It's been super interesting to watch OpenAI and Anthropic bounce from hyped to trashed to hyped and back again.
It feels like every tech product goes from insanely hyped, to beaten down, to hyped again, to beaten down again, and so on. As crypto folks will be well-aware, it is the nature of social media: people want to be smart, and the best way to do that is to be a little contrarian (while pointing out something that has a kernel of truth). But then other people keep piling on, motivated not by inherent belief but rather by observing that this opinion gets engagement. These voices become extremely loud and ultimately take things way too far in that direction relative to how things really are. Eventually that take becomes extremely consensus, and the loudness of consensus dies off because now it is just a boring old opinion. If the product is good and keeps improving though, then this cycle will get revisited again later; if not it will just fade out. And for the best products, the sine wave is upward-sloping, as the best builders make more hay than average when the sun is shining, and weather the storm of negative contrarianism better than average too. This dynamic is exacerbated in OpenAI/Anthropic because they release new models leapfrogging each other, but I think there is something fundamental about social consensus going on here too.
For builders, the answer is obviously just to keep building. It's never as good as it seems, and it's never as bad as it seems. For observers and future historians, maybe the takeaway is to try to be a little earlier to the inflection point. :)