Claude struggles to cope with ChatGPT exodus

https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2026/03/06/claude-struggles-to-cope-with-chatgpt-exodus/

173 153 5 months ago

LaurensBER4• 5 months ago

I really enjoyed using Claude but the ever changing limits, weird policies (limited to Claude Code, you can't run Openclaw, etc) made switching a very easy choice.

OpenAI simply provides more value for the money at the moment.

thereitgoes4562• 5 months ago

What a baffling comment. Aren’t you aware of why this exodus is happening? (It’s not related to “value for the money”!) What are your feelings on that part?

anonyfox4• 5 months ago

not the poster, but I guess thats kinda american thinking that actually believes voting with your wallet will make any difference in this late stage crony capitalism in a post-facts world.

realistically: AI WILL get used in military and for killing autonomously, like it or not, believe it or not. I am also against that in principle but I do accept the fact my opinion just doesn't matter and practice radial acceptance or reality as-is. twitter/X is also alive and kicking, despite musk and anti-musk-hate. xAI/Grok is genuinely really good too compared to OAI/Claude, a bit different but very good. At this point all the "outcries" feel like noise I just skip on principle. But it could turn up the fire under the OAI team to go aggressive feature/pricing wise in order to retain/increase their userbase again, which is ... good, after all.

lilytweed• 5 months ago

It is entirely okay to weigh the Department of War thing against other criteria when choosing a service.

serf• 5 months ago

ever tried living while simultaneously deciding to only patron groups that strictly morally and ethically align to your own personal beliefs?

I would love to, but a practical look at that concept seems practically impossible.

My .02c : Claude was already involved in underhanded shit I don't want a part of[0] and that generated little ethical response from Anthropic , i've had better luck as a 200/mo tier customer with ChatGPT, and I don't really think that Dario claiming that their newest LLM is conscious[1] on a market schedule is all that ethical, either.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven [1]: https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/claude/articles/anthropic-ceo-admi...

partiallypro• 5 months ago

If anyone thinks Anthropic or OpenAI are the "good guys," they've already lost the plot. If you look at additional reporting on the topic, not just the Anthropic PR spin, the disagreements were much more nuanced than it was portrayed by Anthropic. They aren't exactly a reliable narrator on the topic either. In fact it actually just seems like Amodei fumbled the deal and crashed out a bit. He's already walked back his internal memo, and is reportedly still seeking a deal with the Pentagon. I don't trust either CEO, I use their products, but if you're even leaning 51-49 on who is "less evil," I think you're giving too much slack.

next_xibalba• 5 months ago

Have you considered using Gemini?

Google seems to be on a hot streak with their models, and, since they're playing from behind, I'd expect favorable pricing and terms. But, I don't know anyone who is using or talking about Gemini. All the chatter seems to be Anthropic vs. OpenAI.

anonyfox4• 5 months ago

because gemini, despite what stats say, still produces garbage once the problem gets harder. it nails it for lab conditions, but messy reality or creativity or even code quality is a far cry from opus or the latest gpt5.4 by a long shot. and always has been. its pretty good inside the GSuite because of integrations, but standalone its near worthless compared to even grok-code-fast which doesn't think much at all (but damn it is fast). At this point google keeps throwing noodlepots with AI against every wall in reach to see what sticks, which is more kind of desperation that still works to increase wall street highscores, but not exactly a streak or breakthrough. just rapid fire shotgun launches to see if anything sticks. No one serious talks Gemini because its not even worth considering still for real things outside shiny presentations and artificial benchmarks.

igor47• 5 months ago

I've tried. It's just not very good compared to either mentioned alternative.

siliconc0w• 5 months ago

I can't even use 3.1 with Gemini CLI, not sure why.

m-schuetz• 5 months ago

That's weird, I switched away from ChatGPT because I mostly got superior results from Gemini and Claude.

anonyfox4• 5 months ago

give 5.4 a shot - its straneg but surprisingly good for once. speaking as a daily opus user.

causal5• 5 months ago

You're totally allowed to use Claude for OpenClaw and you're totally able to use Claude Code with non-Anthropic models. You must be referring to the fact that you have to use an API key and cannot use the auth intended for Claude-only products, which AFAIK is the same at every AI company (with Google destroying whole Google accounts for offenders most recently).

LaurensBER4• 5 months ago

OpenAI and Github Copilot do explicitly allow this, so do many of the new/Chinese providers such as Synthetic, Z.ai, etc.

Anthropic is the outlier here, obviously they can limit their subscriptions as they want but it's a major disadvantage compared to their competitors.

scuff3d• 5 months ago

I tend to use LLMs more for research then actual coding, so I ended up going with GPT over Claude because it's chat interface just seems to work better for me. It balances out Claude being slightly better at software tasks.

replwoacause• 5 months ago

The limits are what did it for me. They kept boasting about Opus performance and improvements, practically begging me to try it out, and when I did, it totally obliterated my usage. I'm sure its good, but I stick to Sonnet because I've been burned bad. Never had that problem with ChatGPT, but it turns out they're just unprincipled and evil, which is a shame.

prngl2• 5 months ago

It's funny how the false choice of American politics (Red vs Blue) also makes it into its consumerist corporatist life. That Anthropic's threadbare "limits" on government usage are seen as a heroic stand is a testament to just how far the goalposts on "ethical" deployment of AI have moved to the (fascist) right. As ever, politics precedes technology. We have Reagan's internet, we will have Trump's AI. God help us.

gedy• 5 months ago

From prior thread is there even "limits"? I thought the Anthropic statements were pointed out to be mostly toothless PR, e.g. "we don't agree", etc.

overvale• 5 months ago

Not just PR. I mean... they got fired over those limits.

esseph• 5 months ago

We have Reagan's internet

I've been on the internet since 93 or 94 and I've never once heard it called that. If anything, "Al Gore".

parineum• 5 months ago

I'm not sure what the message this comment is trying to convey beyond throwing in the "corporatist" "consumerist" signalling buzzwords followed by calling the right fascists.

I've literally never heard anybody call the Internet "Reagan's internet", the best I can do is the Al Gore quote and who's calling anything Trump's AI?

What ideas are you trying to express here?

prngl2• 5 months ago

These are the points I'm making, which I think are fairly one-to-one with my original comment:

- American politics presents a false choice between Democrats and Republicans

- America is both a consumerist and corporatist society

- Anthropic asked for minimal limits on AI usage

- People view Anthropic's stand as heroic, while viewing OpenAI as villainous

- The false choice between Anthropic and OpenAI mirrors the false choice in American politics.

- People at OpenAI, Anthropic, and elsewhere used to view ethical deployment of AI as paramount, but those goalposts have shifted as financial and political incentives changed.

- Specifically, the ethics of AI have become conveniently synonymous with the current financial and political moment.

- The current political moment is fascist.

- Technology is broadly neutral and it is politics that primarily dictates how technology is actually used and deployed, and therefore its broad impacts.

- The internet was developed in the neoliberal era, which began with the election of Ronald Reagan and extended through the Obama presidency.

- The structure and dynamics of the internet over the last 30 years is more reflective of neoliberal politics than it is of anything inherent in the technology. Extreme privitization and the refusal to use public institutions to provision or regulate public goods.

- AI is being developed in a new political era, begun with the first Trump presidency, and taking more full shape under the second Trump presidency.

- We are likely to find that AI's trajectory is similarly dictated largely by politics rather than anything inherent to the technology.

- With this political era being fascist and explicitly neo-imperial/neo-colonial, I fear for the technology's impact on humanity.

- God help us.

t0mas88• 5 months ago

OpenAI, meanwhile, has been attempting to quell the backlash against its deal with the U.S. government, putting out a blog post claiming that “our tools will not be used to conduct domestic surveillance of U.S. persons,”

As a non-US person, that sounds far more concerning than no statement at all. Because if their tools weren't used for surveillance against Europeans they would have said so as a marketing message...

spwa4• 5 months ago

It's amazing how bad FANG executives are at even knowing what a normal moral thought would be for average people ...

Plus, you know, you'd think they'd ask their cleaner or baker or something. Or hire someone.

clcaev2• 5 months ago

Executives are certainly capable of understanding moral/ethical concerns.

Around 2005, a Yale Psychology PhD candidate asked me to write a web-based survey instrument with various questions, some on complex but straight forward business questions (the controls) and others with moral/ethical aspects. Senior executives participated and they answered similarly to rank & file, often completing the entire survey much faster. What they didn't know -- we were tracking how long they spent on each question. Questions with moral/ethical concerns took senior executives relatively longer than the rank & file.

Late Addendum: Sorry that I don't recall the author/paper. The survey population spanned multiple industries representing many Fortune 500s, including huge tech companies. The survey was the same for everyone. The questions were story problems from business and law school case reports. The participating companies were anonymized on our end. We provided HR departments with survey link; only subject rank (not identity) was collected. Survey was voluntary, with informed consent according to IRB approval.

adrianN• 5 months ago

With n-eyes agreements it’s quite meaningless anyway. Whatever passport you have, somebody spies on you and sells the information to your government.

drob518• 5 months ago

Yep. “You spy on mine, and I’ll spy on yours, and then we’ll share info.”

kakacik• 5 months ago

I wouldn't give them any free pass and just give up, its highly amoral and inhuman behavior. Modern form of racism but based on passport.

You have this one? You are subhuman, treated as such and you have very limited rights on our soil, we can do nasty things to you without any court, defense, or hope for fairness. You have that one? Please welcome back.

Sociopathic behavior. Then don't wonder why most of the world is again starting to hate US with passion. I don't mean countries where you already killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, I mean whole world. There isn't a single country out there currently even OK with US, thats more than 95% of the mankind. Why the fuck do you guys allow this? Its not even current gov, rather long term US tradition going back at least till 9/11.

shimman• 5 months ago

It's also meaningless because we know governments get around these "agreements" by buying data from third party companies that bought the data from OpenAI. The only way to stop this is to legislate it out of existence.

lavezzi• 5 months ago

"We have these two red lines... Not allowing Anthropic's AI to perform mass surveillance of Americans, and prohibiting its AI from powering fully-autonomous weapons..."

Anthropic literally said the same, but seem to be getting positive PR.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-executive-dario-amodei-on-th...

fluidcruft2• 5 months ago

The difference is that Anthropic actually dotted the i's and crossed the t's whereas OpenAI fell for the weaselwords and is now desperately trying to renegotiate.

gruez2• 5 months ago

It's not "literally the same".

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FSGfzDLFdFtRDADF4/openai-s-s...

goldenarm• 5 months ago

Still 8x less downtime than GitHub

https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/

baq2• 5 months ago

There’s a surge of demand for sure, but I’m not at all convinced that it’s at OpenAI’s expense. My bet is the non-swe folks caught wind the things got seriously good at a lot of boring office work, i.e. we’re seeing diffusion of AI into the wider economy.

causal5• 5 months ago

It helps a lot that Claude is just better. Codex isn't BAD, and in some narrow technical ways might even be more capable, but I find Claude to be hands-down the best collaborator of all the AI models and it has never been close.

xscott3• 5 months ago

Can you expand on that. I've been wanting to try Claude for a while, but their payment processing wouldn't take any of my credit cards (they work everywhere else, so it's not the cards). I've heard I can work around this by installing their mobile app or something, but it was extra hurdles, so I didn't try very hard.

And I've been absolutely amazed with Codex. I started using that with version ChatGPT 5.3-Codex, and it was so much better than online ChatGPT 5.2, even sticking to single page apps which both can do. I don't have any way to measure the "smarts" for of the new 5.4, but it seems similar.

Anyways, I'll try to get Claude running if it's better in some significant way. I'm happy enough the the Codex GUI on MacOS, but that's just one of several things that could be different between them.

ValentineC• 5 months ago

I've been wanting to try Claude for a while, but their payment processing wouldn't take any of my credit cards (they work everywhere else, so it's not the cards). I've heard I can work around this by installing their mobile app or something, but it was extra hurdles, so I didn't try very hard.

Not Claude Code specifically, but you can try the Claude Opus and Sonnet 4.6 models for free using Google Antigravity.

causal5• 5 months ago

Codex is not bad, I think it is still useful. But I find that it takes things far too literally, and is generally less collaborative. It is a bit like working with a robot that makes no effort to understand why a user is asking for something.

Claude, IMO, is much better at empathizing with me as a user: It asks better questions, tries harder to understand WHY I'm trying to do something, and is more likely to tell me if there's a better way.

Both have plenty of flaws. Codex might be better if you want to set it loose on a well-defined problem and let it churn overnight. But if you want a back-and-forth collaboration, I find Claude far better.

hk13372• 5 months ago

yeah, OpenAI has its strengths but code generation is not one of them.

1122333• 5 months ago

Interesting to hear! I've had completely opposite experience, with Claude having 5 minutes of peerless lucidity, followed by panicking, existential crisis, attempts to sabotage it's own tests and code, psyops targeted at making user doubt their computer, OS, memory... Plus it prompts every 15 seconds, with alternative being YOLO.

Meanwhile codex is ... boring. It keeps chugging on, asking for "please proceed" once in a while. No drama. Which is in complete contrast with ChatGPT the chatbot, that is a completely unusable, arrogant, unhelpful, and confrontational. How they made both from the same loaf I dunno.

causal5• 5 months ago

psyops targeted at making user doubt their computer

IDEK what that means, specific examples?

AlotOfReading• 5 months ago

I wish I could get Claude to stop every 15 seconds. There's a persistent bug in the state machine that causes it to miss esc/stop/ctrl-f and continue spending tokens when there's a long running background task or subagent. There's a lot of wasted tokens when it runs for 10, 15, 20 minutes and I can't stop it from running down the wrong rabbit hole.

kromokromo• 5 months ago

I’ve been juggling between ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini for the last couple of years, but ChatGPT has always been my main driver.

Recently did the full transition to Claude, the model is great, but what I really love is how they seem to have landed on a clear path for their GUI/ecosystem. The cowork feature fits my workflows really well and connecting enterprise apps, skills and plugins works really well.

Haven’t been this excited about AI since GPT 4o launched.

fluidcruft2• 5 months ago

I've generally thought that but lately I've been finding that the main difference is Claude wants a lot more attention than codex (I only use the cli for either). codex isn't great at guessing what you want, but once you get used to its conversation style it's pretty good at just finishing things quietly and the main thing is context management seems to handle itself very well and I rarely even think about it in codex. To me they're just... different. Claude is a little easier to communicate with.

codex often speaks in very dense technical terms that I'm not familiar with and tends to use acronyms I've not encountered so there's a learning curve. It also often thinks I'm providing feedback when I'm just trying to understand what it just said. But it does give nice explanations once it understands that I'm just confused.

kivle• 5 months ago

I switched from ChatGPT Plus to Gemini Pro instead of Claude, since I'm a hobbyist and appreciate having more than just text chat and coding assist with my subscription (image gen, video gen, etc are all nice to have).

At first I found the Gemini Code Assist to be absolutely terrible, bordering on unusable. It would mess up parameter order for function calls in simple 200 line Python. But then I found out about the "model router" which is a layer on top which dynamically routes requests between the flash and pro model. Disabling it and always using the pro model did wonders for my results.

There are however some pretty aggressive rate limits that reset every 24 hours. For me it's okay though. As a hobbyist I only use it about 2-3 hours per day at most anyway.

grallm• 5 months ago

Did you leave OpenAI because of the current backlash? If so, is Google even better?

10xDev• 5 months ago

With Gemini Pro on Antigravity you get a quota reset every 5 hours and access to Claude Opus 4.6. That's what I use at home and don't need anything else.

kolinko• 5 months ago

With Claude you just tell it to set up whatever it needs and you have a smooth access to everything. Mine uses Nanobanana for image generation, Sora for video, Gemini for supplementary image processing and so on. Setting up each one was 5-10 min of Claude’s work

hk13372• 5 months ago

It's like reddit when Digg v4 happened

cmiles84• 5 months ago

All this demonstrates how non-sticky all this tech really is. When your product is basically just an API call it’s trivial to just swap you out for someone else. As such it’s unclear what the prize at the end of the present race to the bottom is.

We swapped OpenAI out for Claude and it required updating about 15 lines of code. All these guys are just commodity to us. If next week there’s a better supplier of commodity AI we’ll spend an hour and swap to something else again. There’s zero loyalty here.

pinkmuffinere2• 5 months ago

Ya, agreed. This makes me think that (long term) the ai race won’t be won on the merits of individual models, but on pricing — I think Google has a some strong advantages here because they know how to provide cheap compute, and they already have a ton of engineers doing similar things, so it’s a marginal cost for them instead of having to hire and maintain whole devoted teams.

rblatz• 5 months ago

AI consumes entire data centers of compute. You aren’t tucking a few racks into a corner of a data center, you are building entirely new ones. There will be whole devoted teams.

HotHotLava• 5 months ago

It's an ironic situation; logically what should be the moat are the models, costing hundreds of millions of investment cost to train and operate so it would make sense if we see different provider focusing in different directions.

But right now we have 3-5 top contenders that are so evenly matched that the de-facto sticking point is mostly the harness, ie. the collection of proven plugins/commands/tools/agent features that are tuned to the users personal workflow.

wonnage• 5 months ago

Cost is never a good moat.

groestl2• 5 months ago

are so evenly matched

It's because the real value of the models is in what we (humanity) fed them, and all of them have eaten the same thing for free.

ryandvm• 5 months ago

Ironic indeed. The Great Replacers of white collar jobs are finding themselves easily replaceable. Delicious.

seydor• 5 months ago

This is the new web hosting. All the valuations are absurd

gruez2• 5 months ago

Doesn't "web hosting" print money for Amazon?

spiffytech• 5 months ago

Unfortunately this is why Anthropic is so aggressive about preventing Claude subscriptions from being used with other tools.

latchkey2• 5 months ago

According to this article, they can't even service the amount of paying customers that they have.

oytis• 5 months ago

someone else

We have basically 4 companies in the world one can seriously consider, and they all seem to heavily subsidise usage, so under normal market conditions not all of them are going to survive.

dghlsakjg3• 5 months ago

Open Router shows that commodity api providers have figured out how to do this unsubsidized.

The training runs aren’t priced in, but the cost of inference is clearly pretty cheap.

timcobb• 5 months ago

As such it’s unclear what the prize at the end of the present race to the bottom is.

is it ever clear? pretty much everything seems to be a senseless race to bottom.

remus• 5 months ago

As such it’s unclear what the prize at the end of the present race to the bottom is.

It's a market worth many billions so the prize is a slice of that market. Perhaps it is just a commodity, but you can build a big company if you can take a big slice of that commodity e.g. by building a good product (claude code) on top of your commodity model.

adammarples• 5 months ago

The entire point of a race to the bottom is that your competitors keep reducing their prices until those billions disappear

cmiles84• 5 months ago

The revenue slice is there, problem is though in a race to the bottom like we’re in now there isn’t much profit at the bottom. And these companies desperately need profit to justify the gigantic capital spend and depreciation title wave that’s on the horizon. There’s no clear way now things don’t just get really pretty quickly.

ghywertelling3• 5 months ago

Let me explain a possible moat with an example.

I have curated my youtube recommendations over the years. It knows my likes and dislikes very well. It knows about me a lot.

The same moat exists in interactions with Claude. Claude remembers so many of preferences. It knows that I work in Python and Pandas and starts writing code for that combination. It knows about what type of person I am and what kind of toys I want my nephews and nieces to play. These "facts" about the person are the moat now. Stackoverflow was a repository of "facts" about what worked and what didn't. Those facts or user chat sessions are now Anthropic's moat.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 5 months ago

You can have Claude write all these out to a file.

Then you can feed them into another service.

dghlsakjg3• 5 months ago

“Hey Claude, write out a markdown file of all of my preferences so any AI agent can pick up where you left off”

cmiles84• 5 months ago

It takes about 30 seconds to export all that into a file and take your history elsewhere. There’s no moat there.

gdilla• 5 months ago

just having strict control over context management in session is a nice differentiator. Shared tooling between desktop and cli and is nice too. they've differentiated enough.

Balgair3• 5 months ago

→All these guys are just commodity to us.

Just want to note something there:

Okay, premise that AI really is 'intelligent' up to the point of business decisions.

So, this all then implies that 'intelligence' is then a commodity too?

Like, I'm trying to drive at that your's, mine, all of our 'intelligence' is now no longer a trait that I hold, but a thing to be used, at least as far as the economy is concerned.

We did this with muscles and memory previously. We invented writing and so those with really good memories became just like everyone else. Then we did it with muscles and the industrial revolution, and so really strong or endurant people became just like everyone else. Yes, many exceptions here, but they mostly prove the rule, I think.

Now it seems that really smart people we've made AI and so they're going to be like everyone else?

EQmWgw87pw2• 5 months ago

Well as of right now, mathematically and scientifically, the way an LLM works has nothing to do with how the human brain works.

coldtea2• 5 months ago

So, this all then implies that 'intelligence' is then a commodity too? Like, I'm trying to drive at that your's, mine, all of our 'intelligence' is now no longer a trait that I hold, but a thing to be used, at least as far as the economy is concerned.

This is obviously already the case with the intelligence level required to produce blog posts and article slop, generade coding agent quality code, do mid-level translations, and things like that...

credit_guy• 5 months ago

The moat is compute.

In my case, I always use Opus 4.6 in my work, but quite often I get a 504 error, and that's quite annoying. I get errors like that with Gemini too. I can't estimate if I'd get a similar number of errors with ChatGPT, since I use it very infrequently.

But imagine that at some point one of the big 3 (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) gets very high availability, while the others have very poor availability. Then people would switch to them, even if their models were a bit worse.

Now, OpenAI has been building like crazy, and contracting for future builds like crazy too. Google has very deep pockets, so they'll probably have enough compute to stay in the game. But I fear that Anthropic will not be able to match OpenAI and Google in terms of datacenter build, so it's only a matter of time (and not a lot of time) until they'll be in a pretty tight spot.

bronlund• 5 months ago

I guess you can call it «struggles», but this is that kind of struggle which brings a smile to your face :)

13415• 5 months ago

Is there any news about how Gemini fares in this debate? I suppose they're fine with total mass surveillance ("we already do that anyway") and creating kill bots but is there any official stance? I find it hard to believe Alphabet would not make US government contracts.

stavarotti• 5 months ago

I've largely found codex and claude code to be about the same however, codex tends to "think" harder and for longer which depending on the task, yields better results without too much steering.

On an unrelated note, UI is such a personal preference that it's impossible, beyond core pillars that have been studied for decades, to say one is better over the other. That being said, I like OpenAI's design system much better than Anthropic. OpenAI products (cli and chat ui) "feel" nice and consumer focused whereas Anthropic's products feel utilitarian and "designed for business".

Lerc• 5 months ago

It's is a fairly ridiculous conclusion to draw that these people are leaving ChatGPT because of their stance. I doubt OpenAI's actions play much role in the influx at all.

A couple of weeks ago, to huge numbers of people, ChatGPT was AI. The biggest public perception shift that will have come from the DoD/DoW spat will be how many people know that Claude exists at all, that they are being unreasonably punished by the government for taking a principled stance will benefit.

People have been made aware of a product, made aware that it's good enough that the government wants to use it. They have then been shown a archetypical underdog against the government narrative. That makes almost a perfect storm for gaining customers.

When they actually use the thing and discover that it actually is good, They will stay, and they will tell their friends.

At this rate they should be sending Hegseth a thank you card.

pgt• 5 months ago

No one left ChatGPT over that deal: they decided to try Anthropic's Claude because the Department of War gave them free marketing.

michele_f• 5 months ago

The DoW or the CEO of Anthropic and his telenovela?

furyofantares• 5 months ago

I was paying both $200+/mo and I went down to only paying Anthropic $200/mo.

My experience has, for a few months, been that OpenAI's models are consistently quite noticeably better for me, and so my Codex CLI usage had been probably 5x as much as my Claude Code usage. So it's a major bummer to have cancelled, but I don't have it in me to keep giving them money.

I'd love to get off Anthropic too, despite the admirable stance they took, the whole deal made me extra uncomfortable that they were ever a defense contractor (war contractor?) to begin with.

Grimblewald3• 5 months ago

I left the openai platform long before this, because I expected things like this. A few called me alarmist but are now also jumping ship because of this. OpenAI has zero moral or ethical substance and people _do_ care about that. I'm extreme enough that joining openAI after a specific date works against you and your CV, not with/for you, while leaving at a specific date speaks volumes in favour of you. People are the sum of their actions, not their words and siding with / continuing to use openAI speaks volumes on who you are.

qnleigh• 5 months ago

I wonder if this is actually good for Anthropic. 2.5 million new customers sounds like good news for them, except these are mostly not paying customers. It seemed like they were positioning themselves to make money by selling coding agents with a subscription fee. If that free tier mostly exists to advertise their paid tiers, then this would be kind of a drag.

cedws• 5 months ago

Codex has been feeling a bit faster recently, not sure if placebo.

alphabettsy• 5 months ago

They claim it’s faster and it seems to be so for me.

christina97• 5 months ago

We are in this fascinating stage where tokens that are nominally entirely fungible at a roughly equivalent intelligence level; yet at the same time there is huge market segmentation and differentiation in the non-tangible aspects of those tokens.

SilverElfin• 5 months ago

Didn’t Anthropic hire the infrastructure head from stripe and give him a CTO title? I would’ve thought that would help bring stability but if anything, things have become worse.

didip• 5 months ago

Suffering from success in a good way. ChatGPT truly lost all of its edge.

Grimblewald3• 5 months ago

Well c-suite lied to everyone and was dealing in bad faith. When thay came to light they immediatly lost support and interest from highly skilled researchers in the area, from that point onward, their only additional offerings would be whatever tech evangelists can rustle up, so nice ui some cool features etc. But really ground breaking stuff that takes celever engineering or the kind of thinking that cannot be taught/approximated? Gone. So OpenAI, despite its massive headstart, will just continue to fall behind. When youre smart enough money stops mattering beyond keeping a roof over your head and food in your mouth. At that point your world view and personal beleifs become far more valuable, and smart people always come to the conclusion violence is never worth it, ve it physical, information based, social, meotional, whatever. OpenAI is an incredibly violent company, so inherently scares off talent.

k32k3• 5 months ago

Many people I know initially used ChatGPT for awhile. Then after awhile they went to Gemini. Again stuck with it for awhile. And now are dabbling with Claude.

Yep there really is no switching cost it seems.

People generally want something from a model and then leave. I think people are sub-consciously forming relationships with Tech firms such that they do not care about them, and its all about what the user themselves gets. Generally there is no attachment. There's some examples of psychotic stuff but that's thankfully the exception not the norm.

That's why Apple cares deeply about its brand - it doesn't want to fall into that group of firms.

Claude struggles to cope with ChatGPT exodus

Related Stories