Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

At this point, the entire AI industry seems to just copy OpenAI for the most part. I cannot help but notice that we have the same services just offered by different companies. The amount of innovation in this build is not that high actually.


> At this point, the entire AI industry seems to just copy OpenAI for the most part

Well, OpenAI copied the Deep Research feature from Google. They even used the same name (as does Mistral).


Where does Perplexity sit in this race? I was aware of their "deep research" first, but that doesn't mean it was.

They've recently removed (limited) use of it from the free plan, so I guess it was costing more than they were making from paid subscribers


Weird that you're being downvoted for stating a fact.

All of the major labs are innovating and copying one another.

Anthropic has all of the other labs trying to come up with an "agentic" protocol of their own. They also seem to be way ahead on interpretability research

Deepseek came up with multi-headed latent attention, and publishing an open-source model that's huge and SOTA.

Deepmind's way ahead on world models

...


They are not the same service. There is A LOT of difference between offerings if you actually use the models for daily tasks like coding.


It really depends on what you're working on and what was included in the training data of the model you used. From a model architecture point of view, they're basically all the same, the main difference lies in the training data.


Also not true. Even the API surface differs


API is irrelevant. It's like saying that talking to John via Telegram or WhatsApp is like talking to a different person.


I agree here a fair bit, not that I'm an expert or anything. I'd like to see some progress on some of the neuronal modelling. It seems since 'attention is all you need' they've locked into this LLM stack and gluing up models as data pipelines rather than integrating different NN's on a deeper level.


Whole world is now building stuff on top of `f(input: string): string` function - they're going to be similar.


That's what a healthy competition in the free market looks like. Things like Apple that "stay innovative" for decades are aberration caused by monopolistic gatekeeping.


They often copied others but because Apple is more popular they got the fame for „their“ innovation.


> Things like Apple are aberration.

This used to be a good example of innovation that is hard to copy. But it doesn't apply anymore for two reasons:

1. Apple went from being an agile, pro-developers, creative company to an Oracle-style old-board milking-cow company; not much innovation is happening at Apple anymore.

2. To their surprise, much of what they call "innovative" is actually pretty easy to replicate on other platforms. It took 4 hours for Flutter folks to re-create Liquid Glass...


> This used to be a good example of innovation that is hard to copy.

Steve Jobs did say they "patented the hell out of [the iPhone]" and went about saber-rattling, then came the patent wars which proved that Apple also rely on innovation by others, and that patent workarounds would still result in competitive products, and things calmed down afterwards.


It’s basically everywhere the same technology. Maybe a difference in training data and computing power.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: