OpenAI 与 Anthropic 战略执行层对比：为何 Anthropic 执行更稳

Ever wonder why Anthropic execution is so smooth, whereas OpenAI execution has always been a shit show?

• from model naming: the bizarre naming mess between GPT 4 and GPT 5, even till today.
• to coding harness: codex mode, work mode, chat mode, the chat that cannot be accessed by work mode, the work that cannot be accessed by chat mode, the chat that cannot be seen on the web or other devices... and so on.
• to release schedule, usage limits and resets: Astra is too expensive, 6.0 Sol is not Sol level, usage limits are tighten both explicitly and implicitly, the resets are used as a trick to hide usage issues and divert users' complaints.
• to the model quality itself: OpenAI coding models have always been a step behind Anthropic equivalents, and the latest 6.1 Sol is a level under Opus 5.5.
• to the rumor that OpenAI took a sneak peek at users' chat history to stole some ideas for famous problems and the messed up cover up after that.

All that while Anthropic execution seems much more principled and actually having a plan.

I think the difference is in their high-level executive personnel. All current leaders of OpenAI do not have a background in traditional advanced science research. They are entrepreneurs and software engineers, the audacious "tech bros". Whereas current leaders of Anthropic do have serious background in traditional advanced sciences, including Amodei in biophysics and pioneering RLHF/alignment research; Kaplan in theoretical physics and expert in scaling laws. This translates to a messed-up approach in OpenAI strategy and a principled approach in Anthropic strategy.

Realizing this problem, I am gathering evidences and reasons to make a final switch to Claude subscription in this month. I know it coincides with the promised "improvement plan" by OpenAI, so let's see if they can deliver any meaningful changes, but I think the root cause is too big to change now.