Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

Thank you. Yes, I saw that. The company's always been surrounded by endless talk about insane hype, speculative bubbles, and financial engineering. I wasn't asking so much about that.

I was asking more about your informed view on how OpenAI's technology, products, and roadmap are perceived, particularly by customers and partners, in comparison to those of competitors.

If you have an opinion about that, everyone here would love to hear about it.

View on HN

UPDATE: Well-regarded people on HN are saying OpenAI's most recent GPT-5x codex model is better than Claude 5x for certain coding tasks:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47707494

at this point even googles ai search results are better than gpt - obv. this is not for full programs but if you know what youre doing and just want a snippet, thats all you need.

Wild how different experience people can have. Both Google's models and Anthrophic's hallucinate a lot for me, even when I try the expensive plans and with web searches, for some reason, and none of them come close to the accuracy and hallucination-free responses of ChatGPT Pro, which to me still is SOTA and has been since it was made available. But people keep having opposite experiences apparently, I just can't make sense of it.

Kagi (assistant.kagi.com) with Kimi K2.5 (their current default) has worked great for me in scenarios where the search result data is more important than the model.

I.e. what I used to use Google for and when I don't want an AI to overly summarize / editorialize result data.

oh thats probably because im a cheap-skate and just use the free garbo models. im sure the pro version is quite good.

My guess is that the answer to your question, fantastic question, is that nobody knows. I remember having the same thoughts when Covid was first “arriving” if you will: we wanted people in the know to throw us a nugget of information, and they just didn’t know.

As it turns out, and what I’m kind of going with for this LLM shit, is that it’ll play out exactly how you think it will. The companies are all too big to fail, with billionaire backers who would rather commit fraud than lose money.

How would fraud help here? Don't they just need scale of lots of customers paying a little bit? How do you fraud your way into that?

they don't need customers, when the customers ere each others companies for example the deals openAI nvidia oracle made

That's not fraud, and it's not sustainable. They aren't going to just keep doing that. It only makes sense if an AI company wants to pay for GPUs with stock, and - more importantly - the GPU company agrees to sell in exchange for stock.

s/fraud/corrupt, illegal $something.

If you're picking on my vocabulary, that's fair. Fraud wasn't the point, I think you're smart enough to realize that.

I appreciate the implication that either you're right or I'm stupid, but maybe you should write the comment you meant to write.

Trading shares for GPUs is not corrupt either.

Ronan Farrow's expertise is investigations into elite amorality, not evaluating technical products. Why are you asking this question?

I didn't asking him to evaluate them. I asked him how customer and partners perceive them.

He's had so many conversations that he likely has a sense of how perceptions of the company and its offerings have changed.

I'm curious.

Much of the article and general palace intrigue is predicated on the idea that OpenAI has a singularly revolutionary product. If it later turns out to be a commodity, or OpenAI is simply outcompeted nonetheless, then the idea that Sam Altman's personal shortcomings are something to stress about would seem quaint. Just another hubristic tech billionaire acting in bad faith doesn't really pry attention the same way as someone "controlling your future".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com