[jslezak]

Exactly. He has a dishonest and predictable schtick. We need skeptics for any industry, but he is just grifting in an ecological niche as a knee-jerk reactionary. There is near-zero value to anything he writes or says in that role

[adamtaylor_13]

Yet nothing he wrote in that article was wrong. Schtick or not, if you read the article, it's all true. OpenAI has no moat, they have no killer app; this was a huge PR blunder for them.

A business that burns money at the rate OpenAI does, without any clear path to profitability, will eventually die.

[kiratp]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a moat is in this industry.

If GPT 4.5 had nothing of value to offer other than a flex of opening eyes ability to scale, it’s still a signal that they have the chops to throw the most amount of compute at the upcoming reinforcement learning race.

If you’re actually selling enterprise solutions in this space, you’ll quickly learn that a large number of Enterprises have their own private deployment of open AI on Azure and are pushing their vendors to use that even if it means they get lower quality outputs for certain use cases.

Data and model quality aren’t the only moat-able features.

[slowmovintarget]

Except... it's not.

This is a clear signal that the people remaining to run the show at OpenAI may not actually know what they're doing. The big names building the technology have fled from Altman's power grab. They all have startups of their own.

Meanwhile, the people at Anthropic keep making Claude better and better. No bombast, just tech. And then there's the model not on the list of many of these shoot-outs: Grok 3. That one has scale, and it's actually good.

"We can sorta kinda also make a big AI!" is not the message you want to be sending. It has to clobber the other "main" models out there.