I heavily weight the explosive revenue growth of Anthropic and OpenAI above speculation about what open source models may do in the future. I've heard for over 6 months that there's no moat but the revenue growth keeps proving it wrong. Opinions have to adjust to meet reality. There's some kind of moat, for now at least, that is not being appreciated in the conventional wisdom.
reply(If they were just burning Capex and nobody wanted to use their product or their gross margins were bad then I'd agree with you)
Your opinion also holds weight. In fact, I've been in your camp throughout, only having changed my mind in the last few weeks. I've seen legitimate instances of Anthropic costs surprising medium to large enterprises, so that's a demand shock. On the supply side, I've seen some very intense benchmarking going on at r/LocalLlama (the #1 community for opensource LLM tinkering IMO). It just feels like we're in a powder keg right now.
replyGLM 5.1 is almost there. These guys should be scared. The valuations these companies have is insanity.
replyNot in extended sessions, I've noticed. It's good at targeted edits, but not "build a small tool that XYZ".
replyModel diversity is really their weak point. OpenAI has embeddings, audio, image, video (RIP). Anthropic has ... Claude. It's a great model for a lot of things, but it's super risky to just have one thing you're good at (from a business standpoint).
replythose models are light years away from opus or sonnett right now though -- is the context problem really solvable?
replyabsolutely not, take Kimi K2.6 for a spin
reply