Why on earth would any third party continue to use Anthropic’s offerings to manage their AI needs? They clearly are going to cannibalize any profitable integrator.
Because they're not spying on your meetings or your code to do it -- it happens regardless, if they take the time.
Also, because anyone who's worried about their company getting out competeted by Anthropic hasn't looked up anyway, so you can't expect much in regards to their longterm strategy. That's "iPhone Moment" thinking; completely insufficient for the gravity of 2027.
Anthropic have thrown a lot at the wall and yet they’re still not leading in any software, even Claude Code has been usurped by endless examples of third-party harnesses / editors / IDEs. Anthropic continue to prove that deep expertise + obsession when building software leads to better products.
I kinda don't see how that's relevant? Anthropic doesn't need Granola or any other such tool to be using Claude in order for Anthropic to know that it's a product worth copying. But I guess my point then pushes things towards "Anthropic is able to copy you even if you don't use their service", which could be said for any AI lab. Just look at Muse following the hype around Grok Bot or Instinct. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find more examples.
> Why on earth would any third party continue to use Anthropic’s offerings to manage their AI needs? They clearly are going to cannibalize any profitable integrator.
Because their competitors will. In other words company A wants to get there faster than a company B in the same market. If there are no competitors and it's monopoly and it's only company A vs Anthropic, then yeah they should think twice perhaps before sending their code to Anthropic (or anyone else like that).
So short term you need to use their products to keep up with competitors, but longer term they effectively replace your companies ability to prove a value add.
Seems like its lose-lose. But theres no alternative in the short term for you.
I know that companies are selling data of how there white-collar worked to AI for a lot of money. The founder gets the money, but whilst he thinks he’s replacing his employees he might be also replacing his company.
I don’t know how this all plays out. FWIW I’ve turned off the data usage agreement and probs everybody should and be a bit more closed generally :/.
Everyone knows your rug pull kind of failed by missing the IPO target 40% short. Just stop it with these half baked product releases no one cares about and fix Claude Code.
It's going to be very tempting to give tool access to these agents because that is the main way they become useful, but the security model of that is challenging. Every day users will have a hard time understanding the security risk of decisions.
Surprised otter and others are partnering. This looks like a shot across the bow for them.
Most orgs dropped them when AI got infused in the meeting apps themselves I thought
Slightly off-topic: How do yo feel Opus 5.5 can be even better. Like with Fable 5.2 it’s tough to notice the difference in my line of work and what mattered to my business I’m not even sure Fable was better.
I then ended up with the question, what more could i wish for from a model? I feel like all coding work is done now. I couldnt come up with more stuff to do. L
A model that does even fewer Claude-isms (Opus 5 was horrible for that, 5.5 is better), can also read the room better (if I ask it to write some delivery docs it still sometimes overshares internal details rather than sticking with the format and style of the previous 20 versions even after AGENTS.md tells it not to vomit internal implementation details there, though honestly something like Sol 6.1 was even worse and couldn’t even follow the Markdown template properly some days, inventing new sections) and also would have increasingly better capabilities - 3D modelling is still subpar, reasoning about images still misses details (e.g. while working on texturing fails to notice a red colored band due to bad unwrapping) and also wouldn’t get unnecessarily held back, like reverse engineering software to realize why it doesn’t work or their overall opposition to REA. Aside from that, maybe also not Claude slop UI styling with those fucking disgusting punchy short sentence labels everywhere and also oversharing details nobody cares about.
The big plan to not let this happen is being implemented by the biggest. The only thing left is to buy out every company that will try to e.g. make memory or faster local NPUs.
We will have terminals, not capable of any bigger work and majority of people will always choose faster alternative, even slightly worse. And outside of IT and the richest - no one cares about privacy or data processing details.
It felt humbling to be releasing a BYOK meeting Zoom app that does something very close to this on the same day they announced it! But I like our spin on it better. https://getqoral.com/bwat
What is the state of "voice-print" recognition? At what length is it meaningful biometric data?
As meetings increasingly get passed through LLMs, it seems like any of these companies can just keep a voice-print vector for matching on anyone they've ever heard.
Most voices are pretty recognizable, but I don't know if this is a one in a million thing, or a one in ten thousand.
Already has been for a couple years or more. Almost every vendor at this point is recording calls and doing AI transcriptions via Zoom or Teams or whatnot.
Notes takes by Zoom already was such a positive change that this one will be welcome much more, because this already could start implementation, not only spit out text about what was said and is then pasted to Claude.
One less step to be made by expensive and difficult to work with - people - and passed the tasks to (now) cheaper model that always nods in agreement.
47 comments
[ 0.33 ms ] story [ 62.7 ms ] threadIf you don't like it, then for God's sake, don't fight AI. Nothing else will ever save you from having to work for a living.
Will external contacts join calls with their own Claudes?
Are Claudes going to switch to a non speech audio protocol when humans leave the channel?
Are they going to communicate with ultrasound when humans are present?
Also, because anyone who's worried about their company getting out competeted by Anthropic hasn't looked up anyway, so you can't expect much in regards to their longterm strategy. That's "iPhone Moment" thinking; completely insufficient for the gravity of 2027.
Because their competitors will. In other words company A wants to get there faster than a company B in the same market. If there are no competitors and it's monopoly and it's only company A vs Anthropic, then yeah they should think twice perhaps before sending their code to Anthropic (or anyone else like that).
Seems like its lose-lose. But theres no alternative in the short term for you.
I don’t know how this all plays out. FWIW I’ve turned off the data usage agreement and probs everybody should and be a bit more closed generally :/.
Wiring an LLM into elevenlabs and having it sit amidst humans sending each other voice memos is great. I don't need a closed-source solution for that.
We do it here:
https://magenta.cryptograss.live/
I then ended up with the question, what more could i wish for from a model? I feel like all coding work is done now. I couldnt come up with more stuff to do. L
As meetings increasingly get passed through LLMs, it seems like any of these companies can just keep a voice-print vector for matching on anyone they've ever heard.
Most voices are pretty recognizable, but I don't know if this is a one in a million thing, or a one in ten thousand.
This ship has long since sailed.