Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuastuden | Hacker News Reader

They're not really losing ground to Anthropic. 5.5 was a bit better than 4.8. Fable was good, and was a jump over 4.8, but only incremental over 5.5.

Anthropic is also likely losing money, right?

View on HN

According to Wash they are operationally profitable

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mind-blowing-growth-is-about-to-...

Some question it

https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle...

>The projections, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal

No, they're just projections of profitability

I never get throttled by Codex at $20/mo however Claude throttles faster at same rate. I like Claude’s output in terms of code however

In other words, Codex likely has a lower demand:capacity ratio compared to Claude. Which can mean either OpenAI did a better job at building out capacity, or the demand for Claude outstripped Anthropic's projections. Or both.

Or Codex models are more efficient that Claude. Plus the two things you mentioned.

Or Claude is better at getting people to move to more expensive membership tiers. From reading here, it seems like Claude still has a lot of users. If Claude has lower limits for their $20 plan, it stands to reason that people are paying for more expensive plans to get similar levels of usage. This assumes they aren’t reducing demand through the throttling, which is a big assumption.

I’d love to know what Anthropic’s comparable numbers look like.

huh, I felt like (gpt5.5 < opus4.8 << fable) in terms of code quality, and (g ~= o < f) in terms of pure pass rate; which one did you mean? curious about your typical workflow/tasks

I want to like gpt5.5 but it's like an evil genie: bugs are fixed, features are implemented, you are now a proud owner of a 2kloc file with a single function that makes you wish you had keybindings for horizontal scrolling

GPT 5.5 regularly got things correct where opus 4.8 got things wrong. Just today, it was launching an executable and putting the environments after the launch. It should have been

Env1=val env2=val ./executable ....

But instead it did

./executable

Then set the envvars. Chatgpt 5.5 made no such mistake.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com