I think Sam Altman is an asshole and I prefer to spend my money elsewhere.
Frontier models being commoditize is inevitable. OpenAI thinks they're still competing on technology, and not user experience and market reputation otherwise they'd understand the continuous negative PR generated by Altman's chaos is going to cost them everything.
The world saw Anthropic take a possibly company-killing risk wrt weaponizing their AI, and are rewarding them for holding to their values, for now at least.
It’s not like anyone owes Sam Altman their business just bc their product has become slightly, perhaps temporarily, better
Anthropic literally already works with companies like Palantir and others weaponizing their AI. Those just aren't quite as well known by the general public.
They have no values that align with humans prospering.
Source on this? Does anthropic work with them or do they simply use the normal product offering anthropic provides? Because the thing with the DoD was specific RnD for DoD purposes.
If someone just uses normal claude to make killer robots, i dont think thats on anthropic, that on the legal and regulatory system to step in and stop that
Any company of Palantir size is not just gonna have people using personal subscriptions to use Claude on mission critical software or it's development.
> We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values.
I hate that this discussion is about OpenAI vs. Anthropic and not OpenAI+Anthropic vs. Google.
Google put up so little of a fight against the DoW for their use of Gemini that we didn't even hear about it. They are clearly the worst of the evils here, but OpenAI is the one getting all of the negative press.
> At the top level of anything there is almost no such thing as a non-asshole.
There's only one Gabe.
> None of them care genuinely about you they just want your money.
It's worse than this. Billionaire entrepreneurs aren't funds manager, they don't just want money, they have a twisted sense of “being the good guy” driving humanity forward against its will.
I want this technology! You don't speak for all of us.
I'm sick of techo-Luddism. I'm sick of complaints about water use in a world that has avocados, beef, and fabric dyes. I'm sick of complaints about power use when you have your air conditioners, winter heat, air travel, and gaming PCs.
I'm sick of artists saying AI image and video sucks. I'm sick of pretend artists, armchair warriors, obsessed fans, and pickmes towing the same line.
I'm sick of engineers saying these models aren't a huge performance gain.
You haters and skeptics out there can keep doing you, but I'm going to keep using the technology. We'll see where the chips fall.
I was raised on optimism and dreams of the future. I want that. I don't want to die with the same incrementalism we've always had. I want orders of magnitude more.
This is our one moment of awareness in a cosmically infinite void. I want spectacular. I'm tired of the chicken attitudes when people should aspire to be eagles.
What we have is so boring. There's so much more if we reach for it. Holodecks, models that cure every molecular cause of cancer, doubled and tripled health spans, instant ability to understand every language, fast and cheap travel autonomous p2p travel, everyone on earth lifted out of poverty, a Michelin chef in your kitchen, ...
There’s a difference between being a hater and acknowledging the reality of the technology and those building it. I want all of those things too. However I do not understand why LLMs will get them for us. Instead I see a few really powerful people looking to get more powerful. I see a powerful tool being presented as god in a box when. I see the most resources ever spent on a singular thing being spent in a way that’ll _best case_ be mostly obsolete in a few years.
I want real AI. I want cures for cancer. I want too want to live in a post scarcity world. We had most of the technologies to do that before this. However the companies and investors involved in the AI build out chose to sit on massive reserves instead of trying to directly solve those problems. There exist proposals which solve hunger, the energy transition, etc and together they wouldn’t amount for even half of what’s been spent.
That tells me those involved want nothing other than money and power.
That’s a take. Would be cool if you could be happy with what is, rather than what you wish could be, while still being optimistic about new tech. But even if you can’t, would be nice if you could have your optimism without letting other people’s differing opinions get under your skin.
I’d also suggest, if you care about things like curing “every molecular cause of cancer” to spend some time and energy working in that field to understand the real problems there and work towards real solutions (with models or whatever floats your boat), rather than hoping that some poorly defined techno-optimism hand-waving will just happen to result in the best of all possible worlds, with no downsides or alternative outcomes.
Also, crazy to say that the miracle of existence is boring because we don’t have the tech you imagine!! If that’s your take now, no new technology is going to fix it. You’ll just still be bored with the holodeck and your one precious life to live.
Hassabis seems decent. People have strange attitudes to tech leaders like they are all superhuman or evil or all aresholes. They are just normal people who got the top job, some good some bad, some mediocre.
Well anthropic refused to do shady shit with the DoD and openAI did. So theres that. Also altman wants a private global ID system that screams technofascism.
This comment just sounds like baseless both side-ism. Anthropic arent saints but i dont see why they have to be. They are business' and one is less trustworthy than the other. Simple as
> At least Sam thinks it should work for everyone and has done literal experiments on UBI
Where are you getting this? He goes out of his way to say how dangerous AI, and has implied before congress that only companies with special licenses should be able to develop it.
That tracks. Man i dont want to accuse anyone of anything, but this whole thread seems astroturfed. Is this a new marketing strategy openAI is trying out?
Well not sure I can take any of them seriously if they think they are building AGI with LLM's. There is literally no thinking involved in an Large language model.
Like a scam cryptocurrency which was banned in multiple countries. Seems to me Sam is only interested in helping others as longs as it puts him squarely on top.
I've come to dislike most tech CEOs at this point, and the current AI batch isn't making it any better. They rarely hold consistent beliefs, but nowadays are positioned as thought leaders.
I wish there was some type of system in-place to hold people to their word, but I can't imagine how it would work.
Altman does appear to be an asshole, but I have bad news for you if you think Anthropic are the good guys. If anything, they might be worse than OpenAI.
Can you elaborate or give some examples as to why? I dont know much about this subject, last i heard, Anthropic declined deals with Military and government agencies - while OpenAI opened their arms. But i am not
This seems to be a rumor being coordinated by OpenAI.
There's OpenAI employees spreading this rumor on Twitter with 0 evidence. Their entire evidence is "I keep hearing Anthropic wants to control AI". Their evidence is literal rumors.
I wouldn't say Anthropic is worse than OpenAI, but there's a lot wrong with them. https://anthropic.ml/ has a collection of incidents and relevant evidence.
Isn’t that site just loudly proclaiming that “pushing the frontier” of AI is inherently anti-social and that employees should be asking the public to “shut us all down” ?
That’s their core argument against Anthropic, that they are making progress at improving their models ?
The idea that intelligence will be commoditized is completely counterintuitive.
It comes from the belief that it can’t exceed our own. This is almost certainly not true at the limit. There will likely by many super intelligences like we see life in the wild
No, it comes from the idea that the intelligence each company offers at any time will be undistinguishable. Sure some models will temporarily pull ahead, but others will quickly catch up and the intelligence difference won’t matter enough too convince anyone to switch on its own.
Maybe. Its been pretty true so far though. A singularity is possible of course, but it's also possible that intelligence explosions dont happen, progress is relatively linear, and no one is able to pull ahead long term. If the true bottleneck is hardware it's difficult for me to see how intelligence doesnt become a commodity.
I think all US companies are turning extremely anti consumer hostile thanks to unchecked unregulated capitalist greed and I would prefer my money to the Chinese underdogs. Cannot speak highly enough of Deepseek.
Sam Altman is the main perception problem for OpenAI. His background, history, trustworthiness, vibes/interviews etc are all negative PR when seen by the common man.
Dario is more knowledgeable, well informed, empathetic w.r.t. problems etc. In short, somebody who seems mature and trustworthy.
Imagine you try two products you’ve never heard of. You prefer one over the other. Was it marketing? That’s what’s happening here. Marketing can get you to try something you wouldn’t have otherwise, and it may suggest benefits you’d get if you tried it, but your preference of using one thing or the other is a subjective experience of your own.
> Imagine you try two products you’ve never heard of. You prefer one over the other. Was it marketing?
No, obviously not.
> That’s what’s happening here.
No, that's not what's happening here.
> Marketing can get you to try something you wouldn’t have otherwise, and it may suggest benefits you’d get if you tried it, but your preference of using one thing or the other is a subjective experience of your own.
Marketing can very much shape your preferences and create wishes you didn't have before. That's why companies invest so much money in marketing.
Very much agreed. I haven't read all of Dan's work to comment how it ranks among his output, but Carrion Comfort is a book that I still think back on years after I read it.
You listed common items you think may be counterfeits, and all your effort in checking, but fail to mention av single time you _actually_ ran into a counterfeit. I'm sure if it occurred you'd happily mention it since it would do wonders in reinforcing the paranoia.
What do you mean? They specifically say they received a counterfeit water bottle in their post.
Signed, someone who has received a counterfeit Canon DSLR camera battery, fridge water filter, and "official" Nintendo Switch case from Amazon. (Albeit some years back for all of them, as I rarely buy there any longer.)
No. Why the hell would I use Angular 1.x style directives in 2026? For the simple contact form and todo apps, why would I even use client side scripting? Go away.
A private business can 100% refuse service to you. Examples with regards to "delegation":
- If you come in using a form of non-cash payment that doesn't belong to you.
- If you're purchasing a car, and are filling out paperwork under someone else's name. FYI, you can buy cars on Amazon.com.
- If you attempt to pick-up a pre-order or an item earmarked for someone else.
...
Of course some businesses are more or less restrictive base on fraud chance, yada yada, but you get the idea. You're not being oppressed. Go shop elsewhere.
Apologies, I didn't mean to spam, haven't seen the other thread that picked up more votes and was really curious about where the line is.
I completely understand private businesses having a right to refuse a service without a cause. But as others pointed, the question is to what degree "delegation" is acceptable if I'm acting in a good faith?
I'm guessing the answer is "to a degree it doesn't impact our business".
I don't think any of your examples are analogous to the questions/point the GP was trying to make. Your questions seem to be centered around someone trying to trick or defraud a retailer; GP's is about simple, straightforward delegation.
But yes, agreed, businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone (outside of illegal discrimination).
We should fight it, though, when those refusals are backed by anti-consumer practices. It's pretty clear that Amazon doesn't like agent-mediated purchases because it allows the customer to bypass Amazon's ability to put sponsored products in front of you, and try to get you to buy related and add-on products along with what you actually want.
Sure, it is their right to do that, but as consumers I think we shouldn't be complacent and just take what the big shopping overlords feed us. Consolidation (and races to the bottom such as this) is making it harder and harder to find competing retailers and products when we want to vote with our wallets as to what kinds of shopping experiences are acceptable.
And the bottom line is that if Amazon realizes that they're losing sales because people want to use AI agents to buy things, and they're banning those agents, they'll change their tune. But that only works so long as there are alternatives with better practices, and, well... there aren't many.
What is the regular API? How do you express all the integrations needed in this API? Who provides the integrations? Answering these questions lead you back to something like an MCP, which is an API contract that can be as generic or as specific as needed. Wasting context window to understand and re-implement each integration is why MCPs exist.
All the security issues are orthogonal, and occur regardless if invoking this API occurs via code or natural language.
The security issues are probably orthogonal in the way most people install and use these MCPs, but the article mentions Cloudflare's "code-mode" running in v8 isolate sandboxes and calling rpc bindings that are pre-authed, no API keys or open slather internet access required, see: https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/#running-code-in-a-san...
This is at least interesting, possibly even novel.
"Wasting context window to understand and re-implement each integration is why MCPs exist" does seem to be exactly the point. Pointing the LLM at a swagger/openAPI spec and expecting it to write a good integration might work, but gets old after the first time. Swagger docs focus on what mostly, LLMs work better knowing why as well.
And,why not just use a locally installed cli rather than an MCP? You need to have one for a start, and use-cases (chained calls) are more valuable that atomic tool calls.
There is more behind the motivation for MCP and "tool calling" ability generally with LLMs. This motivation seems less and less relevant, but back when reasoning and chain-of-thought were newly being implemented, and people were more wary of yolo modes, the ability for an LLM harness to decide to call a tool and gather JIT context was a game changer. A dynamic RAG alternative. MCP might not be the optimal solution long term. For example, the way that claude has been trained to use the gh cli, and to work with git generally is much more helpful than either having to set up a git MCP or getting it to feel its way around git --help or man pages to, as you said "re-implement each integration" from scratch every time.
_Telling the browser how you want the DOM manipulated_ isn't the expensive part. You can do this just fine with Javascript. The browser _actually redrawing after applying the DOM changes_ is the expensive part and won't be any cheaper if the signal originated from WASM.
It's winning by default because _there is nothing materially better_. React was _materially_ better than Ember, Angular, plain JQuery, etc. at the time.
Front-end engineers have no issues adopting new frameworks. See the common complaints about the speed front-end stacks change vs. say Spring MVC or Rails.
A more interesting examination is what is the impact of agentic AI tools being able to write better, more idiomatic code in React vs. Svelte because there's more of it. The human side is less of a barrier here.
Frontier models being commoditize is inevitable. OpenAI thinks they're still competing on technology, and not user experience and market reputation otherwise they'd understand the continuous negative PR generated by Altman's chaos is going to cost them everything.
reply