Comment by janalsncm
10 days ago
> AI is and always has been a winner-take-all strategy
People claim that AGI is. AI is turning out to be a fairly competitive but “normal” product. Companies carving out niches on cost, quality, and speed.
If it was a winner take all OpenAI’s head start would have been decisive. For years ChatGPT was far ahead of everyone, then Anthropic released Opus 3, then OpenAI released 4o, then in mid 2025 it seemed like everyone had strong reasoning models including Google with Gemini 2.5, and now Claude is probably the best coding model. So taking the top spot is not a guarantee you can hold it.
Also the top model becomes a prime target for distillation, making it easier for competitors to keep up.
> and now Claude is probably the best coding model
Do people who keep saying this actually used Claude side by side with other models?
Because in my experience it turned out to be hilariously crap: https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png
I don’t think they have. I used to think that Claude sucked because of the harness so I tried it on opencode and it was still trash.
I’m sure if the primary problem I was solving was multi file complex exploits it would be better but even that I am not sure of. I’ve always found the it’s too dangerous claims to be a bit underwhelming.
The point is that if AI was really a winner-takes-all technology it would have meant OpenAI’s models would have been unequivocally better, permanently.
Can a model turn crap? shouldn't it be consistent once realized? Isn't it probably Anthropic facing capacity problems and comitting fraud by silently routing you to smaller models for the price of the current Claude?