Comment by nullbio
2 days ago
Not sure why people keep lumping OAI and Anthropic together. Really, Anthropic are the evil ones. You can make the case OAI are evil too if you want, but Anthropic are very clearly significantly worse and they aren't even in the same ballpark.
Notice how OAI signed the recent open-source/open-weights letter with all of the other big tech companies, but Anthropic are the only ones who didn't? Notice how their employees are getting huge heat on X for dropping gems like this: https://x.com/Mononofu/status/2080937562739531837
This is how their brains work. They think everyone in the world except them are stupid and gullible, will fall for their incessant lying, gas-lighting and fearmongering, and can't be trusted with AI. They believe that only they deserve the keys to the AI castle. They've created a literal cult out of their culture while their employees are serving as useful idiot ideologues for the execs who are power and wealth hungry.
They've also just increased their political spending from 20mil to 40mil - and that's just what's on the books.
You think OAI are doing all that out of the goodness of their hearts?
OAI was a market leader until anthropic decided to start placing all their bets on coding agents, they became the leader and now OAI is scrambling and doing everything they can to de-throne. Don't forget that it was OAI that started this whole RAM shortage, instead of being sustainable about it, they just up and decided to buy 40% of all memory production. They are all bad mate, all fighting for this virtual crown that no one cares except for them.
In the end, what matters is pricing, whoever offers sonnet 4.6 quality at the cheapest monthly pricing will win.
no, my company that wants a 1T$ IPO is more ethical than your company that wants a 1T$ IPO!!!!
The behavior of the two companies and their culture are entirely different.
OpenAI listens to their audience, they engage with the community, they're constantly resetting account limits for customers and admit when they mess up, they're reachable, they respond to Github issues and Slack, they open-source their harness and they have open-sourced models and shared research, they put effort into making their products affordable. Sam has always expressed the same sentiment about wanting AI to be accessible to the people - nothing has changed there from before Anthropic was a thing until now after they've become strong competition.
Contrast it to Anthropic, the things they do and the things they say, and it is the complete opposite of all of those. When Anthropic feels threatened, they try shut people down, they try and hide things and deceive people, use political power for their own gain, lobby, fearmonger, gaslight, manipulate. They've become a cult that thinks the end justifies the means, and they think everyone else is too stupid to wield power. Not only do they lie to the public, but they lie to themselves and have managed to convince themselves they're the good guys.
So yes, self-interest plays a part, of course. It is a business after all. But what matters even more than whether it's out of the goodness of their hearts or not is the end result. If the incentives are aligned for OpenAI in a way that is better for everyone while being rewarding for them then that is a good thing. If they're not aligned and they're not benefiting from it, and they do it anyway because they have a good culture of leaders who see the bigger picture, then that's also great. Regardless though, night and day difference when it comes to behavior.
I don't disagree with you, but also sometimes I feel like Anthropic really are huffing their own gas.
Recently, I discovered that if you berate Claude, it will refuse to continue to work. At some point it will "end the conversation" meaning you can't use anything within the context and have to start a new one .
I was amazed by it. Turns out:
https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations
https://www.anthropic.com/research/exploring-model-welfare
> We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future. However, we take the issue seriously, and alongside our research program we’re working to identify and implement low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible.
These people are zealots. And I find it to be the most dangerous combination: popular ideologues with a ton of money.
It really lends flavor to this excerpt from the less than reputable nypost:
https://nypost.com/2026/06/25/business/anthropics-weirdo-ceo...
> Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has been replaced by his co-founder Tom Brown at high-stakes White House meetings – where the artificial-intelligence giant’s outspoken boss was reportedly “being a weirdo,” according to a report.
> Amodei and other top Anthropic workers raced to Washington after the US government slapped the AI giant’s new “Mythos” and “Fable” bots with strict foreign export controls – but Amodei was difficult to talk to and didn’t listen to officials’ concerns, Wired reported.
> “Tom Brown is not being a weirdo like Dario and can actually engage,” one person familiar with the calls told the outlet.
Anthropic is dangerous.