It is not. Where's the danger ? We will need to adapt, as in every technology progress, but what do you think will happen ? Realistically ? Don't feed the fearmongering. Yes, we're disrupting the status quo, if that's the danger, then welcome to the world.
Actually the real danger is mass labor market disruption, and a massive shift of power from labour to capital.
As was highlighted in previous discussions, the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers. The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west. Now we face a development that has the potential to be faster than those that came before, in the context of political systems more fragile and worse equipped to manage the change.
So yeah, disrupting the status quo can absolutely be dangerous. It has been dangerous (and deadly) in the past and in the present.
> the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers
Come on. This is dishonesty and isn't the reality. We may agree that the Industrial Revolution may have taken decades (certainly not 80 years) for its benefits to be *clearly and widely* felt by workers, but anything further is an abusive claim. So what, because the progress doesn't benefit to workers instantly, we shouldn't do it ?
In the end, whatever your position, industrialization eventually raised living standards. So what's wrong with that ?
> The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west
This is oversimplifying and correlation at the best, not causation
"Carl Benedikt Frey at Oxford has documented that the Industrial Revolution took seventy years before wages and employment recovered for the workers it displaced. In the interim, wages stagnated, the labor share of income collapsed, profits surged, inequality skyrocketed, and the political consequences included the Chartist movement and widespread social upheaval."
From half way through this (meandering) blog post:
Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet. It will realize that a bioweapon is the ideal choice.
> Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet.
There are plenty of internally consistent moral frameworks which would not favor this action even if the premise were true (and that premise seems at best unjustified and at least overstated.)
It's not one single danger, its a can full of dangers in various domains. And in contrast to other dangerous technologies, we are talking about one that has the potential to self improve. This smells like exponential growth doesn't it? Exponential growth is something we are not very likely to adapt to successfully, even if you say we are supposed to.
But before you complain, here are just a few concrete dangers, that come into my mind right now:
- mass layoffs in a system that is far from being prepared for sth like that. (no UBI)
- a Mr. Robot tier blackhat at the fingertips of every teenager in their mom's basement in a software landscape that is far from being prepared for sth like that. Side note: Big parts of the world including critical infrastructure runs on software.
- because it automates more and more intellectual work, it can cause mass brain atrophy, which isn't a hopeful sign for the human branch of the evolution
- increasing dependence on a technology, that is in the hands of those with capital.
And to the OP: this technology has potential implications that are far beyond 'being behind' other nation states economically.
Anthropic just stole the internet and put it in a transformer and pat itself on the back for it - well no to be honest we have to suffer through hearing them saying that this model is really really dangerous until they got a reaction for they fear mongering
> Now no one can access ChatGPT 5.6 because of their 5 year long fearmongering regulatory capture campaign.
I'm sympathetic to this arguement, but it's silly to ignore the other half; that the administration has openly feuding with them for months over limits to military capabilities.
No one is ignoring the other half, the feud is rooted in Anthropic's insatiable desire for power and control over everyone and everything, including the administration. The same desire that is fueling the strategic fearmongering campaign underpins all of their behavior and the repercussions and sentiment they're facing from the administration and the general public.
If their company hadn't been posturing like this for 5 years they'd have played ball with the administration like all of the other AI companies and they wouldn't have caught all that heat and taken down the AI industry with them. Just remember that Dario was pushing the narrative that GPT 2 was too dangerous to release to the public, while he was working at OpenAI. GPT 2!
Now it's an inevitability that China takes the lead - which was probably the case anyway, but a certainty if this continues.
> No one is ignoring the other half, the feud is rooted in Anthropic's insatiable desire for power and control over everyone and everything, including the administration.
Again, this is ignoring half of it. See what they did to Intel prior:
"President Donald Trump said Monday that he and members of his cabinet met with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, days after he called on the head of the chipmaker to resign. Intel shares rose 2% in extended trading."
"U.S. Government to make $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock as company builds upon its more than $100 billion expansion of resilient semiconductor supply chain."
I seriously do not comprehend how a consumer like you can have sympathy for Anthropic, as if you are part of their organisation or something. Competition is good for us. Wouldn't it have been for asian labs, we would would be fully dependent on OpenAI, Anthropic and Googles services.
Has either of these companies released models before this? It's hard to believe that they could release a supposed Mythos-level model just out-of-the-blue. Deepseek, Z.ai, Alibaba/Qwen have been at this for a lot longer and have been releasing models with steadily increasing capabilities for about 18 months now. I find it hard to believe that these new companies would just suddenly release a Mythos-level model without releasing anything prior.
How do we define "mythos level" exactly outside of marketing buzz? I don't even think the majority of us can access Mythos yet even to make a comparison.
But did they deliver anything yet?
There are many startups with notable founders that are not being able to get models launched. And even if they are able to launch, so they get PMF.
In case of Sakana, they clearly focus on the Japanese market an have buildup a good pipeline on sovereign AI. But similar to Aleph Alpha or to a certain extend Mistral, I don't see how they can keep up.
I think every country/major country at the government level will back any home grown talent in view of USA restrictions.
The models don't need to be as good, just good enough for the task. I am using a Claude Q3 2024 model mostly (Haiku 4.5) at present, and it delivers what I need.
I live in Japan and yet can't seem to pay for their API in JPY... I bet their enterprise customers don't have that problem but it was pretty annoying given "AI in Japan" appears to be there only selling point.
The only way they can compete in Japan is the enterprise-game. Their partnership with Daiwa and MUFG is probably exactly what they should be doing. I doubt that they get that far though. Like Mistral who has partnerships with BNP Paribas and Airbus, they deploy in an on-premise or private cloud and in those settings, their models make good PoC's but cant compete where it gets interesting -- Workspace Agents. If you look at them from a Chatbot over RAG perspective, maybe they can do it. But that's tech from 2023.
Mythos is extreme hype. We are at a combo of authoritarian politicians peddling fear for power and tech bros trying to extract maximum investment returns.
We’re going to have many LLM/toolset combos that do what mythos does.
asian is bad wording. this is a japanese startup backed by khosla ventures. japan is an ally of west.
the title makes it sound like a chinese company did this.
Are you from UK perhaps? Because UK is the only place I know where "asian" also includes India and Pakistan. Everywhere else India is sort of separate entity and always mentioned separately.
You don't get out much? (in alpha) Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, Middle-East (sorry, that's a western term) all include west Asia in the definition.
I'm from Europe and never hear indians clumped together with chinese as "asian". When speaking of geography, then yes, but that's about it. It's always "Indian startup", never "Asian startup" for example. Indian food, not Asian food etc. YMMV
The UK is part of Europe despite leaving the EU (which is of course not equivalent to "Europe").
In the UK it is common for the British to refer to both Pakistanis and Indians as Asian and not uncommon for the Chinese to be lumped in the Asian category as an umbrella term (and also to highlight someone or some company as being specifically Chinese).
I guess it really comes down to habits in particular parts of Europe and which parts of Europe you travel in.
Is that really the most sailent facet of this story? Boxing it by official friend vs foe designations? Don't american academic institutions and corporate entities cooperate closely with Chinese companies as well?
The US and China are in a cold war right now, whether that is fully recognized or not, the fight has already begun. The US is blocking models from getting out of the country and China is blocking researchers from getting out of the country. The expectation should be only more closing off in the future.
We are all people. This ally-of-the-west framing is propaganda. Who has harmed me more: this US or China? Who do I have more in common with: a tech worker in China or a US government official?
(I'm based in US - I use the best tech for the task).
> These companies providing tokens, whether SOTA or not, that want to IPO are so fucked as time goes on.
>Can't sell their SOTA models, only slightly better than the open source models for the models they can sell, cost 20x to 50x for good models, a TAM that consists almost solely of developers, with no customer of theirs actually boasting increased profits as a result of AI...
> I fear their time to IPO may have passed.
What on earth could Anthropic and OpenAI Pivot to now?
Let’s face it - without the humans these machines ain’t shit - aka we have mechanically figured out ways to make machines better than us at certain things (on demand memory) but this idea they are intelligent is horse shit.
Btw the bar is low too! Most human created decks are garbage. And yet LLM’s don’t even beat those.
Machines have nothing to do with what speaks to the human - at best they are media to transmit what a human wants to express.
Having all the data in the world doesn’t solve that. Although if enough of society gets exposed to slop and there is an erosion of taste and quality… in fact I’m gonna stop there. It’s a dark path.
It’s hard not to be cynical as a dev. Every time I see a non-dev messing around with tooling I feel pain and discomfort.
You can bet your ass I can make AI make a consistent and repeatable powerpoint deck.
Problem is a) the need to produce this “deck” is questionable, at best and b) thinking in “powerpoint” is severely lobotomizing and limits you and your company in ways I find hard to even enumerate.
The exact same bullshit is going on with “word”. People can’t separate content from form apparently and that’s a debilitating disability no AI can fix. Creating AI to help you with “word” documents is an infinitude of stupidity so dark and so deep it makes my eyes water and fear for the future of humanity.
All I can say is imagine you do NOT have “powerpoint”. Let’s say all you have is a whiteboard with a 10% pen so you have to keep it short. What do you intend to communicate? Drill down and stop thinking in “powerpoint” and start thinking in content.
Content and form are orthogonal, repeat after me.
Once you have a stable and consistent information schema you can create “decks” till the cows come home and they’ll all be great. You won’t even need special AI for it in all likelihood. If you do not have a firm handle on the payload itself you’ll be forever tangling with “fonts” and “charts” getting none the wiser.
Oh man ya’ll are going to hate me so much so I’ll just spew further so I can get along with my day.
Imagine REST APIs being built around button designs, serialized CSS in business objects, in short imagine completely mishandling information and tanging it up with vague social indicators like “looks like he did work” and “this looks like an executive would be impressed”. Businesses are peddling proxies instead of raw information and for the love of God I can’t figure out why. AI or no AI this is a self-inflicted mutilation of such epic proportions I find it hard to imagine AI even budging the needle in such a low-density low-value environment.
I used to agree with you but now do not. I now think the floor for this market is probably no worse than the annual revenue of cell phone plans in the US market. So say, $250 billion.
Now, that probably doesn't justify the valuations and hype being thrown around, but I think it gets at a real revenue number.
I also don't know how that number fits into the funding rounds already raised and VC dreams of IPOs for these two.
This isn't coming from deep analysis on a verifiable source, but I started asking people in my social circle (includes white-collar and blue-collar folks) about their LLM use. The biggest surprise in 2026 for me was that almost all of these people told me about regular (and sometimes sophisticated) use.
A more intriguing observation - I work on the side with high school students and have two college kids of my own. Their LLM usage (and their peers) is much, much lower than expected . . . that's a little counterintuitive given "popular" perceptions I read.
> I used to agree with you but now do not. I now think the floor for this market is probably no worse than the annual revenue of cell phone plans in the US market. So say, $250 billion.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about what their IPO is going to do to their share price.
In any case, $250b revenue translates to, best case scenario, $50b profit. On an investment of $1t. It does not look good for those companies making up the $1t investment.
Gotcha. I'm past the point of having any confident thoughts about what happens to their share price at IPO.
What about the idea that there is a high likelihood that the potential share price for OpenAI and Anthropic are both going to be pretty divorced from a rational market price for either?
Interesting idea and reasonable number, but cell phones need a lot of infrastructure and they need interconnection. The risk here is that in the future a combination of near-sota open weights models optimised to use as little resources as possible and a reasonable drop in compute price, will make possible for small and tiny providers to compete with Anthropic/ OpenAI or even for people to run their own private models for most applications. Then large, expensive sota models would only be used for research and to answer the small subset of general user queries that need that kind of intelligence.
The open models are half the equation. The other half is Apple's hardware, which is likely to see major memory bandwidth improvements over the next 2-3 generations and will be capable of running substantial models locally. By that point the open models will be beyond today's SOTA.
They may not get the valuation they want, but as it appears to be on a plateau may be better to offload now?
As per SpaceX, so many big names are involved the media will be controlled to hype it up and the investment banks will forecast 100x revenue in 2 years...
I agree with everything you said about their situation, but it's not like that is what will be evaluated in an IPO. There will be continued hype by the companies, lobbying to win support of a corrupt administration, and a narrative spin by clueless media about this AI revolution that will give investors fomo.
First impression: Third-party benchmarks or gtfo. Personally, I've never heard of either of these companies before. We're just supposed to take their word that they've matched the best models on the market?
Sakana describes their model as a "Orchestration Model." Does that mean that it's actually a bunch of different models glued together?
And even if they didn't, they have a track record. Even if we did have benchmarks in this case I would still wait until people got there hands on it and formed a more holistic opinion.
No, stop right there. Anything published by Anthropic implicitly is not third party. For it to be third party, the third party has to be the one publishing it.
Is it actually that hard to make good models or is it just about the amount of resources you have to do training? (This is an actual question, I really don't know.) I'm sure it's not trivial but does it really take world class secret knowledge to build off of the known existing techniques? I feel like there's tons of low hanging fruit still to explore, and time and resources are the limiting factor.
I suspect that Grok has been ironically lobotomized by pressures to correct its political views.
Similarly, I could imagine the Gemini folks working in a significantly more complex corporate climate, with different parts of Google pushing for different capability focuses. They are only lagging behind less than a year, so it isn't too large of a gap yet.
That said, the fact that Anthropic is currently the top dog suggests that talent and execution is incredibly important. A year ago none of my normie friends new them, and when i suggested using Claude looked at me like when I recommend Linux.
That shouldn’t affect Grok’ coding ability. How often are people discussing politics with Claude code? Writing decent code is just hard and it’s not just Grok.
If training a good model requires talent then that’s the answer to the question this thread is trying to answer: is training a good model actually that hard?
Talent to do.. what? This could mean a lot of things.
Navigating astronomically huge fundamentally not so hard but still really tangly and hairy projects requiring both excellent short- and long-term vision in an overheated domain with angry people and lots of money is a skill all of its own.
You’d be quite surprised, I think. Fine tuning a model on one axis can have drastic impacts on another that as a human we would expect to be completely unrelated.
Like Zuckerberg, top talent may not work with a polarising character if they disagree with his behaviour. Space focused talent don't have many choices aside from SpaceX but ai companies are a plenty and a top AI person can pick and choose.
If they have a top team and the money then appears to be a matter of a year or two? And one startup mentioned is Japanese not Chinese so they won't be banned from buying US tech.
My impression is that the answer is yes, that it purports to dispense the glue on-the-fly in some kind of dynamic way rather than being some kind of new model-amalgam.
I think it is time that we had a UN-sponsored standards body dedicated to bench-marking the newest models from around the world, for everyone's benefit.
It was bound to happen soon.
As was highlighted in previous discussions, the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers. The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west. Now we face a development that has the potential to be faster than those that came before, in the context of political systems more fragile and worse equipped to manage the change.
So yeah, disrupting the status quo can absolutely be dangerous. It has been dangerous (and deadly) in the past and in the present.
Come on. This is dishonesty and isn't the reality. We may agree that the Industrial Revolution may have taken decades (certainly not 80 years) for its benefits to be *clearly and widely* felt by workers, but anything further is an abusive claim. So what, because the progress doesn't benefit to workers instantly, we shouldn't do it ?
In the end, whatever your position, industrialization eventually raised living standards. So what's wrong with that ?
> The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west
This is oversimplifying and correlation at the best, not causation
From half way through this (meandering) blog post:
https://www.owenmcgrann.com/p/the-dead-economy-theory
As for the populism link, that is well established empirically:
https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/34/3/418/504...
https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/12485/we-were-the-robots...
Etc...
Edit: Just found this when looking up sources, I haven't had time to look at it but just dumping it here:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
There are plenty of internally consistent moral frameworks which would not favor this action even if the premise were true (and that premise seems at best unjustified and at least overstated.)
It's not one single danger, its a can full of dangers in various domains. And in contrast to other dangerous technologies, we are talking about one that has the potential to self improve. This smells like exponential growth doesn't it? Exponential growth is something we are not very likely to adapt to successfully, even if you say we are supposed to.
But before you complain, here are just a few concrete dangers, that come into my mind right now:
- mass layoffs in a system that is far from being prepared for sth like that. (no UBI)
- a Mr. Robot tier blackhat at the fingertips of every teenager in their mom's basement in a software landscape that is far from being prepared for sth like that. Side note: Big parts of the world including critical infrastructure runs on software.
- because it automates more and more intellectual work, it can cause mass brain atrophy, which isn't a hopeful sign for the human branch of the evolution
- increasing dependence on a technology, that is in the hands of those with capital.
And to the OP: this technology has potential implications that are far beyond 'being behind' other nation states economically.
we're increasingly irrelevant
American firms are toxic - there’s an implicit gamble they are all making.
YC companies literally steal competing company 1:1 and you turn blindeye.
Then a thief steals from a thief to give it out at better prices than you write low quality comment.
Shame that America will greet 250th anniversary with this kind living in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Seems like a bit of karmic justice.
Saying they in particularare distilled from Anthropic is really [citation needed].
I'm sympathetic to this arguement, but it's silly to ignore the other half; that the administration has openly feuding with them for months over limits to military capabilities.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/04/hegseth-anthropic-d...
If their company hadn't been posturing like this for 5 years they'd have played ball with the administration like all of the other AI companies and they wouldn't have caught all that heat and taken down the AI industry with them. Just remember that Dario was pushing the narrative that GPT 2 was too dangerous to release to the public, while he was working at OpenAI. GPT 2!
Now it's an inevitability that China takes the lead - which was probably the case anyway, but a certainty if this continues.
Again, this is ignoring half of it. See what they did to Intel prior:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/07/business/intel-ceo-resign-tru...
"President Donald Trump on Thursday demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan following reports and allegations that he has ties to China."
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/11/intel-ceo-trump-lip-bu-tan.h...
"President Donald Trump said Monday that he and members of his cabinet met with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, days after he called on the head of the chipmaker to resign. Intel shares rose 2% in extended trading."
https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/intel-and-trump-adminis...
"U.S. Government to make $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock as company builds upon its more than $100 billion expansion of resilient semiconductor supply chain."
This make them Intel's largest shareholder.
Reminder: the American right went all the way to SCOTUS (successfully! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...) on the legal theory that businesses must have the right to decline customers they don't like.
> Just remember that Dario was pushing the narrative that GPT 2 was too dangerous to release to the public, while he was working at OpenAI. GPT 2!
Is that truly outrageous?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 wasn't dangerous on its own. But it led to the Tsar Bomba.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: also, while I don't doubt that you are sincere, this is excessive: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
The idea here is: if you have a substantive point, make it thoughtfully; if not, please don't comment until you do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
1. https://sakana.ai/company-info/?lang=en
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48624782
1 x Co-author of the landmark "Attention Is All You Need" paper
1 x google researcher
20+ big name investors funding
Founded July 2023 so been working on it a few years, it may fall short but they have the money and talent to be potentially decent.
The models don't need to be as good, just good enough for the task. I am using a Claude Q3 2024 model mostly (Haiku 4.5) at present, and it delivers what I need.
We’re going to have many LLM/toolset combos that do what mythos does.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/21/sakana-walks-back-claims-t...
As I clicked expecting India from the title (as China are already there and India has so many devs surprising they haven't yet).
In the UK it is common for the British to refer to both Pakistanis and Indians as Asian and not uncommon for the Chinese to be lumped in the Asian category as an umbrella term (and also to highlight someone or some company as being specifically Chinese).
I guess it really comes down to habits in particular parts of Europe and which parts of Europe you travel in.
Now, now. No need to be rude!
In Uk asian = south asian. As many decades ago we had large migration from those countries and less of others.
People have many biases. Patriotism is one form of bias. By having no identity you cannot have that form of bias.
(I'm based in US - I use the best tech for the task).
On the other hand Xi is President for Life and absolute autocrat of China.
This answers your question in a pretty compelling way.
> These companies providing tokens, whether SOTA or not, that want to IPO are so fucked as time goes on.
>Can't sell their SOTA models, only slightly better than the open source models for the models they can sell, cost 20x to 50x for good models, a TAM that consists almost solely of developers, with no customer of theirs actually boasting increased profits as a result of AI...
> I fear their time to IPO may have passed.
What on earth could Anthropic and OpenAI Pivot to now?
That’s the wrong assumption. These models are good at office docs too.
Find me someone who is putting raw text in and getting out a usable weekly staff meeting deck that doesn’t require massive revisions
Let’s face it - without the humans these machines ain’t shit - aka we have mechanically figured out ways to make machines better than us at certain things (on demand memory) but this idea they are intelligent is horse shit.
Btw the bar is low too! Most human created decks are garbage. And yet LLM’s don’t even beat those.
Machines have nothing to do with what speaks to the human - at best they are media to transmit what a human wants to express.
Having all the data in the world doesn’t solve that. Although if enough of society gets exposed to slop and there is an erosion of taste and quality… in fact I’m gonna stop there. It’s a dark path.
You can bet your ass I can make AI make a consistent and repeatable powerpoint deck.
Problem is a) the need to produce this “deck” is questionable, at best and b) thinking in “powerpoint” is severely lobotomizing and limits you and your company in ways I find hard to even enumerate.
The exact same bullshit is going on with “word”. People can’t separate content from form apparently and that’s a debilitating disability no AI can fix. Creating AI to help you with “word” documents is an infinitude of stupidity so dark and so deep it makes my eyes water and fear for the future of humanity.
All I can say is imagine you do NOT have “powerpoint”. Let’s say all you have is a whiteboard with a 10% pen so you have to keep it short. What do you intend to communicate? Drill down and stop thinking in “powerpoint” and start thinking in content.
Content and form are orthogonal, repeat after me.
Once you have a stable and consistent information schema you can create “decks” till the cows come home and they’ll all be great. You won’t even need special AI for it in all likelihood. If you do not have a firm handle on the payload itself you’ll be forever tangling with “fonts” and “charts” getting none the wiser.
Oh man ya’ll are going to hate me so much so I’ll just spew further so I can get along with my day.
Imagine REST APIs being built around button designs, serialized CSS in business objects, in short imagine completely mishandling information and tanging it up with vague social indicators like “looks like he did work” and “this looks like an executive would be impressed”. Businesses are peddling proxies instead of raw information and for the love of God I can’t figure out why. AI or no AI this is a self-inflicted mutilation of such epic proportions I find it hard to imagine AI even budging the needle in such a low-density low-value environment.
The cheap models handle that very well. The SOTA models still only have target TAM of developers only.
You only need SOTA for development. The $1t investment is in SOTA companies.
Now, that probably doesn't justify the valuations and hype being thrown around, but I think it gets at a real revenue number.
I also don't know how that number fits into the funding rounds already raised and VC dreams of IPOs for these two.
This isn't coming from deep analysis on a verifiable source, but I started asking people in my social circle (includes white-collar and blue-collar folks) about their LLM use. The biggest surprise in 2026 for me was that almost all of these people told me about regular (and sometimes sophisticated) use.
A more intriguing observation - I work on the side with high school students and have two college kids of my own. Their LLM usage (and their peers) is much, much lower than expected . . . that's a little counterintuitive given "popular" perceptions I read.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about what their IPO is going to do to their share price.
In any case, $250b revenue translates to, best case scenario, $50b profit. On an investment of $1t. It does not look good for those companies making up the $1t investment.
What about the idea that there is a high likelihood that the potential share price for OpenAI and Anthropic are both going to be pretty divorced from a rational market price for either?
They may not get the valuation they want, but as it appears to be on a plateau may be better to offload now?
As per SpaceX, so many big names are involved the media will be controlled to hype it up and the investment banks will forecast 100x revenue in 2 years...
Sakana describes their model as a "Orchestration Model." Does that mean that it's actually a bunch of different models glued together?
Similarly, I could imagine the Gemini folks working in a significantly more complex corporate climate, with different parts of Google pushing for different capability focuses. They are only lagging behind less than a year, so it isn't too large of a gap yet.
That said, the fact that Anthropic is currently the top dog suggests that talent and execution is incredibly important. A year ago none of my normie friends new them, and when i suggested using Claude looked at me like when I recommend Linux.
Navigating astronomically huge fundamentally not so hard but still really tangly and hairy projects requiring both excellent short- and long-term vision in an overheated domain with angry people and lots of money is a skill all of its own.
If you are spending all your time having to re-train because the boss doesn;t like the output, it will hamper coding
Isn’t that still the case? Normies haven’t even heard about Claude, in my experience.
Like Zuckerberg, top talent may not work with a polarising character if they disagree with his behaviour. Space focused talent don't have many choices aside from SpaceX but ai companies are a plenty and a top AI person can pick and choose.
Didn't take DeepSeek long. Or XAI to launch grok.
If they have a top team and the money then appears to be a matter of a year or two? And one startup mentioned is Japanese not Chinese so they won't be banned from buying US tech.
See also contemporaneous reaction at:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48624782 (6 days ago, 244 points, 133 comments)
1.https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1iwbwgu/sakana...