OpenAI is such a controversial company and good competitors like Anthropic, who arguably align better with their brand, exist. That makes the deal so weird to me.
Anthropic could be 10X better, and it still wouldn't matter to customers and public market investors as much as hearing the name 'ChatGPT.' Your mom has never heard of Anthropic.
People think Google won search because they had the best search engine. Yes, they did for a brief period before others implemented similar methods to pagerank (which itself was ripped off from the Baidu founder). But the reason they won the market is because of endless media coverage around them building the brand into a household verb. After that, it was impossible for anyone to compete.
"Just ask ChatGPT" will forever be the "Just Google it" of AI, and any media drama surrounding OpenAI only serves to cement that status.
It's also weird because Anthropic models are just better for these tasks. Claude responses are almost always better than GPT4.
I stopped using GPT4 because it would just yap on and on about things I don't want in the response. Claude 3 responses feel way more human like because it response with similar information a human would and not with a bunch of unneeded gibber.
By the time this roles out at the end of the year who knows what models would be the best. Why bet on one company's models? We have seen how fast open source models have caught up to GPT4. Why put all your chips into one basket?
OpenAI has nothing of particularly high value. They're giving away the store right now just to claim the onboarding. This unsustainable game will end badly and soon.
It's actually a beneficial feature that two people can look at a market and come to two completely different conclusions about it. Yes, I suspect that OpenAI has nothing of lasting competitive value, they're currently overvalued by entities who want their money back, and you can view their recent actions and partnerships through this lens without complication.
