> I wanted to avoid saying it, but there are obvious SD usecases which the typical commercial interests would rather avoid. There are also many more use cases

> I wanted to avoid saying it, but there are obvious SD usecases which the typical commercial interests would rather avoid. There are also many more use cases that don't fall into these categories. My point still stands: SD is a prime example for what happens when a desirable OSS technology becomes competitive in quality and is then tinkered with by a near limitless amount of creative and talented developers. > to keep a stranglehold given the way it's going currently. > Which shows moats have more reason than technical comparisons. This isn't office software, there is no "we always used X" factor since the technology is still in its early phase, and my thoughts about interactions with "user data" in the LLM space, have been outlined above. Again: Strangleholds, moats, whatever we want to call it, only work if there is a competitive advantage that the competition cannot reach itself. So far, that's better model performance and ease of use. The former gap is shrinking with every week, the latter will resolve itself the same way it did for SD once the performance is good enough. When that happens, OSS solutions are the ones with advantages that cannot be easily imitated: They run on premises, only cost utilities, can work offline, and can be endlessly tinkered with and improved upon by a near limitless talent pool. But, as has been said before, much remains to be seen, and there are many unknown factors that will influence the outcome. Therefore I thank you for the discussion. I look forward to seeing the next developments in this tech, and I'm confident that we're going to see OSS being as successful in the LLM space as it is in most areas of computing.