I don't think that was the main reason for people thinking OpenAI is going to collapse here.

By far, the biggest argument was that OpenAI bet too much on compute.

Being unfocused is generally an easy fix. Just cut things that don't matter as much, which they seem to be doing.

Honestly it seems like each major player here fumbles the ball in turn, quite fun to observe. But hey, it's a difficult game.

To me it seems like they burn so much money they can do lots of things in parallel. My guess would be that e.g. codex and sora are very independently developed. After all there's a quite a hard limit on how many bodies are beneficial to a software project.

Personally its down to Altman having the cognitive capacity of a sleeping snail, the world insight of a hormonal 14 year old who's only ever read one series of manga.

Despite having literal experts at his fingertips, he still isn't able to grasp that he's talking unfilters bollocks most of the time. Not to mention is Jason level of "oath breaking"/dishonesty.

> By comparison Anthropic have been very focused.

Ah yes, very focused on crapping out every possible thing they can copy and half bake?

I agree. And I am seeing it in a lot of venues, especially political discourse. Commenting is increasingly AI driven I fear the whole thing is going to collapse and nobody will be able to rely on online commentary to make decisions. At least not without a lot of independent research, maybe that’s for the best, but it’s definitely going to change the Internet.

OpenAI will need to stop burning money eventually, but so does everyone else in the space. The longer they can do this the more squeeze it puts on their competitors.

I would call out though that I think there is one way in which this differs from the Uber situation. Theoretically at some point we should hit a place where compute costs start to come down either because we've built enough resources or because most tasks don't need the newest models and a lot of the work people are doing can be automatically sent to cheaper models that are good enough. Unless Uber's self driving program magically pops back up, Uber doesn't really have that since their biggest expense is driver wages.

I think it's a long shot, but not impossible, that if OpenAI can subsidize costs long enough that prices don't need to go too much higher to be sustainable.

This is the primary reason I won’t sign up for an annual plan.

Different plan. The old 2x has been discontinued, and the bonus is now (temporarily) available for the new $100 plan users in an effort, presumably, to entice them away from Anthropic.

It’s for Pro users only, I think the 2x is up to May 31.

They did it again to "celebrate" the release of the $100 plan.

Proof they are nerfing the model? It is stable in benchmarks: https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code-historical-perform...

All this just reads like just another case of mass psychosis to me

No

So many people confuse sycophantic behavior with producing results.

How is droves of your customers leaving, whether they're foot stomping or not, healthy?

Attracting talent with huge sums of money just gets you people who optimize for money, and it's usually never a good long-term decision. I think it's what led to Google's downturn.

> OpenAI has a massive advantage in human capital over Anthropic.

but if your leader is a dipshit, then its a waste.

Look You can't just throw money at the problem, you need people who are able to make the right decisions are the right time. That that requires leadership. Part of the reason why facebook fucked up VR/AR is that they have a leader who only cares about features/metrics, not user experience.

Part of the reason why twitter always lost money is because they had loads of teams all running in different directions, because Dorsey is utterly incapable of making a firm decision.

Its not money and talent, its execution.

Are those "smart people you know" machine learning researchers?