HN user
A company whose first demo was completely fraudulent announces that its model beats GPT-5.5, on its own benchmark? I’m gonna wait a little before I trust this.
This whole company seems to optimize for raising money and impressing VCs. Lying about their products, ignoring consumer market to target enterprise, bragging about how they work their employees like slaves, and writing these posts full of intimidating technical jargon...
I read the profile and didn't see anything really wrong. Why would PR companies have to believe in their clients? Why does he have to be held to higher moral standards than Sam Altman who’s a total lying snake?
The error you call out is hardly “serious”, as the whole argument is uninteresting. It is a stupid indefensible error but the argument about revenue being 20% or 30% lower than reported isn’t that central to his overall thesis. Stuff that matters is inference cost, profitability, actual training costs.
Author is assuming SpaceX is going to buy Cursor for $60B and I'm not sure why. Is there some reason?
To me it seems that SpaceX probably does not intend to buy, and is paying $10 billion for access to Cursor's data and talent, more importantly, the ability to add some sparkle to their IPO.
In my book, you are a hero if you sacrifice your own well-being for the utilitarian good of the public.
Many people here would call Putin's assassin a hero, the important distinguishing factor is whether it's a clear societal good or bad. If it's unclear then it's assumed bad.
I am not disagreeing with you here. But platitudes do nothing to convince people. You need to actually explain why the world is a better place with X politician in it, because it does actually matter.
Like Anthropic? Due to Altman being a lying psychopath, most of the talent left OpenAI, which is now fighting for its life -- but now they can't claim to have moral high ground or the best researchers anymore; profitability's the only way out remaining to them.
Who knows? It could have always ended up this way anyway. But Altman had a pretty big role in summoning his own competition.
Is that an actual quote from simonw? He seems an unbiased observer and reporter of progress, I'd be sad to see him cheering this stuff on so callously.
I agree with you overall and would even concede the trend, but everyone I know who was born into money is not a good person. (Of course, Trump was too.) They tend to treat people as fungible resources that output work.
Snapchat
It's tempting to look at trends and assume there must be a rule behind them, but it's also intellectually lazy. Please do the hard work of justifying your stance like GGP did.
Yes, most of their top talent has left, except for Jakub. The top researchers I know have no interest in the company.
Google has already surpassed them both in all areas except coding. People on HN only look at benchmarks, but Gemini's multimodal understanding, things like identifying what a plant is, normal user use cases (other than chatting), integration with other tools, is much better.
It's believable that Meta, ByteDance, etc. can catch up too. It is not certain that scaling will meaningfully increase performance indefinitely, and if it stops soon, they surely will. Furthermore, other market conditions (US political instability) can enable even more labs, like Mistral, to serve as compelling alternatives.
Uber, TSMC, etc. have strong moats in the form of physical goods and factories. LLMs have nothing even remotely comparable. The main moat is in knowledge, which is easy to transfer between labs. Do you think all the money that goes into training a model goes into the actual final training run? No, it is mostly experiments and failed ideas, which do not have to be repeated by future labs and offshoots.
So YC values the company at $1.8 million. I don't think that's so different.
Absolutely not. Windsurf also just stole an open source model, there’s almost zero chance Google is using that under the hood.
And fired from YC for lying. And lied to investors about how many Loopt employees he had. And lied about having 100x the actual number of users when he sold it. And lied to employees about the Microsoft deal. And lied to his safety team.
I prescribe literally zero truth value to what Sam says. He will say whatever he needs to get ahead. It is honestly irritating to me that you and many others here seem to implicitly assume his messages are correlated with truth, doing his social engineering work for him, as if his word should adjust your priors even slightly.
I don't necessarily think he's lying, but there's so much obvious incentive for him to lie here (if only because his employees can save face).
I don't trust Sam to be telling the truth. It would be to his benefit to lie about this and make Anthropic look bad, so he of course would, even if it's not actually the case.
I think it's all he knows. His "oh, shucks" good-boy routine is what he's been doing for 15 years now, it's gotten him far, it's never been genuine, but it feels especially out of place now with much attention on him and his lies being so obvious.
Am I right in thinking these numbers look awful for OpenAI? They're down by 22% from last month while Gemini is up 50% again. Their supposed user moat doesn't look very sturdy...
I feel RevenueCat is on shaky ground, their market position can only get worse and worse as Apple and Google improve their complimentary offerings and they are forced into more A/B testing that directly competes with others. Recent StoreKit changes this year close a lot of the remaining gap. I would have sold. I wonder why they chose not to.
Zitron has never said anything like that. Do you have a quote?
I'm not sure, but there is a difference: the researchers don't have much incentive to get everyone to use their model. As such, they're not really the ones hyping up AI as the future while ignoring shortcomings.
I know someone (not an engineer) who was applying to jobs for a long time and got a 100% pay increase from moving to Meta, about $60k -> $120k. In such circumstances, it is difficult to turn down such a job. You are only one small part of the machine and it is such a quality of life increase (in USA), I cannot imagine many people saying no.
Some other common reasons that I disagree with, but are quite defensible:
"Well-targeted advertising is a net positive, or at least not hugely negative, for the world. Better targeting has helped many small businesses succeed where they would otherwise not been able to get customers"
"I am working on account security/React/ML/etc which is a good thing. I don't endorse all the bad things"
"It is more complicated than it seems, and most people at Meta try to do the right thing"
"I might as well work at the company and try to make it better from the inside" (while making lots of money)
Cognition pivoted from a crypto company. The only thing he's "consumed with" is getting rich.
Get real.
People come out to defend their bosses a lot on this site, convincing themselves they know the powerful people best, that they’re “friends”. How can someone be so confident that a founder is authentic, when a large part of their job is to make you believe so (regardless of whether they are), and the employee’s own self image push them to believe it too?
I am not trying to advance wild hypotheticals, but something about his behavior does not quite feel right to me. Someone who has enough money for multiple lifetimes, working like he's possessed, to launch a product minimally different than those at dozens of other companies, and leaving his wife with all the childcare, then leaving after 14 months and insisting he was not burnt out but without a clear next step, not even, "I want to enjoy raising my child".
His experience at OpenAI feels overly positive and saccharine, with a few shockingly naive comments that others have noted. I think there is obvious incentive. One reason for this is, he may be in burnout, but does not want to admit it. Another is, he is looking to the future: to keep options open for funding and connections if (when) he chooses to found again. He might be lonely and just want others in his life. Or to feel like he's working on something that "matters" in some way that his other company didn't.
I don't know at all what he's actually thinking. But the idea that he is resistant to incentives just because he has had a successful exit seems untrue. I know people who are as rich as he is, and they are not much different than me.
He is still manipulatable and driven by incentive like anyone else.
That part made me do a double take. I hope his child never learns they were being put second.
Yes, also OpenAI being this great nimble startup that can turn on a dime, while in reality Google reacted to them and has now surpassed them technically in every area, except image prompt adherence.
I would never post any criticism of an employer in public. It can only harm my own career (just as being positive can only help it).
Given how vengeful Altman can reportedly be, this goes double for OpenAI. This guy even says they scour social media!
Whether subconsciously or not, one purpose of this post is probably to help this guy’s own personal network along; to try and put his weirdly short 14-month stint in the best possible light. I think it all makes him look like a mark, which is desirable for employers, so I guess it is working.