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?
Seems to me OpenAI and Anthropic are kinda following the Apple business strategy. Those two offer a premium service that gets better results and works more seamlessly. I.e. the integration between Anthropic models and Claude Code is apparently nice and gets better results, and I've heard anecdotally that Codex is currently the best.
So just like in IPhone vs Android, you could end up with a situation where Chinese firms compete and get most of the revenue and usage with low profit margins but OpenAI and Anthropic capture a premium side of the market and still get a lot of profits.
> In the interest of perspective, can anyone (perhaps playing devil's advocate) give one?
I have numerous cases where Sol failed and only Fable could solve a problem. For example yesterday I was merging a Q2 curved with a Bezier curved face in 3D using OpenSCAD. I tried for over 2 hours with Sol 5.6 high and x-high.
Fable two-shotted it in about 30 minutes.
In my experience open models (or GLM, DS and Kimi) are radically worse than either of Claude or ChatGPT at these tasks.
I think there is a huge "long tail" of tasks like this where the frontier labs are ahead, and I think this long tail is quite important.
I settled on Fable for design, Opus for build routine, and every now and then I'd try out the Chinese models. In my experience they do fine on small codebases, and quickly get confused on anything larger than 500k LOC.
My use case is: mature, very well documented, fully Ai written code, with about 1:10 ratio of prompts/specs to code, and codebase sizes >500k and <2m LOC. Once one achieves the state of good, comprehensive design documentation I can literally vibe code with single sentence prompts thanks to the extensive test coverage, ADRs, and tens of thousands of lines of specs. Fable/Opus works predictably well, the Chinese models are literally dangerous to the codebase.
Hardware and electrical costs including power usage and electric wiring/outlet costs of such machine.
Unless you are spending more than a max subscription (200 a month+) its cheaper to use the cloud.
But things are priced cheaper in the cloud now to lock you in and restrictions around hosted models are getting worse.
If you only have a $300 dollar laptop its probably not worth the upgrade.
I'm personally excited by local AI but the experience for the average isn't the same. I'm willing to get .5/s running on 10-15 years old machines but what I can do with it is limited.
Their marketing department :-) . I'm only half-joking; those guys are hard at work finding the best product-market fit for ChatGPT/Claude. "Product market fit" means "strongest revenue", which is not necessarily going to bring the best tool for you or me, but the one that can either get more consumers to shell off money, or more enterprises to cough money for licenses, and in both cases those consumer basis will be narrowed down to what legal and geopolitical circumstances allow OpenAI and Anthropic (and this is why they want to ban the competition!). It also means dark patterns and enshitification, of which I'm already seeing some both in the Codex interface (it was just renamed "ChatGPT"!!!) and in Claude Code (which also is just "Claude" now and can't '@' properly any longer). So in the medium run most people will be better off running an open source harness that can use any model.
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.
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.
> 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.
Or, the company itself can rent the GPU and host the model of their choice on it.
> But they would have to keep up with how good the private models are.
Why? The whole point of the thread is that the marginal gains of using private models is a fraction of the additional cost of using those private models.
IOW, if you really need that improvement over the open models, you can go ahead and pay it. What we are seeing though is that the improvement in general is barely noticeable but the cost is 4x as much.
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.
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.
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.
> "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."
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.
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.
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.
I’m sorry, but this do-gooder concept doesn’t jibe with their other actions. For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic.
And for safety? Oh yeah, they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments.
For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic.
Completely unrelated to AI safety.
they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments
It seems blindingly obvious to me that you'd want to let trusted organizations use the models defensively, which means without guardrails, and that you'd probably gate that behind some kind of enterprise sales process, for multiple reasons.
Honestly, it just seems like you have an axe to grind and aren't really particularly knowledgeable (or curious) about AI safety.
What they believe now or care about is fundamentally not very relevant: allowing them a monopoly would be a big mistake. Google was supposed to do no evil and it probably started that way but nothing guarantees the future other than having alternatives.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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?
Seems to me OpenAI and Anthropic are kinda following the Apple business strategy. Those two offer a premium service that gets better results and works more seamlessly. I.e. the integration between Anthropic models and Claude Code is apparently nice and gets better results, and I've heard anecdotally that Codex is currently the best.
So just like in IPhone vs Android, you could end up with a situation where Chinese firms compete and get most of the revenue and usage with low profit margins but OpenAI and Anthropic capture a premium side of the market and still get a lot of profits.
> In the interest of perspective, can anyone (perhaps playing devil's advocate) give one?
I have numerous cases where Sol failed and only Fable could solve a problem. For example yesterday I was merging a Q2 curved with a Bezier curved face in 3D using OpenSCAD. I tried for over 2 hours with Sol 5.6 high and x-high.
Fable two-shotted it in about 30 minutes.
In my experience open models (or GLM, DS and Kimi) are radically worse than either of Claude or ChatGPT at these tasks.
I think there is a huge "long tail" of tasks like this where the frontier labs are ahead, and I think this long tail is quite important.
Same experience here.
I settled on Fable for design, Opus for build routine, and every now and then I'd try out the Chinese models. In my experience they do fine on small codebases, and quickly get confused on anything larger than 500k LOC.
My use case is: mature, very well documented, fully Ai written code, with about 1:10 ratio of prompts/specs to code, and codebase sizes >500k and <2m LOC. Once one achieves the state of good, comprehensive design documentation I can literally vibe code with single sentence prompts thanks to the extensive test coverage, ADRs, and tens of thousands of lines of specs. Fable/Opus works predictably well, the Chinese models are literally dangerous to the codebase.
Hardware and electrical costs including power usage and electric wiring/outlet costs of such machine.
Unless you are spending more than a max subscription (200 a month+) its cheaper to use the cloud.
But things are priced cheaper in the cloud now to lock you in and restrictions around hosted models are getting worse.
If you only have a $300 dollar laptop its probably not worth the upgrade.
I'm personally excited by local AI but the experience for the average isn't the same. I'm willing to get .5/s running on 10-15 years old machines but what I can do with it is limited.
> What am I missing?
Their marketing department :-) . I'm only half-joking; those guys are hard at work finding the best product-market fit for ChatGPT/Claude. "Product market fit" means "strongest revenue", which is not necessarily going to bring the best tool for you or me, but the one that can either get more consumers to shell off money, or more enterprises to cough money for licenses, and in both cases those consumer basis will be narrowed down to what legal and geopolitical circumstances allow OpenAI and Anthropic (and this is why they want to ban the competition!). It also means dark patterns and enshitification, of which I'm already seeing some both in the Codex interface (it was just renamed "ChatGPT"!!!) and in Claude Code (which also is just "Claude" now and can't '@' properly any longer). So in the medium run most people will be better off running an open source harness that can use any model.
[dead]
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Or, the company itself can rent the GPU and host the model of their choice on it.
> But they would have to keep up with how good the private models are.
Why? The whole point of the thread is that the marginal gains of using private models is a fraction of the additional cost of using those private models.
IOW, if you really need that improvement over the open models, you can go ahead and pay it. What we are seeing though is that the improvement in general is barely noticeable but the cost is 4x as much.
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.
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.
Fable 5.1 is coming, then GPT-6...
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.
You are right to feel that way about the frontier labs, especially Anthropic. From 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."
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.
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.
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.
I’m sorry, but this do-gooder concept doesn’t jibe with their other actions. For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic.
And for safety? Oh yeah, they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments.
For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic.
Completely unrelated to AI safety.
they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments
It seems blindingly obvious to me that you'd want to let trusted organizations use the models defensively, which means without guardrails, and that you'd probably gate that behind some kind of enterprise sales process, for multiple reasons.
Honestly, it just seems like you have an axe to grind and aren't really particularly knowledgeable (or curious) about AI safety.
What they believe now or care about is fundamentally not very relevant: allowing them a monopoly would be a big mistake. Google was supposed to do no evil and it probably started that way but nothing guarantees the future other than having alternatives.
[dead]
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.
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-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-reas...
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.
Or won't hire that extra person when they need to increase output.
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.
the writing has been on the wall for fifteen years, and yet the number of professional drivers has only increased since then...
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).
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.
But the US are the country of freedom!
That's what Hollywood has been telling me my entire life!
Only the ones that beat expectations
It'll sell after 1-2 times, then the market will get jaded and ignore.