promising but that's DOA for everyone for now.
- Razengan 4mo ago
  Claude often spent most of its output listing all the things that were already correct and working! "This is good" and most of its findings were false positive or outright wrong as in the screenshot I posted above.