[Lyapunov_Lover]

> The evidence shows that there is no methodological moat for LLMS.

Does it? Then how come Meta hasn't been able to release a SOTA model? It's not for a lack of trying. Or compute. And it's not like DeepSeek had access to vastly more compute than other Chinese AI companies. Alibaba and Baidu have been working on AI for a long time and have way more money and compute, but they haven't been able to do what DeepSeek did.

[postexitus]

They may not have been leading (as in, releasing a SOTA model), but they definitely can match others - easily, as shown by llama 3/4, which proves the point - there is no moat. With enough money and resources, you can match others. Whether without SOTA models you can make a business out of it is a different question.

[Lyapunov_Lover]

Meta never matched the competition with their Llama models. They've never even come close. And Llama 4 was an actual disaster.

[postexitus]

I am not a daily user, so only rely on reviews and benchmarks - actual experience may be different.

[YetAnotherNick]

Even in reviews and benchmark, Llama wasn't close to frontier models. Also Llama 2/3 lead in open weight models wasn't more than few months.

[ath3nd]

> but they definitely can match others - easily, as shown by llama 3/4

Are we living in the same universe? LLAMA is universally recognized as one of the worst and least successful model releases. I am almost certain you haven't ever tried a LLAMA chat, because, by the beard of Thor, it's the worst experience anyone could ever had, with any LLM.

LLAMA 4 (behemoth, whatever, whatever) is an absolute steaming pile of trash, not even close to ChatGPT 4o/4/5/, Gemini(any) and even not even close to cheaper ones like DeepSeek. And to think Meta pirated torrents to train it...

What a bunch of criminal losers and what a bunch of waste of money, time and compute. Oh, at least the Metaverse is a success...

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/court-documents-show...

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/27/the-metaverse-as-we-knew-it-...