Not only has OpenAI's market share gone down significantly in the last 6mo, Nvidia has been using its newfound liquid funds to train its own family of models[1]. An alliance with OpenAI just makes less sense today than it did 6mo ago.
> Nvidia has been using its newfound liquid funds to train its own family of models
Nvidia has always had its own family of models, it's nothing new and not something you should read too much into IMHO. They use those as template other people can leverage and they are of course optimized for Nvidia hardware.
Nvidia has been training models in the Megatron family as well as many others since at least 2019 which was used as blueprint by many players. [1]
Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B[0][1] is a very impressive local model. It is good with tool calling and works great with llama.cpp/Visual Studio Code/Roo Code for local development.
It doesn't get a ton of attention on /r/LocalLLaMA but it is worth trying out, even if you have a relatively modest machine.
Deep SSMs, including the entire S4 to Mamba saga, are a very interesting alternative to transformers. In some of my genomics use cases, Mamba has been easier to train and scale over large context windows, compared to transformers.
It was good for like, one month. Qwen3 30b dominated for half a year before that, and GLM-4.7 Flash 30b took over the crown soon after Nemotron 3 Nano came out. There was basically no time period for it to shine.
It is still good, even if not the new hotness. But I understand your point.
It isn't as though GLM-4.7 Flash is significantly better, and honestly, I have had poor experiences with it (and yes, always the latest llama.cpp and the updated GGUFs).
I find the Q8 runs a bit more than twice as fast as gpt-120b since I don’t have to offload as many MoE layers, but is just about as capable if not better.
1. OpenAI bet largely on consumer. Consumers have mostly rejected AI. And in a lot of cases even hate it (can't go on TikTok or Reddit without people calling something slop, or hating on AI generated content). Anthropic on the other hand went all in on B2B and coding. That seems to be the much better market to be in.
Was the golden boy for a while? What shifted? I don't even remember what he did "first" to get the status. Is it maybe just a case of familiarity breeding contempt?
It is starting to become clear to more and more people that Sam is a dyed in the wool True Believer in AGI. While it's obvious in hindsight that OpenAI would never have gotten anywhere if he wasn't, seeing it so starkly is really rubbing a lot of people the wrong way.
He is a pretty interesting case. According to the book "Empire of AI" about OpenAI, he lies constantly, even about things that are too trivial to matter. So it may be part of some compulsive behavior.
And when two people want different things from him, he "resolves" the conflict by agreeing with each of them separately, and then each assumes they got what they wanted, until they talk to the other person and find out that nothing was resolved.
Really not a person who is qualified to run a company, except the constant lying is good for fundraising and PR.
Not a case, society call them sociopaths. Witch includes power struggle, manipulation and physiological abuse of the people around them.
Example, Sam Altman and OpenAI hoarding 40% of the RAM supply as unprocessed wafers stored in warehouses bought with magical bubble investors money in GPUs that don't exist yet and that they will not be able to install because there's not enough electricity to feed such botched tech, in data centers that are still to be built, with intention to punch the competence supply, and all the people of the planet in the process along two years (at least).
Yep the various -path adjectives get overused but in this case he's the real deal, something is really really off about him.
You can see it when he talks, he's clearly trying (very unconvincingly) to emulate normal human emotions like concern and empathy. He doesn't feel them.
People like that are capable of great evil and there's a part of our lizard brains that can sense it
Indeed. Sama seems to be incredibly delusional. OAI going bust is going to really damage his well-being, irrespective of his financial wealth. Brother really thought he was going to take over the world at one point.
The CEO just has to have followership: the people who work there have to think that this is a good person to follow. Even they don't have to "like" him
You have to give credit to Sam, he’s charismatic enough to the right people to climb man made corporate structures. He was also smart enough to be at the right place at the right time to enrich himself (Silicon Valley). He seems to be pretty good at cutting deals. Unfortunately all of the above seems to be at odds with having any sort of moral core.
He and his personality caused people like Ilya to leave. At that point the failure risk of OAI jumped tremendously. The reality he will have to face is, he has caused OAIs demise.
Perhaps hes ok with that as long as OAI goes down with him. Would expect nothing less from him.
All this drama is mostly irrelevant outside a very narrow and very online community.
The demise of OpenAI is rooted in the bad product market fit, since many people like using ChatGPT for free, but fewer are ready to pay for it. And that’s pretty much all there is to it. OpenAI bet on consumers, made a slopstagram that unsurprisingly didn’t revolutionise content, and doesn’t sell as many licenses as they would like.
All these people are replaceable lol, they’re employee tier. If they’re not CEO then they’re not that important. You might disagree but that’s why there’s 1 guy at the helm (being reductive here, use your brain and actually stop over thinking but the board chose him or whatever) and everyone else follows him. If someone leaves you get another one.
I actually think Sam is “better” than say Elon or Dario because he seems like a typical SF/SV tech bro. You probably know the type (not talking about some 600k TC fang worker, I mean entrepreneurs).
He says a lot of fluff, doesn’t try to be very extreme, and focuses on selling. I don’t know him personally but he comes across like an average person if that makes sense (in this environment that is).
I think I personally prefer that over Elon’s self induced mental illnesses and Dario being a doomer promoting the “end” of (insert a profession here) in 12 months every 6 months. It’s hard for me to trust a megalomaniac or a total nerd. So Sam is kinda in the middle there.
I hope OpenAI continues to dominate even if the margins of winning tighten.
It’s kind of sad. I can’t believe I used to like him back in the iron man days. Back then I thought he was cool for the various ideas and projects he was working on. I still think many of those are great but he as a person let me down.
Props to him for letting people mute him on his own platform. The issue with Sam and OpenAI is they their bias on any controversional topic can't be switched off.
Back then he had a PR firm working for him, getting him cameos and good press. But in 2020 he fired them deciding that his own "radically awesome" personality doesn't need any filtering.
Personally I don't think Elon is the worst billionaire, he's just the one dumb enough to not have any PR (since 2020). They're all pretty reprehensible creatures.
The watershed moment for me was when he pretended to be a top tier gamer on Path of Exile. Anyone in the know saw right through it, and honestly makes me wonder if we just spotted this behavior because it's "our turf", but actually he and people like him just operate this way in absolutely everything they do
Any number of past mega-rich were probably equally nuts and out of touch and reprehensible but they just didn't let people find out. Then Twitter enabled an unfiltered mass-media broadcast of anyone's personal insanity, and certain public figures got addicted and exposed.
There will always be enough people willing to suck up to money that they'll have all the yes-men they need to rationalize it as "it's EVERYONE ELSE who's wrong!"
Not extreme? Have you seen his interviews? I guess his wording and delivery are not extreme, but if you really listen to what he's saying, it's kinda nuts.
I understand what GP is saying in the sense that, yes, on an objective scale, what Sam is saying is absolutely and completely nuts... but on a relative scale he's just hyping his startup. Relative to the scale he's at, it’s no worse than the average support tool startup founder claiming they will defeat Salesforce, for example.
He's definitely not. If Altman. Is a "typical" SF/SV
tech bro then that's an indication the valley has turned full d-bag. Altman's past is gross. So, if he's the norm then I will vehemently avoid any dollars of mine going to OAI. I paid for an account for a while, but just like Musk I lose nothing over actively avoiding his Ponzi scheme of a company.
Altman is a consummate liar and manipulator with no moral scruples. I think this LLM business is ethically compromised from the start, but Dario is easily the least worst of the three.
Your argument is guilt by association. Association with something that isn't morally wrong, it's just a way to try to spend money on charity in an effective way? You can take a lot of ideas too far and end up with a bad result of course.
> I actually think Sam is “better” than say Elon or even Dario because he seems like a typical SF/SV tech bro.
If you nail the bar to the floor, then sure, you can pass over it.
> He says a lot of fluff, doesn’t try to be very extreme, and focuses on selling.
I don't now what your definition of extreme is but by mine he's pretty extreme.
> I think I personally prefer that over Elon’s self induced mental illnesses and Dario being a doomer promoting the “end” of (insert a profession here) in 12 months every 6 months.
All of them suffer from thinking their money makes them somehow better.
> I hope OpenAI continues to dominate even if the margins of winning tighten.
I couldn't care less. I'm on the whole impressed with AI, less than happy about all of the slop and the societal problems it brings and wished it had been a more robust world that this had been brought in to because I'm not convinced the current one needed another issue of that magnitude to deal with.
> All of them suffer from thinking their money makes them somehow better.
Let's assume they think they're better than others.
What makes you think that they think it's because of their money, as opposed to, say, because of their success at growing their products and businesses to the top of their field?
That’s ok, but AI is useful in particular use cases for many people. I use it a lot and I prefer the Codex 5.2 extra high reasoning model. The AI slop and dumb shit on IG/YT is like the LCD of humans though. They’ve always been there and always will be there to be annoying af. Before AI slop we had brain rot made by humans.
I think over time it (LLM based) will become like an augmenter, not something like what they’re selling as some doomsday thing. It can help people be more efficient at their jobs by quickly learning something new or helping do some tasks.
I find it makes me a lot more productive because I can have it follow my architecture and other docs to pump out changes across 10 files that I can then review. In the old way, it would have taken me quite a while longer to just draft those 10 files (I work on a fairly complex system), and I had some crazy code gen scripts and shit I’d built over the years. So I’d say it gives me about 50% more efficiency which I think is good.
Of course, everyone’s mileage may vary. Kinda reminds me of when everyone was shitting on GUIs, or scripting languages or opinionated frameworks. Except over time those things made productivity increase and led to a lot more solutions. We can nitpick but I think the broader positive implication remains.
It's very hard to see downsides on something like GUIS, scripting languages or opinionated frameworks compared to a broad, easily weaponized tool like generative AI.
And the whole AI craze is becoming nothing but a commodity business where all kinds of models are popping in and out, one better this update, the other better the next update etc. In short - they're basically indistinguishable for the average layman.
Commodity businesses are price chasers. That's the only thing to compete on when product offerings are similar enough.
AI valuations are not setup for this. AI Valuations are for 'winner takes all' implications. These are clearly now falling apart.
Yeah. Even if OpenAI models were the best, I still wouldn't used them, given how the Sam Altman persona is despicable (constantly hyping, lying, asking for no regulations, then asking for regulations, leaked emails where founders say they just wanna get rich without any consideration of their initial "open" claims...). I know other companies are not better, but at least they have a business model and something to lose.
I'll let you read a few articles about this lawsuit, but basically they said to Musk (and frankly, to everyone else) that they were committed to the non-profit model, while behind the scenes thinking about "making the billion" and turning for-profit.
Literally everyone raising money is just searching for the magic combo of stuff to make it happen. Nobody enjoys raising money. Wouldn’t read that much into this.
ChatGPT has nowhere the lead it used to have. Gemini is excellent and Google and Anthropic are very serious competitors. And open weight models are slowly catching up.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
> Anthropic relies heavily on a combination of chips designed by Amazon Web Services known as Trainium, as well as Google’s in-house designed TPU processors, to train its AI models. Google largely uses its TPUs to train Gemini. Both chips represent major competitive threats to Nvidia’s best-selling products, known as graphics processing units, or GPUs.
So which leading AI company is going to build on Nvidia, if not OpenAI?
"Largely" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Yes Google and Amazon are making their own GPU chips, but they are also buying as many Nvidia chips as they can get their hands on. As are Microsoft, Meta, xAI, Tesla, Oracle and everyone else.
google buys nvidia GPUs for cloud, I don't think they use them much or at all internally. The TPUs are both used internally, and in cloud, and now it looks like they are delivering them to customers in their own data centers.
I think Apple is waiting for the bubble to deflate, then do something different. And they have the ready to use user base to provide what they can make money from.
If they were taking that approach, they would have absolutely first-class integration between AI tools and user data, complete with proper isolation for security and privacy and convenient ways for users to give agents access to the right things. And they would bide their time for the right models to show up at the right price with the right privacy guarantees.
They apparently are working on and are going to release 2(!) different versions of siri. Idk, that just screams "leadership doesn't know what to do and can't make a tough decision" to me. but who knows? maybe two versions of siri is what people will want.
It sounds like the first one, based on Gemini, will be more a more limited version of the second ("competitive with Gemini 3"). IDK if the second is also based on Gemini, but I'd be surprised if that weren't the case.
Seems like it's more a ramp-up than two completely separate Siri replacements.
I mean, they tried. They just tried and failed. It may work out for them, though — two years ago it looked like lift-off was likely, or at least possible, so having a frontier model was existential. Today it looks like you might be able to save many billions by being a fast follower. I wouldn’t be surprised if the lift-off narrative comes back around though; we still have maybe a decade until we really understand the best business model for LLMs and their siblings.
I think you are right. Their generative AI was clearly underwhelming. They have been losing many staff from their AI team.
I’m not sure it matters though. They just had a stonking quarter. iPhone sales are surging ahead. Their customers clearly don’t care about AI or Siri’s lacklustre performance.
This whole thread is about whether the most valuable startup of all time will be able to raise enough money to see the next calendar year.
It's definitely rational to decide to pay wholesale for LLMs given:
- consumer adoption is unclear. The "killer app" for OS integration has yet to ship by any vendor.
- owning SOTA foundation models can put you into a situation where you need to spend $100B with no clear return. This money gets spent up front regardless of how much value consumers derive from the product, or if they even use it at all. This is a lot of money!
- as apple has "missed" the last couple of years of the AI craze, there has been no meaningful ill effects to their business. Beyond the tech press, nobody cares yet.
Nvidia had the chance to build its own AI software and chose not to. It was a good choice so far, better to sell shovels than go to the mines - but they still could go mining if the other miners start making their own shovels.
If I were Nvidia I would be hedging my bets a little. OpenAI looks like it's on shaky ground, it might not be around in a few years.
They do build their own software, though. They have a large body of stuff they make. My guess is that it’s done to stay current, inform design and performance, and to have something to sell enterprises along with the hardware; they have purposely not gone after large consumer markets with their model offerings as far as I can tell.
This video that breaks down the crazy financial positions of all the AI companies and how they are all involved with one called CoreWeave (who could easily bring the whole thing tumbling down) is fascinating: https://youtu.be/arU9Lvu5Kc0?si=GWTJsXtGkuh5xrY0
I don’t think so. I think it is positioning for the unknown future and hedging.
For example, Amazon isn’t able to train its own models so it hedges by investing in Anthropic and OpenAI. Oracle, same with OpenAI deal. Nvidia wants to stay in OpenAI and Anthropic’s tech stack.
We know that it is all a grift before the inevitable collapse, so everyone is racing for the exit before that happens.
I guarrantee you that in 10 years time, you will get claims of unethical conduct by those companies only after the mania has ended (and by then the claimants have sold all their RSUs.)
It’s probably not really related, but this bug and the saga of OpenAI trying and failing to fix it for two weeks is not indicative of a functional company:
OTOH, if Anthropic did that to Claude Code, there wasn’t a moderately straightforward workaround, and Anthropic didn’t revert it quickly, it might actually be a risk-the-whole-business issue. Nothing makes people jump ship quite like the ship refusing to go anywhere for weeks while the skipper fumbles around and keeps claiming to have fixed the engines.
Also, the fact that it’s not major news that most business users cannot log in to the agent CLI for two weeks running is not major news suggests that OpenAI has rather less developer traction than they would like. (Personal users are fine. Users who are running locally on an X11-compatible distro and thus have DISPLAY set are okay because the new behavior doesn’t trigger. It kind of seems like everyone else gets nonsense errors out of the login flow with precise failures that change every couple days while OpenAI fixes yet another bug.)
I don't know what you're so surprised about. The ticket reads like any other typical [Big] enterprise ticket. UI works, headless - not (headless is what only hackers use, so not a priority, etc.) Oh, found the support guy who knows what headless is and the doc page with a number of workarounds. There is even ssh tunnel (how is that made in into enterprise docs?!) and the classic - copy logged in credentials from UI machine once you logged in there. Bla-bla-bla and again classic:
"Root Cause
The backend enforces an Enterprise-only entitlement for codex_device_code_auth on POST /backend-api/accounts/{account_id}/beta_features. Your account is on the Team plan, so the server rejects the toggle with {"detail":"Enterprise plan required."} "
and so on and so forth. At any given day i have several such long-term tickets that get ultimately escalated to me (i'm in dev and usually the guy who would pull the page with ssh tunnel or credentials copying :)
The backstory here is that codex-rs (OpenAI’s CLI agent harness) launched an actual headless login mechanism, just like Claude Code has had forever. And it didn’t work, from day one. And they can’t be bothered to revert it for some reason.
Sure, big enterprises are inept. But this tool is fundamentally a command line tool. It runs in a terminal. It’s their answer to one of their top two competitors’ flagship product. For a company that is in some kind of code red, the fact that they cannot get their ducks in a row to fix it is not a good sign.
Keep in mind that OpenAI is a young company. They should have have a thicket of ancient garbage to wade through to fix this — it’s not as if this is some complex Active Directory issue that no one knows how to fix because the design is 30-40 years old and supports layers and layers of legacy garbage.
You still need to get engineers to actually dispatch that work, test it, possibly update the backend. Each of those can be already done via AI, but actually doing that in a large environment - we're not there yet.
I felt anxious about all the insane valuations and spending around AI lately, and I knew it couldn't last (I mean there's only so much money, land, energy, water, business value, etc). But I didn't really know when it was going to collapse, or why. But recently I've been diving into using local models, and now it's way more clear. There seems to be a specific path for the implosion of AI:
- Nvidia is the most valuable company. Why? It makes GPUs. Why does that matter? Because AI is faster on them than CPUs, ASICs are too narrowly useful, and because first-mover advantage. AMD makes GPUs that work great for AI, but they're a fraction of the value of Nvidia, despite the fact that they make more useful products than Nvidia. Why? Nvidia just got there first, people started building on them, and haven't stopped, because it's the path of least resistance. But if Nvidia went away tomorrow, investors would just pour money into AMD. So Nvidia doesn't have any significant value compared to AMD other than people are lazy and are just buying the hot thing. Nvidia was less valuable than AMD before, they'll return there eventually; all AMD needs is more adoption and investment.
- Every frontier model provider out there has invested billions to get models to the advanced state they're in today. But every single time they advance the state of the art, open weights soon match them. Very soon, there won't be any significant improvement, and open weights will be the same as frontier, meaning there's no advantage to paying for frontier models. So within a few years, there will be no point to paying OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. Again, these were just first-movers in a commodity market. The value just isn't there. They can still provide unique services, tailored polished apps, etc (Anthropic is already doing this by banning users who have the audacity to use their fixed-price plans with non-Anthropic tools). But with AI code tools, anyone can do this. They are making themselves obsolete.
- The final form of AI coding is orchestrated agent-driven vibe-coding with safeguards. Think an insane asylum with a bowling league: you still want 100 people to autonomously (and in parallel) knock the pins knocked over, but you have to prevent the inmates from killing anyone. That's where the future of coding is. It's just too productive to avoid. But with open models and open source interfaces, anyone can do this, whether with hosted models (on any of 50 different providers), or a Beowulf cluster of cobbled together cheap hardware in a garage.
- Eventually, in like 5-10 years (a lifetime away), after AI Beowulfs have been a fad for a while, people will tire of it and move back to the cloud, where they can run any model they want on a K8s cluster full of GPUs, basically the same as today. Difference between now and then is, right now everyone is chasing Anthropic because their tools and models are slightly better. But by then, they won't be. Maybe people will use their tools anyway? But they won't be paying for their models. And it's not just price: one of the things you learn quickly by running models, is they're all good for different things. Not only that, you can tweak them, fine-tune them, and make them faster, cheaper, better than what's served up by frontier models. So if you don't care about the results or cost, you could use frontier, but otherwise you'll be digging deep into them, the same way some companies invest in writing their own software vs paying for it.
- Finally, there's the icing on the cake: LLMs will be cooked in 10 years. I keep reading from AI research experts that "LLMs are a dead end" - and it turns out it's true. LLMs are basically only good because we invest an unsustainable amount of money in the brute-forcing of a relatively dumb form of iteration: download all knowledge, do some mind-bogglingly expensive computational math on it, tweak the reasults, repeat. There's only so many of that loop you can do, because fundamentally, all you're doing is trying to guess your way to an answer from a picture of the past. It doesn't actually learn, the way a living organism learns, from experience, in real-time, going forward; LLMs only look backward. Like taking a snapshot of all the books a 6 year old has read, then doing tweaks to try to optimize the knowledge from those books, then doing it again. There's only so much knowledge, only so many tweaks. The sensory data of the lived experience of a single year of life of a 6 year old is many times more information than everything ever recorded by man. Reinforcement Learning actually gives you progressive, continuously improved knowledge. But it's slow, which is why we aren't doing it much. We do LLMs instead because we can speed-run them. But the game has an end, and it's the total sum of our recorded knowledge and our tweaks.
So LLMs will plateau, frontier models will make no sense, all lines of code will be hands-off, and Nvidia will return to making hardware for video games. All within about 10 years. With the caveat that there might be a shift in global power and economic stability that interrupts the whole game.... but that's where we stand if things keep on course. Personally, I am happy to keep using AI and reap the benefits of all these moronic companies dumping their money into it, because the open weights continue being useful after those companies are dead. But I'm not gonna be buying Nvidia stock anytime soon, and I'm definitely not gonna use just one frontier model company.
And Google and Microsoft have huge distribution advantages that OpenAI doesn’t. Google and Microsoft can add AI to their operating systems, browsers, and office apps that users are already using. OpenAI just has a website and a niche browser. To Google and Microsoft, AI is a feature, not a product.
this is the argument i continue to have with people. first mover isnt always an advantage - i think openai will be sold or pennies on these dollars someday (next 5 years after they run out of funding).
Google has data, TPUs, and a shitload of cash to burn
I know OpenAI isn't a popular company here (anymore) but the doomerism in this thread seems a bit too hasty. People were just as doomy when Altman was sacked, and it turned into nothing and the industry market caps have doubled or even tripled since.
> He[Jensen Huang] has also privately criticized what he has described as a lack of discipline in OpenAI’s business approach and expressed concern about the competition it faces from the likes of Google and Anthropic, some of the people said.
The article references an “undisciplined” business. I wonder if this is speaking to projects like Sora. Sora is technically impressive and was fun for a moment, but it’s nowhere near the cultural relevance of TikTok, but I believe significantly more expensive, harder to monetize, and consuming some significant share of their precious GPU capacity. Maybe I’m just not the demo and missing something.
And yes, Sam is incredibly unlikable. Every time I see him give an interview, I am shocked how poorly prepared he is. Not to mention his “ads are distasteful, but I love my supercar and ridiculous sunglasses.”
Idk about this news specifically but oracle cds prices are moving. The below link says 30k layoffs may hit Oracle which I feel is a bit hyperbolic so this article may not be grounded in reality.
I would love it if AI fizzled out and nvidia had to go back to making gaming cards. Just trying to have a simple life here and play video games, and ridiculous hype after hype keeps making it expensive.
Literally the whole economy has "over-raised its fundamentals" though. Not everyone is going to fail in exactly this way, but (again, pretty much literally) everyone is exposed to a feedback-driven crash from "everyone else" that ended up too exposed.
We all know this is a speculative run-up. We all know it'll end somehow. Crashes always start with something like this. Is this the tipping point? Damned if I know. But it'll come.
Important for what? Google and anthropic's models are already better, and google actually makes money, and both are US companies. What strategic relevance is there to Open AI?
Unrelated: does anyone else think that Jensen's gatorskin leather jacket at their latest conference didn't suit him at all? It felt very "witness my wealth" and out of character.
