IDK if this is emergent from being trained on an endless trough of Twitter shitposts but compared to how stiff the rest are, I consider it a feature. I wouldn't use it for anything important though, heh.
In what specific ways is the company very poorly run, say compared to a comparable outfit?
Compared to the other AI companies? It's got even less revenue and product/branding decisions that have it fundamentally incompatible with any of the customers that would result in it becoming a leader.
Compared to other companies of similar revenue? That would be like... uh... Carnival Cruises? lol the fact that it has a valuation where it does is only due to corruption and politics. Oh, sorry Carnival Cruises had actual revenue last year, SpaceX was -$1.9B.
Maybe I'm just in my media bubble, care to share the experts out there explaining how it's a great company whose valuation makes any sort of sense?
a) ability to attract and retain talent
b) ability to grow the company
c) creativity and speed of execution
On these three fronts it seems like SpaceX is run pretty well, at least above average.
Claude often makes better looking interfaces and designs. And I think OpenAI has solved more open math/ stats/ CS problems.
Still surprises me that OpenAI seems to lead in this one weird niche, I wonder what causes GPT to be able to routinely pull this off, there was one instance where some random 18 year old broke some mathematical question without knowing more than high school math if I remember correctly, all because of GPT.
How do you even qualify this? Either by "Well, when you're not specifying anything about it in the prompt" and then it almost doesn't matter at all, or by what actually goes into the prompt, then again it doesn't matter at all what model you use, more about the person driving it.
Nemo: Straightest
DeepSeek: Craftiest