←back to thread

555 points maheshrijal | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
_fat_santa ◴[] No.43708027[source]
So at this point OpenAI has 6 reasoning models, 4 flagship chat models, and 7 cost optimized models. So that's 17 models in total and that's not even counting their older models and more specialized ones. Compare this with Anthropic that has 7 models in total and 2 main ones that they promote.

This is just getting to be a bit much, seems like they are trying to cover for the fact that they haven't actually done much. All these models feel like they took the exact same base model, tweaked a few things and released it as an entirely new model rather than updating the existing ones. In fact based on some of the other comments here it sounds like these are just updates to their existing model, but they release them as new models to create more media buzz.

replies(22): >>43708044 #>>43708100 #>>43708150 #>>43708219 #>>43708340 #>>43708462 #>>43708605 #>>43708626 #>>43708645 #>>43708647 #>>43708800 #>>43708970 #>>43709059 #>>43709249 #>>43709317 #>>43709652 #>>43709926 #>>43710038 #>>43710114 #>>43710609 #>>43710652 #>>43713438 #
1. crowcroft ◴[] No.43708626[source]
Most industries, or categories go through cycles of fragmentation and consolidation.

AI is currently in a high growth expansion phase. The leads to rapid iteration and fragmentation because getting things released is the most important thing.

When the models start to plateau or the demands on the industry are for profit you will see consolidation start.

replies(1): >>43709444 #
2. airstrike ◴[] No.43709444[source]
having many models from the same company in some haphazard strategy doesn't equate to "industry fragmentation". it's just confusion
replies(1): >>43710178 #
3. crowcroft ◴[] No.43710178[source]
OpenAI's continued growth and press coverage relative to their peers leads to me to believe it isn't *just* confusion, even if it is confusing.
replies(1): >>43712069 #
4. airstrike ◴[] No.43712069{3}[source]
I'd attribute that more to first mover advantage than a benefit from poor naming choices, though I do think they are likely to misattribute that to a causal relationship so that they keep doing the latter