2 ms·

While this isn't great for users it seems like a pretty standard circling of the wagons in preparation for the next phase in the battle for frontier AI dominanc

by bentt 28d ago

While this isn't great for users it seems like a pretty standard circling of the wagons in preparation for the next phase in the battle for frontier AI dominance. Ironically, as a Cursor and Claude subscriber, but not an OpenAI subscriber, this will push me back to Anthropic. I don't feel good about giving OpenAI money directly, but I've found switching to GPT 5.6 Sol now and again in Cursor to be useful. Now I'll probably just forget about OpenAI models.

deleted 28d ago
[deleted]
reilly3000 28d ago
I think they are betting that Astra will be impossible to ignore.
- SoftTalker 28d ago
  For three months, until the next SOTA model drops. And with each improved model, the number of people who actually need it declines.
  - ronsor 28d ago
    Exactly. Astra will likely get its Mythos moment, and then another Chinese lab releases its equivalent three months later while Anthropic releases a newer, better model.
    - dakolli 28d ago
      There's a reason why most businesses don't hire PhDs, they dont need it. PhDs are cheap in many countries, arguably more affordable than a full time mythos lvl agent, yet businesses in India still don't hire 30k a year PhDs to run their businesses. Its simply not necessary. AI labs have lost the plot from a business perspective. If chasing ASI is the goal, that also seems stupid.. Putting all of your customers out of business with ASI doesn't really lead to great outcomes either. They're commodity fetishism maxxing.
      - Game_Ender 28d ago
        The higher level models are designed to tackle bigger problems with less oversight and more accuracy. It’s about entirely changing how you use them to mirror an employee you can trust. A truly good team members everyone trusts to just get things done at high quality with minimal direction for days or weeks. That is the goal.
        dakolli 28d ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism
- bentt 28d ago
  I'd need to have a problem I couldn't solve with current models for my eyes to wander.
  - znnajdla 28d ago
    Yeah I haven’t had a problem yet which was too difficult for Fable to solve. I do have problems which Sol does not do well on. But if I could get Fable-level intelligence faster/cheaper and less restricted, that’s all I need.
    - cheeze 28d ago
      Fable is great minus it's annoying writing style. It's nowhere near as bad as Opus 5 but it's very "AI trope-y" even with heavy steering. I can spot the writing immediately.
      - muddi900 27d ago
        Asking your models to follow the google developer guidelines is angood way to get good responses from them. https://developers.google.com/style/highlights https://developers.google.com/style/highlights
  - akmarinov 28d ago
    What if it’s cheaper too?
  - dakolli 28d ago
    Yeah not sure why everyone thinks they need a PhD lvl assitant to build their slop SaaS when an open source model that is 100x cheaper, and 3x faster and arguably still "PhD" level assitant could also build their slop SaaS.
  - hand2note 27d ago
    It like saying before the ai era that you don’t have a problem you can’t solve without ai
chr15m 28d ago
Why would you possibly allow companies to push you? You are the customer and you should control which models you use.
- ezfe 28d ago
  Because one is better or worse? What else do you think they meant?
  - chr15m 28d ago
    OP said: > as a Cursor and Claude subscriber, but not an OpenAI subscriber, this will push me back to Anthropic Instead of deciding based on the merits of the model, they are being pushed by the actions of the companies. You should be able to use the best model, or whatever model you like, independently of what any company thinks or does.
    - lawrjone 28d ago
      They are deciding on the merits of the model right? They’re picking the model that’s supported in most tools. I think maybe you’re suggesting private companies should be forced to support all models which is a position that isn’t technically feasible or one that most would agree is even a sensible ideal.
      - chr15m 28d ago
        No, companies can do whatever they want. They shouldn't be forced to support all models. I'm suggesting you shouldn't let a company dictate which models you use. Putting yourself in a position where they can is detrimental, because you miss out on using the best model for the job.
ifwinterco 28d ago
It’s OpenAI (and Anthropic I’m sure) realising that they’ve somehow ended up stuck in the lowest margin part of the stack (providing inference), and trying to get out of it
DustinBrett 28d ago
Same, this will make me drop Sol from my options, not Cursor.
oh_no 28d ago
you dont like giving openai money but you're fine with spacex? not criticizing, just trying to understand.
- bentt 28d ago
  Honestly, I've been a Cursor subscriber for a while and it was just momentum. Still, I rank OpenAI as the worst actor among the big AI companies. I think OpenAI's playbook will be a repeat of Facebook. Users are the product x 1000. Cursor/SpaceX/Grok is a different beast. I think they will cheat other companies but I'm not convinced yet that they have it out for users. We'll see. I'm certainly not some kind of Cursor lifer or something. We should all move to OpenCode anyway. :)
  - PretzelPirate 28d ago
    It's my personal view that Elon has already shown how little he cares for protecting data of individuals based on how he ran DOGE. If his teams will handle the data of US citizens with such disregard, he'll almost certainly treat his customers (many of whom are those same US citizens) the same.
    - bentt 28d ago
      Sure, that's a thing. But it's much different than building a multiyear strategy to use that data as the financial basis of one's entire operation.
  - verdverm 28d ago
    I'm not keen on OpenCode long term after seeing their CEO engage in antics and their discord being rather unprofessional, but it is a great harness for the time being, still has gaps though
  - ronsor 28d ago
    I used to think OpenAI was the only bad actor until I realized they were the only honestly corporate actor. The other AI companies obfuscate their goals much better.

by bentt 28d ago

deleted 28d ago

[deleted]

reilly3000 28d ago

I think they are betting that Astra will be impossible to ignore.

SoftTalker 28d ago
For three months, until the next SOTA model drops. And with each improved model, the number of people who actually need it declines.
- ronsor 28d ago
  Exactly. Astra will likely get its Mythos moment, and then another Chinese lab releases its equivalent three months later while Anthropic releases a newer, better model.
  - dakolli 28d ago
    There's a reason why most businesses don't hire PhDs, they dont need it. PhDs are cheap in many countries, arguably more affordable than a full time mythos lvl agent, yet businesses in India still don't hire 30k a year PhDs to run their businesses. Its simply not necessary. AI labs have lost the plot from a business perspective. If chasing ASI is the goal, that also seems stupid.. Putting all of your customers out of business with ASI doesn't really lead to great outcomes either. They're commodity fetishism maxxing.
    - Game_Ender 28d ago
      The higher level models are designed to tackle bigger problems with less oversight and more accuracy. It’s about entirely changing how you use them to mirror an employee you can trust. A truly good team members everyone trusts to just get things done at high quality with minimal direction for days or weeks. That is the goal.
      - dakolli 28d ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism
bentt 28d ago
I'd need to have a problem I couldn't solve with current models for my eyes to wander.
- znnajdla 28d ago
  Yeah I haven’t had a problem yet which was too difficult for Fable to solve. I do have problems which Sol does not do well on. But if I could get Fable-level intelligence faster/cheaper and less restricted, that’s all I need.
  - cheeze 28d ago
    Fable is great minus it's annoying writing style. It's nowhere near as bad as Opus 5 but it's very "AI trope-y" even with heavy steering. I can spot the writing immediately.
    - muddi900 27d ago
      Asking your models to follow the google developer guidelines is angood way to get good responses from them. https://developers.google.com/style/highlights https://developers.google.com/style/highlights
- akmarinov 28d ago
  What if it’s cheaper too?
- dakolli 28d ago
  Yeah not sure why everyone thinks they need a PhD lvl assitant to build their slop SaaS when an open source model that is 100x cheaper, and 3x faster and arguably still "PhD" level assitant could also build their slop SaaS.
- hand2note 27d ago
  It like saying before the ai era that you don’t have a problem you can’t solve without ai

chr15m 28d ago

Why would you possibly allow companies to push you? You are the customer and you should control which models you use.

ezfe 28d ago
Because one is better or worse? What else do you think they meant?
- chr15m 28d ago
  OP said: > as a Cursor and Claude subscriber, but not an OpenAI subscriber, this will push me back to Anthropic Instead of deciding based on the merits of the model, they are being pushed by the actions of the companies. You should be able to use the best model, or whatever model you like, independently of what any company thinks or does.
  - lawrjone 28d ago
    They are deciding on the merits of the model right? They’re picking the model that’s supported in most tools. I think maybe you’re suggesting private companies should be forced to support all models which is a position that isn’t technically feasible or one that most would agree is even a sensible ideal.
    - chr15m 28d ago
      No, companies can do whatever they want. They shouldn't be forced to support all models. I'm suggesting you shouldn't let a company dictate which models you use. Putting yourself in a position where they can is detrimental, because you miss out on using the best model for the job.

ifwinterco 28d ago

It’s OpenAI (and Anthropic I’m sure) realising that they’ve somehow ended up stuck in the lowest margin part of the stack (providing inference), and trying to get out of it

DustinBrett 28d ago

Same, this will make me drop Sol from my options, not Cursor.

oh_no 28d ago

you dont like giving openai money but you're fine with spacex? not criticizing, just trying to understand.

bentt 28d ago
Honestly, I've been a Cursor subscriber for a while and it was just momentum. Still, I rank OpenAI as the worst actor among the big AI companies. I think OpenAI's playbook will be a repeat of Facebook. Users are the product x 1000. Cursor/SpaceX/Grok is a different beast. I think they will cheat other companies but I'm not convinced yet that they have it out for users. We'll see. I'm certainly not some kind of Cursor lifer or something. We should all move to OpenCode anyway. :)
- PretzelPirate 28d ago
  It's my personal view that Elon has already shown how little he cares for protecting data of individuals based on how he ran DOGE. If his teams will handle the data of US citizens with such disregard, he'll almost certainly treat his customers (many of whom are those same US citizens) the same.
  - bentt 28d ago
    Sure, that's a thing. But it's much different than building a multiyear strategy to use that data as the financial basis of one's entire operation.
- verdverm 28d ago
  I'm not keen on OpenCode long term after seeing their CEO engage in antics and their discord being rather unprofessional, but it is a great harness for the time being, still has gaps though
- ronsor 28d ago
  I used to think OpenAI was the only bad actor until I realized they were the only honestly corporate actor. The other AI companies obfuscate their goals much better.