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.

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.

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.