3 ms·

They're not really losing ground to Anthropic. 5.5 was a bit better than 4.8. Fable was good, and was a jump over 4.8, but only incremental over 5.5. Anthropic

They're not really losing ground to Anthropic. 5.5 was a bit better than 4.8. Fable was good, and was a jump over 4.8, but only incremental over 5.5. Anthropic is also likely losing money, right?

firesteelrain 4mo ago
I never get throttled by Codex at $20/mo however Claude throttles faster at same rate. I like Claude’s output in terms of code however
- overfeed 4mo ago
  In other words, Codex likely has a lower demand:capacity ratio compared to Claude. Which can mean either OpenAI did a better job at building out capacity, or the demand for Claude outstripped Anthropic's projections. Or both.
  - rohansood15 4mo ago
    Or Codex models are more efficient that Claude. Plus the two things you mentioned.
- mbreese 4mo ago
  Or Claude is better at getting people to move to more expensive membership tiers. From reading here, it seems like Claude still has a lot of users. If Claude has lower limits for their $20 plan, it stands to reason that people are paying for more expensive plans to get similar levels of usage. This assumes they aren’t reducing demand through the throttling, which is a big assumption. I’d love to know what Anthropic’s comparable numbers look like.
anuramat 4mo ago
huh, I felt like (gpt5.5 < opus4.8 << fable) in terms of code quality, and (g ~= o < f) in terms of pure pass rate; which one did you mean? curious about your typical workflow/tasks I want to like gpt5.5 but it's like an evil genie: bugs are fixed, features are implemented, you are now a proud owner of a 2kloc file with a single function that makes you wish you had keybindings for horizontal scrolling
- joshuastuden 4mo ago
  GPT 5.5 regularly got things correct where opus 4.8 got things wrong. Just today, it was launching an executable and putting the environments after the launch. It should have been Env1=val env2=val ./executable .... But instead it did ./executable Then set the envvars. Chatgpt 5.5 made no such mistake.
frankacter 4mo ago
According to Wash they are operationally profitable https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mind-blowing-growth-is-about-to-propel-anthropic-into-its-first-profitable-quarter-7edbf2f4 https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mind-blowing-growth-is-about-to-... Some question it https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle...
- joshuastuden 4mo ago
  >The projections, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal No, they're just projections of profitability

They're not really losing ground to Anthropic. 5.5 was a bit better than 4.8. Fable was good, and was a jump over 4.8, but only incremental over 5.5. Anthropic is also likely losing money, right?

firesteelrain 4mo ago

I never get throttled by Codex at $20/mo however Claude throttles faster at same rate. I like Claude’s output in terms of code however

overfeed 4mo ago
In other words, Codex likely has a lower demand:capacity ratio compared to Claude. Which can mean either OpenAI did a better job at building out capacity, or the demand for Claude outstripped Anthropic's projections. Or both.
- rohansood15 4mo ago
  Or Codex models are more efficient that Claude. Plus the two things you mentioned.
mbreese 4mo ago
Or Claude is better at getting people to move to more expensive membership tiers. From reading here, it seems like Claude still has a lot of users. If Claude has lower limits for their $20 plan, it stands to reason that people are paying for more expensive plans to get similar levels of usage. This assumes they aren’t reducing demand through the throttling, which is a big assumption. I’d love to know what Anthropic’s comparable numbers look like.

anuramat 4mo ago

huh, I felt like (gpt5.5 < opus4.8 << fable) in terms of code quality, and (g ~= o < f) in terms of pure pass rate; which one did you mean? curious about your typical workflow/tasks I want to like gpt5.5 but it's like an evil genie: bugs are fixed, features are implemented, you are now a proud owner of a 2kloc file with a single function that makes you wish you had keybindings for horizontal scrolling

joshuastuden 4mo ago
GPT 5.5 regularly got things correct where opus 4.8 got things wrong. Just today, it was launching an executable and putting the environments after the launch. It should have been Env1=val env2=val ./executable .... But instead it did ./executable Then set the envvars. Chatgpt 5.5 made no such mistake.

frankacter 4mo ago

According to Wash they are operationally profitable https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mind-blowing-growth-is-about-to-propel-anthropic-into-its-first-profitable-quarter-7edbf2f4 https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mind-blowing-growth-is-about-to-... Some question it https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle...

joshuastuden 4mo ago
>The projections, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal No, they're just projections of profitability