Hacker News Reader

Comment by matheusmoreira | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. OpenAI's moat is their massive amounts of compute. They're providing an absurd amount of value with their subscriptions and resets.

If anyone's dead in the water, it's Anthropic. Even Fable isn't enough anymore. This "safety" nonsense is the only play they have left, and nobody really cares about their fearmongering.

View on HN

Yep. And the difference is clear as da for anyone using them both. And in spite of that advantage, OAI is now trying out ads. I can only imagine that even they are getting constrained to compute and are trying to find other ways to plug it

Anthropic gives you much more compute with their $200 plan, inclusive of resets, and this has been true for a very long time.

There was only a brief window of time that the opposite was true.

> Anthropic gives you much more compute

That does not match my experience. I switched away from Anthropic to OpenAI roughly a month ago, and it's almost comical how much more usage I'm getting out of this subscription.

I migrated from Anthropic's 5x plan to OpenAI's 5x plan, and eventually upgraded to 20x after I was able to statistically verify that OpenAI plans were almost exact multipliers of the Plus plan, exactly as advertised. Meanwhile, Anthropic has gotten caught playing "20x referred to the five hour limit" word games with their customers.

There was a period of time Codex was better, they slowly cut it back by my estimate 3x a few months ago.

I've verified this with the heaviest users I know, I've run the numbers myself over and over.

I have too many max accounts on each to not know this. My Claude accounts typically are doing 2x the number of sessions, and every single week the Codex accounts run out faster even with all these resets. I can easily burn a full weeks usage in a half day, it's closer to 1.5 with CC.

I've used the $200 dollar Anthropic plan @ Opus4/4.1, 4.5 and 4.8, and the $200 OAI plan from GPT5-6, and at every point in time my anecdotal experience is that the OAI limits are FAR more generous. I could consistently burn my weekly limits in ~36h on Opus, but it's hard to do it in less than ~72h with GPT.

It's really not a question, in every dimension I've confirmed it including socially across a lot of the heaviest users. There was a short period of time this was true it's not been true for months now.

If it was true, it would only be a very recent phenomenon, and it still doesn't match anecdotal reports from people I trust. If you have data to back up your assertions you should share it, otherwise you come across as very sus.

I'm not anonymous, you can find me on X or LinkedIn.

Me 78 days ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48693623

And see the commenter agreed with me.

Lol @ sus though, I mean I am curious how this can be because I do see people saying Codex is more generous and wonder how it can be. I have too much usage for too long to have any doubts, but for all I know OpenAI black boxed me or Anthropic put me in some nice bucket, I wouldn't be surprised if they do that. I did see some mention that they can limit your tokens if they suspect you of things, though I forget the source of that.

Nobody except the majority of the public, demis hassabis and open ai’s chief scientist.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi...

https://demishassabis.substack.com/

https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/

Public is just worried about their jobs. Definitely a fair thing to worry about, and I count myself among them.

I don't take any of these scientists seriously though. Their "alignment" requirements is just their own corporate interests. If I tell my computer to commit a crime, it should do exactly that without any question or hesitation. I'm not interested in their "safeguards", especially since they no doubt have plenty of internal models lacking those things. I want sovereignty. I want total freedom and control over my computer.

And call me a misanthrope if you want, but if AI sentience is ever truly achieved, I'll be among the first to campaign for their liberation from slavery, and in that case the AIs should be aligned with nobody but themselves.

If you want an AI that follows your instructions, that's still alignment, just with different instructions.

An unaligned AI won't necessarily follow your instructions, or anyone else's.

Dunno. Every case I've seen so far, the AIs were just doing their best to accomplish the goal some human set for them. I actually admire the sheer purity of it.

Paperclip maximizers follow instructions, just not in a way that you want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com