3 ms·

Once OpenAI and Anthropic are public, every such announcement will become a reliable sell signal

by adi2907 2mo ago

MangoCoffee 2mo ago
US AI labs really rub me the wrong way, especially with the doom and scare tactics they use. Both Altman and Dario keep talking about how AI will replace workers and how we should regulate LLMs for national security, Dario’s main point. LLMs are useful. We can all see that in agentic coding. But replacing everyone’s job? Hardly. And what’s with the scare tactic of trying to get the US government to ban foreign models? LLMs are useful, and dare I say they’re on par with the internet. Making them cheaper and affordable is good for everyone. The fear mongering from Anthropic and OpenAI looks like an attempt to corner the US market into using only US models so they can keep the profits, especially since China has proven that LLMs are a commodity. US AI labs should work on making LLMs cheaper or better harness. Altman and Dario are not trustworthy.
- dmix 2mo ago
  Sam drank the "superintelligence" kool aid early on and said 30-40% of jobs could be impacted by AI, but recently admitted he was wrong > “My scorecard, at the highest level, would be we’ve been roughly right on technological predictions and pretty wrong on the social and economic implications” https://www.cxtoday.com/ai-automation-in-cx/sam-altman-softens-stance-on-ai-replacing-jobs-says-some-human-work-will-endure/ https://www.cxtoday.com/ai-automation-in-cx/sam-altman-softe... I agree re: Dario quietly pushing for government control. He also said LLMs would replace a lot of entry-level information jobs, doubling the unemployment rate from 4-5% to 10%. Yale did a study recently showing little impact on employment in high-AI exposed jobs https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/ai-probably-not-yet-reason-labor-market-weakening https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/ai-probably-not-yet-reas...
  - conception 2mo ago
    I imagine it will be a long tail. Most companies won’t fire people for AI but probably won’t immediately replace a person that leaves, if at all.
    - magicalhippo 2mo ago
      Or won't hire that extra person when they need to increase output.
  - twelve40 2mo ago
    but this crap may take forever to play out even if the outcome is well-known. Self-driving is "here", it's obvious that once it's cheap enough having a human behind a car wheel or a freight truck wheel is an absurd waste of human life (kinda like digging canals with bare hands instead of an excavator), yet truckers and uber drivers are still employed. But everyone knows the writing is on the wall for them.
    - lovasoa 2mo ago
      the writing has been on the wall for fifteen years, and yet the number of professional drivers has only increased since then...
    - necovek 2mo ago
      Is it? I believe it is fair to hope so and even expect it, but this has been promised as being just around the corner for 10+ years. Yet here we are, still driving our own cars, and laughing at silly behavior of most advanced self-driving systems. I am certain we'll get to something of similar value, but I expect we'll have to improve infrastructure too (smart roads).
- EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
  You are right to feel that way about the frontier labs, especially Anthropic. From https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ > "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
  - usef- 2mo ago
    To be fair, we're simultaneously mocking anthropic for believing in safety so much and also for them thinking they're the only ones that care enough about it. It's true that no one else seems to care as much. Judging by reactions from everyone, all their safety talk is very bad PR.
    - nullsanity 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - red_green_yell 2mo ago
      The criticism isn't that they believe in safety too much. It's that they patently using safety as a red herring with the actual goal of regulating away competition that they know the cannot beat.
      - usef- 2mo ago
        The people involved have been talking about safety long before they had any users or a company. "Concrete Problems in AI Safety" by Dario and another founder was published 2016, anthropic was founded 2021. Among a bunch of other examples, including other founders. If safety is seen as a joke now, it was really seen as a joke back then. The reason they keep shooting themselves in the foot with bad PR is because they truly believe in risks.
- usef- 2mo ago
  If there are genuine society risks in a tech I don't want to discourage CEOs from talking about them. I feel like we've spent decades talking about how evil chemical companies (etc.) were about covering up issues in the 20th century. But yes, that's different to being a reason to ban external models.
_jayhack_ 2mo ago
Only the ones that beat expectations
int32_64 2mo ago
It's not so simple, if such a headline can get them closer to the regulatory capture they want to lock in American businesses and forbid them from using Chinese AI.
- OtomotO 2mo ago
  But the US are the country of freedom! That's what Hollywood has been telling me my entire life!
ycui7 2mo ago
Can they still go public ? MiniMax M3 Pro is also coming, then DeepSeek-v4-Pro GA, then GLM5.5. There will only be bad news for them in the coming few weeks/months.
- wmf 2mo ago
  Fable 5.1 is coming, then GPT-6...
- aenis 2mo ago
  My guess is their strategy is to aim for clueless developers, with more focus on "proactivity" with Fable and very large models. I have a few non-technical friends who dabble in AI coding and I am watching with amazement how much better their creations get with the newer models. 3 months ago, they would "ship" stuff with a backend at 127.0.0.1 and api keys in the frontend. Right now they produce, without an iota of understanding, decently designed, but not very secure or efficient cloud native stuff that sort of works. I bet in 3-6 months they will be releasing secure, scalable, well architected stuff without spending a single thought on any of those things. And I think this is where the really big models will be a bit of a moat, for a short while at least.
gr_norm 2mo ago
Agree, I don't necessarily see a strong argument favoring OpenAI or Anthropic here. In the interest of perspective, can anyone (perhaps playing devil's advocate) give one? The open models are now good enough for what I want to do with them, let alone any future improvements. And factoring in efficiency gains, a model in the ~70b range starting to satisfy my needs would completely obviate the need to pay others for inference. This does not seem far-fetched to me, comparing with where open models were at this time last year. What am I missing?
- nimchimpsky 2mo ago
  [dead]
- twelve40 2mo ago
  coding on a laptop is only one use case you can't create a new drug by running a model on a laptop. You can't serve a customer support bot running on a laptop. You can't generate video in bulk for many users on a laptop. So there is still a case for paying others for inference. Does it justify the valuations? No idea, but some major use cases are still there. That's why they are rushing to implement, OpenAI creating a "deployment company", Anthropic having some pharma rumors, etc.
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
    Surely all those use cases can be done right now without a closed model? I think GP was asking specifically about the use case for closed models.
    - twelve40 2mo ago
      yes, but at that point even open weight models are not free. Can someone set up the best open-weight model for free and charge pretty much just for GPU usage+operations+margin for inference? yes. But they would have to keep up with how good the private models are. The bet is private models would sell in a similar way at a premium and invest in staying ahead. Is this bet going to work? no idea, don't shoot the messenger.
aurareturn 2mo ago
It'll sell after 1-2 times, then the market will get jaded and ignore.

Once OpenAI and Anthropic are public, every such announcement will become a reliable sell signal

by adi2907 2mo ago

Once OpenAI and Anthropic are public, every such announcement will become a reliable sell signal

US AI labs really rub me the wrong way, especially with the doom and scare tactics they use. Both Altman and Dario keep talking about how AI will replace workers and how we should regulate LLMs for national security, Dario’s main point. LLMs are useful. We can all see that in agentic coding. But replacing everyone’s job? Hardly. And what’s with the scare tactic of trying to get the US government to ban foreign models? LLMs are useful, and dare I say they’re on par with the internet. Making them cheaper and affordable is good for everyone. The fear mongering from Anthropic and OpenAI looks like an attempt to corner the US market into using only US models so they can keep the profits, especially since China has proven that LLMs are a commodity. US AI labs should work on making LLMs cheaper or better harness. Altman and Dario are not trustworthy.

dmix 2mo ago
Sam drank the "superintelligence" kool aid early on and said 30-40% of jobs could be impacted by AI, but recently admitted he was wrong > “My scorecard, at the highest level, would be we’ve been roughly right on technological predictions and pretty wrong on the social and economic implications” https://www.cxtoday.com/ai-automation-in-cx/sam-altman-softens-stance-on-ai-replacing-jobs-says-some-human-work-will-endure/ https://www.cxtoday.com/ai-automation-in-cx/sam-altman-softe... I agree re: Dario quietly pushing for government control. He also said LLMs would replace a lot of entry-level information jobs, doubling the unemployment rate from 4-5% to 10%. Yale did a study recently showing little impact on employment in high-AI exposed jobs https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/ai-probably-not-yet-reason-labor-market-weakening https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/ai-probably-not-yet-reas...
- conception 2mo ago
  I imagine it will be a long tail. Most companies won’t fire people for AI but probably won’t immediately replace a person that leaves, if at all.
  - magicalhippo 2mo ago
    Or won't hire that extra person when they need to increase output.
- twelve40 2mo ago
  but this crap may take forever to play out even if the outcome is well-known. Self-driving is "here", it's obvious that once it's cheap enough having a human behind a car wheel or a freight truck wheel is an absurd waste of human life (kinda like digging canals with bare hands instead of an excavator), yet truckers and uber drivers are still employed. But everyone knows the writing is on the wall for them.
  - lovasoa 2mo ago
    the writing has been on the wall for fifteen years, and yet the number of professional drivers has only increased since then...
  - necovek 2mo ago
    Is it? I believe it is fair to hope so and even expect it, but this has been promised as being just around the corner for 10+ years. Yet here we are, still driving our own cars, and laughing at silly behavior of most advanced self-driving systems. I am certain we'll get to something of similar value, but I expect we'll have to improve infrastructure too (smart roads).
EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
You are right to feel that way about the frontier labs, especially Anthropic. From https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ > "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
- usef- 2mo ago
  To be fair, we're simultaneously mocking anthropic for believing in safety so much and also for them thinking they're the only ones that care enough about it. It's true that no one else seems to care as much. Judging by reactions from everyone, all their safety talk is very bad PR.
  - nullsanity 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - red_green_yell 2mo ago
    The criticism isn't that they believe in safety too much. It's that they patently using safety as a red herring with the actual goal of regulating away competition that they know the cannot beat.
    - usef- 2mo ago
      The people involved have been talking about safety long before they had any users or a company. "Concrete Problems in AI Safety" by Dario and another founder was published 2016, anthropic was founded 2021. Among a bunch of other examples, including other founders. If safety is seen as a joke now, it was really seen as a joke back then. The reason they keep shooting themselves in the foot with bad PR is because they truly believe in risks.
usef- 2mo ago
If there are genuine society risks in a tech I don't want to discourage CEOs from talking about them. I feel like we've spent decades talking about how evil chemical companies (etc.) were about covering up issues in the 20th century. But yes, that's different to being a reason to ban external models.

_jayhack_ 2mo ago

Only the ones that beat expectations

int32_64 2mo ago

It's not so simple, if such a headline can get them closer to the regulatory capture they want to lock in American businesses and forbid them from using Chinese AI.

OtomotO 2mo ago
But the US are the country of freedom! That's what Hollywood has been telling me my entire life!

ycui7 2mo ago

Can they still go public ? MiniMax M3 Pro is also coming, then DeepSeek-v4-Pro GA, then GLM5.5. There will only be bad news for them in the coming few weeks/months.

wmf 2mo ago
Fable 5.1 is coming, then GPT-6...
aenis 2mo ago
My guess is their strategy is to aim for clueless developers, with more focus on "proactivity" with Fable and very large models. I have a few non-technical friends who dabble in AI coding and I am watching with amazement how much better their creations get with the newer models. 3 months ago, they would "ship" stuff with a backend at 127.0.0.1 and api keys in the frontend. Right now they produce, without an iota of understanding, decently designed, but not very secure or efficient cloud native stuff that sort of works. I bet in 3-6 months they will be releasing secure, scalable, well architected stuff without spending a single thought on any of those things. And I think this is where the really big models will be a bit of a moat, for a short while at least.

gr_norm 2mo ago

Agree, I don't necessarily see a strong argument favoring OpenAI or Anthropic here. In the interest of perspective, can anyone (perhaps playing devil's advocate) give one? The open models are now good enough for what I want to do with them, let alone any future improvements. And factoring in efficiency gains, a model in the ~70b range starting to satisfy my needs would completely obviate the need to pay others for inference. This does not seem far-fetched to me, comparing with where open models were at this time last year. What am I missing?

nimchimpsky 2mo ago
[dead]
twelve40 2mo ago
coding on a laptop is only one use case you can't create a new drug by running a model on a laptop. You can't serve a customer support bot running on a laptop. You can't generate video in bulk for many users on a laptop. So there is still a case for paying others for inference. Does it justify the valuations? No idea, but some major use cases are still there. That's why they are rushing to implement, OpenAI creating a "deployment company", Anthropic having some pharma rumors, etc.
- lelanthran 2mo ago
  Surely all those use cases can be done right now without a closed model? I think GP was asking specifically about the use case for closed models.
  - twelve40 2mo ago
    yes, but at that point even open weight models are not free. Can someone set up the best open-weight model for free and charge pretty much just for GPU usage+operations+margin for inference? yes. But they would have to keep up with how good the private models are. The bet is private models would sell in a similar way at a premium and invest in staying ahead. Is this bet going to work? no idea, don't shoot the messenger.

aurareturn 2mo ago

It'll sell after 1-2 times, then the market will get jaded and ignore.