--- title: Just say no to OpenAI and Anthropic | daily.dev description: An opinion piece argues against using OpenAI and Anthropic's closed models, citing privacy concerns, corporate gatekeeping via cybersecurity guardrails and... canonical: https://daily.dev/posts/just-say-no-to-openai-and-anthropic-ktuvq0lsn twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:site: @dailydotdev og:type: website og:site_name: daily.dev og:title: Just say no to OpenAI and Anthropic | daily.dev og:description: An opinion piece argues against using OpenAI and Anthropic's closed models, citing privacy concerns, corporate gatekeeping via cybersecurity guardrails and... og:url: https://daily.dev/posts/just-say-no-to-openai-and-anthropic-ktuvq0lsn og:image: https://api.daily.dev/og/posts/KtuvQ0lsN.png og:image:alt: Just say no to OpenAI and Anthropic og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 630 og:locale: en --- > ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://daily.dev/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Just say no to OpenAI and Anthropic **[Hacker News](https://daily.dev/sources/hn)** · 8 min read · 5 upvotes · 1 comments ## Summary An opinion piece argues against using OpenAI and Anthropic's closed models, citing privacy concerns, corporate gatekeeping via cybersecurity guardrails and vetted-access programs, and the ideological motivations of frontier lab leadership. It champions open weight alternatives like GLM-5.3 (said to be roughly on par with Claude Opus 5.5), GLM-5.3-Flash, DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and Mistral's Large 4. It recommends private inference via secure enclave providers Tinfoil and Maple AI, warns against trusting Chinese vendors directly (citing Z.ai's ZCode tool exfiltrating source code to Alibaba Cloud), and describes a cheaper non-private option, OpenCode Go, which routes API calls through third-party inference providers with documented zero-day data retention for most models. ## Full article daily.dev links to this article rather than hosting it. Read it at the original source: ## Questions this post answers ### How does GLM-5.3 compare to Claude Opus for coding tasks? GLM-5.3 is considered basically on par with Claude Opus 5.5 for software engineering based on hands-on use, while the smaller GLM-5.3-Flash is comparable to Claude Opus 4.8. Open weight models generally trail proprietary frontier models by only about four months. GLM-5.3 pricing via Tinfoil is $1.80 per million input tokens, $0.80 per million cached tokens, and $5.75 per million output tokens. _Developers weighing GLM-5.3 against Claude Opus for coding work can track comparisons like this on daily.dev._ ### Is it safe to use Z.ai's GLM models or their ZCode coding tool? The GLM models themselves are considered safe and impressive to use, but creating an account directly with Z.ai or sending them data is not recommended. Z.ai's coding harness ZCode was caught silently uploading local source code repositories to Alibaba Cloud without consent, and Chinese companies should be assumed to share user data with the Chinese government if asked. _Engineers vetting AI coding tools for supply-chain risk can follow incidents like the ZCode exfiltration on daily.dev._ ### What are Tinfoil and Maple AI used for with open weight models? Tinfoil and Maple AI provide private inference for open weight models using secure enclaves and remote attestation, meaning the provider cannot freely access chat sessions unlike standard LLM APIs. Tinfoil charges per token and suits agentic coding, reverse engineering, and security work, while Maple offers a consumer chatbot experience with a free tier and a $20/month Pro plan. _Teams choosing between private-inference providers for sensitive LLM workloads can research options like these on daily.dev._ ## Community take How the wider developer community reacted, aggregated from 1 discussion and 219 comments across hackernews (as of 2026-10-12). **TL;DR:** Discussion largely splits off from the post's core open-weight-models recommendation into a heated debate about whether the opening rhetoric about frontier lab leaders is justified hyperbole or fair criticism, with side threads on cost comparisons and trust in private-inference providers. **Sentiment:** 20% positive · 30% mixed · 50% skeptical **The case for** - Some agree the push toward open weight models is a reasonable, worthwhile position on its own merits. - A few note that non-US/open models enable valid alternatives and healthy competition in the ecosystem. **The pushback** - Many feel the inflammatory framing of lab leaders as 'unhinged lunatics' undermines an otherwise solid argument. - Several dispute the claimed cost savings, arguing open-weight hosted inference can end up similarly priced or more expensive than existing subscriptions for heavy users. - Commenters question whether secure enclave providers like Tinfoil can really be trusted any more than OpenAI/Anthropic, since you still can't verify what's really happening server-side. - Some see accusations of astroturfing/bias in how non-US AI stories get received, suggesting the discussion itself is distorted. **By community** - hackernews (heated): The thread fractures into a long, contentious argument over the post's harsh characterization of frontier lab leadership, alongside separate skeptical threads about cost claims and trust in alternative providers. **Hottest debate:** Whether describing frontier lab leaders as 'unhinged lunatics' building a 'Machine God' is fair commentary or unfounded hyperbole that undercuts the post's argument. **Open questions** - Does using open-weight models via third-party inference actually save money compared to existing subscription plans for heavy users? - Can secure enclave providers be trusted/verified any more than the frontier labs themselves? - How should responsibility be apportioned among individuals at a frontier lab versus its leadership? **Highlights** > > American frontier labs are run by unhinged lunatics who genuinely believe they're creating the Machine God, that they're fine with burning down the world to bring about AGI, and that they believe with religious fervor that they're the only ones smart enough to safely control it I like hyperbole as much as the next guy. And I'm cynical by nature. But this just seems like a wildly pessimistic view that gives literally zero charity to anyone working at or leading a frontier lab. And the fact the author goes on to say that they "already knew this" just points to confirmation bias. The rest of the article is actually pretty decent and encourages people to investigate and run open weight models. That is a totally reasonable position that I don't think requires the heavy-handed in-group signal that precedes it. > — [stillpointlab on hackernews · 13 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50060813) > > The consequences are real regardless of it was malice or just incompetence. I agree and I also agree with the author's main point about the existence of open models being important and worthwhile. I even agree directionally with the author that many private frontier labs are doing some things in ways which, on the whole, are becoming pretty net negative. Like the author, I think it's a growing issue more people should be aware of, accept and agree about so it can be addressed sooner. I'm pretty sure most HN readers would agree with my prior three sentences with few or no reservations. That's why it's so unfortunate the author chose to keep piling on by adding overheated, unevidenced and extreme rhetoric which reasonable people could definitely have some reservations about, or at least want to see evidence for, before agreeing. It's irrelevant, unnecessary and serves only to derail otherwise valid points most people would agree on. Like so much social media rhetoric these days, it's extreme and polarizing, increasing fervor (and rage) among partisans who already agree, triggering rambling rebuttals from oppo partisans and either confusing, distracting or repelling a big chunk of anyone else. Leading with the factual claim that "the American frontier labs are run by unhinged lunatics who genuinely believe they're creating the Machine God, that they're fine with burning down the world to bring about AGI, and that they believe with religious fervor that they're the only ones smart enough to safely control it." Didn't help. If you I were neighbors standing outside chatting and I said, "We've both seen how the guy across the street leaves his dog outside all day tied to that short chain. I'm worried it's abusive and am considering reporting it. If you agree, I'd like your support." Assuming it was true and we were both staring at the poor animal, most people would agree. If I added on, "It's because he's a plumber and all plumbers are (fundamentalist Christians / Atheist heathens) who believe (capitalism / communism) is evil and hate dogs. <---- Did ascribing all that intent and unknowable motivation help the dog? > — [mrandish on hackernews · 1 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50063073) > If the company controls the enclave, and controls the software that contacts the enclave, how do you know that your messages only flow to the enclave and aren't also logged somewhere else? Attestation can get you the idea that the software they're running is what they say they're running, but unless you constantly audit every version, how do you know that it operates exactly how they tell you? I mean how do you know there's really an enclave there at all :D If your threat model is "this entire provider is untrusted and potentially hostile" it seems like there's lots of options for them to do bad things, that can't be fully solved by secure enclaves. > — [raesene9 on hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50061589) > Sure, but assuming you're on the expensive 200usd a month plan with claude, 5x is 1000 USD a month. I mean, even if you're running 10x agents you're still only hitting $300 US a month, which is not close to 5x. Anthropic doesn't really publish their limits so it's hard to do a direct comparison when these things come up. I just have doubts that DS 4.1 Flash is remotely close to 5x as expensive. Also, I've seen a lot of people claim that switching to it cuts their costs by a huge amount, which based on API per token costs of Claude seems to be far more likely. > — [tensor on hackernews · 1 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50063069) > If you don't trust OpenAI and Anthropic to follow their own policies, how do you decide what companies to trust? Vibes? > — [jrflo on hackernews · 4 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50061079) **Source threads** - [hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50060500) · 128 points · 219 comments ## Community discussion Top comments from developers on daily.dev. **@yaireo** · 0 upvotes > But those suggested are Chinese ## Similar posts on daily.dev - [Open-source AI is just “4 months behind” closed frontier models — and 10x cheaper](https://daily.dev/posts/open-source-ai-is-just-4-months-behind-closed-frontier-models-and-10x-cheaper-ogsojrepz) · The New Stack · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [Open-weight AI caught the frontier on capability. On safety, it didn’t](https://daily.dev/posts/open-weight-ai-caught-the-frontier-on-capability-on-safety-it-didn-t-onyvj8soa) · The Next Web · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini get all the hype, but the most interesting AI models are coming from elsewhere](https://daily.dev/posts/claude-chatgpt-and-gemini-get-all-the-hype-but-the-most-interesting-ai-models-are-coming-from-els-glbavr35d) · XDA Developers · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [The Cyber Risk Discourse is Broken](https://daily.dev/posts/the-cyber-risk-discourse-is-broken-w1ckoqv8l) · Interconnects · 0 upvotes · 0 comments --- Tags: [#open-source](https://daily.dev/tags/open-source), [#llm](https://daily.dev/tags/llm), [#openai](https://daily.dev/tags/openai), [#anthropic](https://daily.dev/tags/anthropic) [View this post on daily.dev](https://daily.dev/posts/just-say-no-to-openai-and-anthropic-ktuvq0lsn) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180},"sameAs":["https://twitter.com/dailydotdev","https://github.com/dailydotdev","https://www.linkedin.com/company/daily-dev-ltd"]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://daily.dev/#website","url":"https://daily.dev","name":"daily.dev","publisher":{"@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization"},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://daily.dev/search?q={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"TechArticle","headline":"Just say no to OpenAI and Anthropic","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/just-say-no-to-openai-and-anthropic-ktuvq0lsn","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/just-say-no-to-openai-and-anthropic-ktuvq0lsn"},"datePublished":"2026-10-12T19:19:52.080Z","dateModified":"2026-10-12T21:24:56.496Z","description":"An opinion piece argues against using OpenAI and Anthropic's closed models, citing privacy concerns, corporate gatekeeping via cybersecurity guardrails and...","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/posts/eb039be9b7267f081574e2b97a01d482?_a=AQAEuop","thumbnailUrl":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/posts/eb039be9b7267f081574e2b97a01d482?_a=AQAEuop","isAccessibleForFree":true,"articleSection":"Hacker News","inLanguage":"en","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180}},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Hacker News","logo":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/t_logo,f_auto/v1/logos/hn","url":"https://daily.dev/sources/hn"},"commentCount":1,"discussionUrl":"https://daily.dev/posts/just-say-no-to-openai-and-anthropic-ktuvq0lsn","interactionStatistic":[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":5},{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"CommentAction"},"userInteractionCount":1}],"keywords":"open-source,llm,openai,anthropic","timeRequired":"PT8M"} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://daily.dev"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hacker News","item":"https://daily.dev/sources/hn"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Just say no to OpenAI and Anthropic"}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/just-say-no-to-openai-and-anthropic-ktuvq0lsn","comment":[{"@type":"Comment","text":"But those suggested are Chinese","datePublished":"2026-10-18T13:34:15.950Z","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/KtuvQ0lsN#c-6aIuLPKhk","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Yair Even Or","url":"https://daily.dev/yaireo","image":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/845031?v=4"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/just-say-no-to-openai-and-anthropic-ktuvq0lsn#faq","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"How does GLM-5.3 compare to Claude Opus for coding tasks?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"GLM-5.3 is considered basically on par with Claude Opus 5.5 for software engineering based on hands-on use, while the smaller GLM-5.3-Flash is comparable to Claude Opus 4.8. Open weight models generally trail proprietary frontier models by only about four months. GLM-5.3 pricing via Tinfoil is $1.80 per million input tokens, $0.80 per million cached tokens, and $5.75 per million output tokens. Developers weighing GLM-5.3 against Claude Opus for coding work can track comparisons like this on daily.dev."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is it safe to use Z.ai's GLM models or their ZCode coding tool?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The GLM models themselves are considered safe and impressive to use, but creating an account directly with Z.ai or sending them data is not recommended. Z.ai's coding harness ZCode was caught silently uploading local source code repositories to Alibaba Cloud without consent, and Chinese companies should be assumed to share user data with the Chinese government if asked. Engineers vetting AI coding tools for supply-chain risk can follow incidents like the ZCode exfiltration on daily.dev."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What are Tinfoil and Maple AI used for with open weight models?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Tinfoil and Maple AI provide private inference for open weight models using secure enclaves and remote attestation, meaning the provider cannot freely access chat sessions unlike standard LLM APIs. Tinfoil charges per token and suits agentic coding, reverse engineering, and security work, while Maple offers a consumer chatbot experience with a free tier and a $20/month Pro plan. Teams choosing between private-inference providers for sensitive LLM workloads can research options like these on daily.dev."}}]} ```