It's becoming increasingly clear that there is no moat on models. The winners will be the ones who have existing products and ecosystems they can tie AI in to. You will pay adobe for credits because that will be the only AI that works in Photoshop, you will pay microsoft because only theirs will work on your microsoft cloud apps.

Open AI has nothing. Their tech will rapidly be devalued by free models the moment they stop lighting stacks of cash on fire.

I kind of agree with you at this point. When ChatGPT was rapidly gaining popularity I thought that they will eventually replace search (esp. for shopping), which would have given them a huge ad revenue. Maybe they could have even tried social networking e.g., to help you sort out the huge flow of information that today's social networks are and get to the important/rewarding/whatever posts. But now ChatGPT is kind of getting commoditized. I would even dare say that gemini feels to me a bit better now, so the search route for ChatGPT is clearly gone.

> OpenAI is handling 15% of US traffic.

The parent post was arguing that they can do this now because they are lighting stacks of cash on fire. And once they stop doing that, their LLM lead will be gone in a hurry. They appear to not have a moat, like other more established players do.

15% of US internet traffic just with text (and a few images)? I doubt it.

Counterpoint: Apple's opportunity to invest in GPGPU architectures was ~2017 when Apple Silicon was in it's design stages. Apple always knew they were surrendering a large market segment by depreciating CUDA and OpenCL, they just never knew how big the market segment would get. Their liquid cash is wasted mid-bubble, and waiting for it to pop is not a realistic timeline anymore.

Arguably, Apple isn't even in a boat right now. At least AMD and Intel both ship hardware that synergizes with CUDA - Apple jumped off that ship, their hardware doesn't even come up in infrastructure discussions where AMD, Intel and Nvidia are taken for granted.