Anthropic desperately needs a product to differentiate itself it seems to me. Basic LLM foundation Models are getting commodotized fast and it seems there are diminishing returns setting in, despite what some of these CEOs say in podcasts.
I think they are too safety focused. Their recent emails explainging all the rules and disclosures in their terms of services I have to provide if I use their product and the far-left responses that I get from their LLM is something I would use personally, but not something I would use in a business product that I would deliver to customers by using their api.
When you’re trying to run a business, why get involved with vendor created headaches. It’s not competitive unless the LLM responses are way better.
I think it's very interesting to read the usage policy for the different systems and what's allowed and what isn't and it gives you an idea of what the different companies are really concerned about. I think anthropic has more requirements related to disclosure etc and is more of a hassle in general.
Can you give some examples? I wanted to test it, but first they wanted my email (okay), then they wanted my phone number and .. nope. So, I couldn't test Claude myself so far.
I found it was quoting the Jewish Voice for Peace when asked to explain the Israeli side of the current Palestine conflict and I had trouble getting it to take the Israeli side, while ChatGPT and Gemini were able to take either side easily. I can't find the history, because I use it from Raycast Ai unfortunately.
I asked it to identify the author of a book quote and it refused to do so due to copyright concerns. ChatGPT did it with no problems (and identified the author correctly).
I know it has been fashionable to have one, but why does a company truly need a Chief Product Officer anyway? Is it for creating revenue-generating ideas? Users essentially pay when they believe they receive immense value for their money. I don't think you need a CPO to tell you what will give users this value. You could just talk to the users or see their error logs if you don't already understand their pain. As I see it, the CPO role is just another parasitic prune-worthy role that delivers negative value because they keep piling on substandard new products at the expense of sacrificing the quality of existing products.
I'm speaking off the cuff but intuitively, like all roles, it obviously depends on the company and caliber of the person. What you are saying is kind of like, why does anyone need a CEO, employees generally know what to do. Maybe LEGO doesn't need a CPO because its a mature company with a brand and well defined product portfolio but a startup in a nascent technology needs someone with vision to design the experience and offering the company produces to meet customer needs.
Edit: Also, this is seemingly who would "talk to users" and talk to engineers looking at the "error logs" as well as many other touch points to determine an overarching strategy.
CPOs never ever look at any error logs. In fact, if anything, by always pushing for new products, they come in the way of stabilizing current offerings.
As I see it, the game of C*Os is to show they're driving change, but they bail with their golden parachute when the results of their changes turn out to be not so golden, and the company is made worse for having had them.
Anthropic desperately needs a product to differentiate itself it seems to me. Basic LLM foundation Models are getting commodotized fast and it seems there are diminishing returns setting in, despite what some of these CEOs say in podcasts.
I think they are too safety focused. Their recent emails explainging all the rules and disclosures in their terms of services I have to provide if I use their product and the far-left responses that I get from their LLM is something I would use personally, but not something I would use in a business product that I would deliver to customers by using their api.
When you’re trying to run a business, why get involved with vendor created headaches. It’s not competitive unless the LLM responses are way better.
On the other hand, being too safe might make them easier for business to adopt (you don't want your support bot touching certain subjects)
I think it's very interesting to read the usage policy for the different systems and what's allowed and what isn't and it gives you an idea of what the different companies are really concerned about. I think anthropic has more requirements related to disclosure etc and is more of a hassle in general.
https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies/ https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup
> far-left responses
Can you give some examples? I wanted to test it, but first they wanted my email (okay), then they wanted my phone number and .. nope. So, I couldn't test Claude myself so far.
I found it was quoting the Jewish Voice for Peace when asked to explain the Israeli side of the current Palestine conflict and I had trouble getting it to take the Israeli side, while ChatGPT and Gemini were able to take either side easily. I can't find the history, because I use it from Raycast Ai unfortunately.
I asked it to identify the author of a book quote and it refused to do so due to copyright concerns. ChatGPT did it with no problems (and identified the author correctly).
> far-left responses that I get from their LLM
Claude's an insufferable turd, but that isn't the flavor I've gotten from it. What exactly do you mean?
I know it has been fashionable to have one, but why does a company truly need a Chief Product Officer anyway? Is it for creating revenue-generating ideas? Users essentially pay when they believe they receive immense value for their money. I don't think you need a CPO to tell you what will give users this value. You could just talk to the users or see their error logs if you don't already understand their pain. As I see it, the CPO role is just another parasitic prune-worthy role that delivers negative value because they keep piling on substandard new products at the expense of sacrificing the quality of existing products.
I'm speaking off the cuff but intuitively, like all roles, it obviously depends on the company and caliber of the person. What you are saying is kind of like, why does anyone need a CEO, employees generally know what to do. Maybe LEGO doesn't need a CPO because its a mature company with a brand and well defined product portfolio but a startup in a nascent technology needs someone with vision to design the experience and offering the company produces to meet customer needs.
Edit: Also, this is seemingly who would "talk to users" and talk to engineers looking at the "error logs" as well as many other touch points to determine an overarching strategy.
CPOs never ever look at any error logs. In fact, if anything, by always pushing for new products, they come in the way of stabilizing current offerings.
As I see it, the game of C*Os is to show they're driving change, but they bail with their golden parachute when the results of their changes turn out to be not so golden, and the company is made worse for having had them.