Considering how fast competitors caught up to them, I'm not convinced that OpenAI was years ahead. LLMs and transformers were known technology, it's just that OpenAI accidentally productized it before others did (ChatGPT). This is not an advantage measured in years. Google, for example, could have caught up to them pretty easily (they invented the transformer architecture), I think it mostly came down to mismanagement that they flopped so hard with Bard. The biggest cost was high quality data, Google certainly had that, and a budget for huge training runs. I really don't think OpenAI had any special sauce that made them years ahead.
One confounder here is that LLM scaling has started to hit diminished returns recently, no more GPT3 -> GPT4/o1 jumps in recent times, making it easier to catch up to the SOTA.
That schism within the OpenAI leadership was ugly. And Sam Altman does seem to be a bit snakey to me. But I have no illusions about any company in this space, including Antropic. None of these companies are moral, given what data these models are trained on.
> their competitors caught up and then passed them by
The different models are more capable in different aspects, but they are close enough together that only in a few months they leapfrog each other.
> OpenAI is floundering and can't sustain their own burn rate. Their competitors are thriving.
Google is thriving, sure, but not because of Gemini, it's because of their existing ads business. I would not say that about Anthropic, they seem to be struggling to provide enough compute (with the recent usage limit changes). Hard to know whats happening funding wise in these companies. Saying that their competitors are thriving is a stretch. And again, if the AI bubble pops, Antropic is gonna hurt along with OpenAI. Just not clear to what extent.
Their competitors caught up after about 3 years though. Gemini 2.5 was more or less awful vs even GPT 3/4. Models have more than one measure of quality so they don't cleanly totally order, but Gemini 2.5 was awful. Gemini 3.1 is better than GPT 5.3 and competitive with 5.4 and preceded it by months.
Considering how fast competitors caught up to them, I'm not convinced that OpenAI was years ahead. LLMs and transformers were known technology, it's just that OpenAI accidentally productized it before others did (ChatGPT). This is not an advantage measured in years. Google, for example, could have caught up to them pretty easily (they invented the transformer architecture), I think it mostly came down to mismanagement that they flopped so hard with Bard. The biggest cost was high quality data, Google certainly had that, and a budget for huge training runs. I really don't think OpenAI had any special sauce that made them years ahead.
One confounder here is that LLM scaling has started to hit diminished returns recently, no more GPT3 -> GPT4/o1 jumps in recent times, making it easier to catch up to the SOTA.
That schism within the OpenAI leadership was ugly. And Sam Altman does seem to be a bit snakey to me. But I have no illusions about any company in this space, including Antropic. None of these companies are moral, given what data these models are trained on.
> their competitors caught up and then passed them by
The different models are more capable in different aspects, but they are close enough together that only in a few months they leapfrog each other.
> OpenAI is floundering and can't sustain their own burn rate. Their competitors are thriving.
Google is thriving, sure, but not because of Gemini, it's because of their existing ads business. I would not say that about Anthropic, they seem to be struggling to provide enough compute (with the recent usage limit changes). Hard to know whats happening funding wise in these companies. Saying that their competitors are thriving is a stretch. And again, if the AI bubble pops, Antropic is gonna hurt along with OpenAI. Just not clear to what extent.