7 ms·

Platforms usually deliver significant value that is hard to replicate. OpenAI doesn't have any such thing. It's trivially replaced, and there's many competitors

Platforms usually deliver significant value that is hard to replicate. OpenAI doesn't have any such thing. It's trivially replaced, and there's many competitors already. OpenAI is ahead of the curve, but they don't seem to have any particular way to do sticky capture. Migrating to a different LLM is an afternoon's work at most, not nearly the complexity of porting an app between OS' or creating a robust hardware driver model.

barrenko 1y ago
You could say the same thing about Facebook...
- wahnfrieden 1y ago
  Not at all, because it is not easy to replicate and move its social graph
- pixl97 1y ago
  I mean, technically no, FB has a network effect of the other people on it either being the people you want to talk to, or the people you want to advertise to.
- warkdarrior 1y ago
  FB has network effects (your friends/neighbors/etc are there). When I use ChatGPT, I don't care whether anyone else uses it as well.
- chmod775 1y ago
  You mean the social network that is currently dying the same death as countless other platforms before it, just on a larger scale? Maybe some are too young to remember the great migrations from/to MySpace, MSN, ICQ, AIM, Skype, local alternatives like StudiVZ, ..., where people used to keep in contact with friends. Facebook was just the latest and largest platform where people kept in touch and expressed themselves in some way. People adding each other on Facebook before others to keep in touch hasn't been a thing for 5 years. It's Instagram, Discord, and WhatsApp nowadays depending on your social circle (two of which Meta wisely bought because they saw the writing on the wall). If I open Facebook nowadays, then out of ~130 people I used to keep in touch with through that platform, pretty much nobody is still doing anything on there. The only sign of life will be some people showing as online because they've the facebook app installed to use direct messaging. No, people easily migrate between these platforms. All it takes is put your new handles (discord ID/phone number/etc) as a sticky so people know where to find you. And especially children will always use whichever platform their parents don't. Small caveat: This is a German perspective. I don't doubt there's some countries where Facebook is still doing well.
  - nextworddev 1y ago
    Last time I checked 99% of normies are still happily scrolling FB and Instagram
    - cmrdporcupine 1y ago
      FB in particular is becoming deader and deader every month, and it's only a matter of time before something else comes along that sucks their attention away.
      - nextworddev 1y ago
        The beauty of Meta is that they can just fake engagement metrics. Not defending them, just knowing that they do
  - nemothekid 1y ago
    >No, people easily migrate between these platforms. No? It's rare for these platforms to survive, the one that was closest to challenging Facebook was kneecapped by the US government. The time between the founding of MySpace to Facebook was a little over a year. Instagram has been the largest social network for close to decade now, and it's not like others haven't been trying. META is up 600% over last 3 years. I'm really question your definition of the word "dying"
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    meta made over 60 billion dollars last year. The idea that it is dying is lunacy
- yc349833874923 1y ago
  People say you're wrong but I agree. Facebook is nothing more than a rent-seeking middle man between you and your friends/family. Instead of just talking to your family normally, like over the phone, now you have to talk to them in between mountains of Sponsored Content and AI-generated propaganda. It provides no productive value to the world except for making the world more annoying and making people more isolated from one another. When you realize this, you realize that a lot of other supposedly valuable tech companies operate in the exact same way. Worrying that our parents' retirement depends heavily on their valuations!
  - Karrot_Kream 1y ago
    > Worrying that our parents' retirement depends heavily on their valuations! Maybe you should short the stock to hedge your parents' retirement :)
jorblumesea 1y ago
they understand that, and that's why they're making it sticky by adding in app purchasing, advertising, integrations. also why they hired OGs from IG/FB. They are building the moat and hoping that first to market is going to work out.
- dantyti 1y ago
  I do not believe that advertising and purchasing is at the top of the list of things what make software sticky
  - jorblumesea 1y ago
    they are trying to become/replace google. they are first to market for an entirely new query paradigm and in app purchases and advertising are just one aspect of a platform.
wahnfrieden 1y ago
That's why they're working on consumer hardware
- an0malous 1y ago
  And business partnerships, government partnerships, and AI regulation (to establish laws that keep competitors out). Sam knows they have no moat and will try every avenue to establish one. As Peter Thiel says: “competition is for losers”
Mistletoe 1y ago
I actually prefer Google Gemini. 2.5 is free and works awesome for what I need AI for. It just made my resume I uploaded immeasurably better last night. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bard/comments/1mkj4zi/chatgpt_pro_gpt5_vs_gemini_proflash_pro/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bard/comments/1mkj4zi/chatgpt_pro_g...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mallowdram 1y ago
That's a precise, incisive observation: OpenAI is trivial (any AI provider is), supported by evidence as demonstrated. It has no claim to operating software that's specifically distinct from others.
yubblegum 1y ago
> Migrating to a different LLM is an afternoon's work at most, not nearly the complexity of porting an app between OS' or creating a robust hardware driver model. I question this. Each vendor's offering has its own peculiar prompt quirks, does it not? Theoretically, switching RDBMS vendors (say Ora to Ingress) was also "an afernoon's work" but it never happened. The minutia is sticky with these sort of almost-but-not 'universal' interfaces.
- mgh95 1y ago
  > I question this. Each vendor's offering has its own peculiar prompt quirks, does it not? Theoretically, switching RDBMS vendors (say oracle to postgres) was also "an afernoon's work" but it never happened. The minutia is sticky with these sort of almost-but-not 'universal' interfaces. The bigger problem is that there was never a way to move data between oracle->postgres in pure data form (i.e. point pgsql at your oracle folder and it "just works"). Migration is always a pain, and thus there is a substantial degree of stickiness, due to the cost of moving databases both in terms of risk and effort. In contrast, vendors [1] are literally offering third party LLMS (such as claude) in addition to their own and offering one-click switching. This means users can try and if they desire switch with little friction. [1] https://blog.jetbrains.com/ai/2025/09/introducing-claude-agent-in-jetbrains-ides/ https://blog.jetbrains.com/ai/2025/09/introducing-claude-age...
  - gretch 1y ago
    The current LLMs support data export/import inherently because the interface is pure text. All one needs to do is say something like “tell me all of personalization factors you have on me” and then just copy and paste that into the next LLM with “here’s stuff you should know about how to personalize output for me”
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - RussianCow 1y ago
    Moreover, it's trivial to run several LLMs side-by-side for a while and measure the success of each, then migrate to the one that performs the best. And you can even migrate in-progress chats since all the context is passed on each call anyway.
llmslave 1y ago
They only invented modern AI, can easily be replaced!!
- kllrnohj 1y ago
  They did nothing of the sort. Google invented modern AI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need OpenAI turned that research into a product before Google, which is a huge failure on Google's part, but that's orthogonal to the invention of what powers modern models.
threetonesun 1y ago
The play OpenAI is making has nothing to do with the underlying models any more. They release good ones but it doesn't really matter, they're going for being the place people land when they open a web browser. That is incredibly sticky and not easily replaced. Being the company that replaces the phrase "oh just Google it" is worth half the money in the world, and I think they're well on their way to getting there.
- kllrnohj 1y ago
  But that also makes them the product itself and requires standalone profitability which is not at all like the Windows' analogy being presented.
  - threetonesun 1y ago
    I agree, in general. I don't know what the world looks like in 10 years if all of the weird attempts at fitting an LLM as a replacement to what we have currently actually works, however. Facebook is probably the closest analogy, where there's plenty of room to grow, but at some point you're going to have the OS builders shut down your efforts unless you want to build your own OS.
- scottyah 1y ago
  I do say ChatGPT when referring to LLMs/genAI in general, but I do hate saying it as it is nowhere near as nice to say as "google". I will switch immediately once something better comes up.
  - wilsonnb3 1y ago
    “Chat” is already in the youth lexicon, originally referring to an amorphous blob of live stream viewers. It now kind of refers to a non-existent but omnipresent viewer of your life. I think ChatGPT might turn into just “chat” as the next evolution of the term.
aerhardt 1y ago
Yeah, I'm extremely loyal to ChatGPT Plus and Codex, but is't because OpenAI has a native Mac app that I like, and Codex included with Plus and has served me well enough to not look at Claude. I like GPT-5 quite a bit as a user. I'll concede none of these are small things - they've had my money for 2+ years - but they're not gigantic advantages either. At an enterprise level however, in the current workload I am dealing with, I can't get GPT-5 with high thinking to yield acceptable results; Gemini 2.5 Pro is crushing it in my tests. Things are changing fast, and OpenAI seems to be the most dynamic player in terms of productization, but I'm still failing to see the moat.
- Insanity 1y ago
  I don’t think they will get any moat. I might be wrong on this of course, but I don’t see a killer feature for these stochastic parrots that can’t be easily replicated
  - ebb_earl_co 1y ago
    > … stochastic parrots… What a wonderful phrase, mind if I borrow it?
    - airstrike 1y ago
      It's commonly used at this point, for what it's worth
    - cmrdporcupine 1y ago
      "the term stochastic parrot is a metaphor, introduced by Emily M. Bender and colleagues in a 2021 paper, that frames large language models as systems that statistically mimic text without real understanding" https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      Never mind the phrase. If your parrot can compete in international math and programming competitions at the gold-medal level and make entire subreddits fail the Turing test, I would like to borrow your parrot.
pants2 1y ago
Much of the value I get from ChatGPT is based on it's memory system that has a good profile on me. For example if I ask it to find me something to eat at X restaurant, it will already know my allergies, dietary preferences, weight goals, medications, other foods I like, etc and suggest an item based on that, all workout me explicitly telling it. Moving from ChatGPT to Claude I would lose a lot of this valuable history.
- Fuzzwah 1y ago
  I like to ask each llm what it knows about me. I feel like I could take that output and feed it into another llm and the new one would be up to speed quickly....
- cool_dude85 1y ago
  Or you could type up "My allergies are X, Y, Z, I have the following preferences..." etc. and put it into whatever chat bot you like. Obviously this is a bit of a pain, but it probably constrains significantly how much of a premium ChatGPT can charge. You might not bother if ChatGPT is time and a half more expensive, but what if it's 3x as much as the competition? What if there's a free alternative that's just as good?
  - pants2 1y ago
    I pay for the $200/mo ChatGPT, to me that's insanely cheap compared to the value it provides. Better pricing is highly unlikely to make me switch. If a competitor were able to sustain a lead in model intelligence/capability then I'd consider it.
  - sumedh 1y ago
    > Or you could type up "My allergies are X, Y, Z, I have the following preferences..." Why use a car when you can just walk?
    - nbngeorcjhe 1y ago
      tbh most americans could do with walking more
yen223 1y ago
A lot of the points also apply to Google as a search engine, yet we're still seeing Google owning about 90% of search engine usage.
- BeetleB 1y ago
  Google search requires a lot of resources to crawl, keep indices up to date, and provide user level significance (i.e. different results to different users). Then couple it with their other services (Google Maps, etc). The competitors have not come even close to Google's level of quality. With LLMs, it's different. Gemini/Claude are as good, for the most part. And users don't care that much either - most use the standard free ChatGPT, which likely is worse than many competitors' paid models.
  - psychoslave 1y ago
    It's not just the quality. The are people who do complain about how they perceive it significantly decreased over time. Yet there are many other factors, including presence as default search engine in so many setup out there.
- kllrnohj 1y ago
  Google is a product not a platform. How many companies are still using Google search for their intranets? (yes yes I'm old, don't remind me) Meanwhile bing search is actually a platform, and is what then powers other "search engines" (duckduckgo, kagi, etc...)
- Andrex 1y ago
  Google was always terrified by the fact that they had no moat in Search. This was clear from interviews and articles at the time. That's why they decided to roll up the ad market instead, and once they had the advertisers Search became a self-fulfilling monopoly. Google Search would be moatless if not for the AdMob purchase.
ryukoposting 1y ago
OpenAI's moat is the data you give it. It's the same reason so many people have GMail accounts, even though we all know Google sucks. It's not that you like GMail better than any other email service, it's because migrating to another service is a pain in the ass. OpenAI will either use customer data to enshittify to a level never seen before, or they will go insolvent.
DebtDeflation 1y ago
That's why OpenAI is hard pivoting towards products now. The big one IMO is Instant Checkout and Agentic Commerce Protocol. ChatGPT is going to turn into a product recommendation engine and OpenAI is going to get a slice of every purchase, which is going to disrupt the current impression/click adtech model and potentially Google and Amazon themselves. It's an open question how hard they can do this without enshittifying ChatGPT itself, but we'll see.
- int_19h 1y ago
  The notion that people would be willing to let LLMs spend money is, frankly, insane given the hallucination problems that still don't have any clear solution in sight.
djmips 1y ago
Was windows hard to replicate? Not really.

barrenko 1y ago

You could say the same thing about Facebook...

wahnfrieden 1y ago
Not at all, because it is not easy to replicate and move its social graph
pixl97 1y ago
I mean, technically no, FB has a network effect of the other people on it either being the people you want to talk to, or the people you want to advertise to.
warkdarrior 1y ago
FB has network effects (your friends/neighbors/etc are there). When I use ChatGPT, I don't care whether anyone else uses it as well.
chmod775 1y ago
You mean the social network that is currently dying the same death as countless other platforms before it, just on a larger scale? Maybe some are too young to remember the great migrations from/to MySpace, MSN, ICQ, AIM, Skype, local alternatives like StudiVZ, ..., where people used to keep in contact with friends. Facebook was just the latest and largest platform where people kept in touch and expressed themselves in some way. People adding each other on Facebook before others to keep in touch hasn't been a thing for 5 years. It's Instagram, Discord, and WhatsApp nowadays depending on your social circle (two of which Meta wisely bought because they saw the writing on the wall). If I open Facebook nowadays, then out of ~130 people I used to keep in touch with through that platform, pretty much nobody is still doing anything on there. The only sign of life will be some people showing as online because they've the facebook app installed to use direct messaging. No, people easily migrate between these platforms. All it takes is put your new handles (discord ID/phone number/etc) as a sticky so people know where to find you. And especially children will always use whichever platform their parents don't. Small caveat: This is a German perspective. I don't doubt there's some countries where Facebook is still doing well.
- nextworddev 1y ago
  Last time I checked 99% of normies are still happily scrolling FB and Instagram
  - cmrdporcupine 1y ago
    FB in particular is becoming deader and deader every month, and it's only a matter of time before something else comes along that sucks their attention away.
    - nextworddev 1y ago
      The beauty of Meta is that they can just fake engagement metrics. Not defending them, just knowing that they do
- nemothekid 1y ago
  >No, people easily migrate between these platforms. No? It's rare for these platforms to survive, the one that was closest to challenging Facebook was kneecapped by the US government. The time between the founding of MySpace to Facebook was a little over a year. Instagram has been the largest social network for close to decade now, and it's not like others haven't been trying. META is up 600% over last 3 years. I'm really question your definition of the word "dying"
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  meta made over 60 billion dollars last year. The idea that it is dying is lunacy
yc349833874923 1y ago
People say you're wrong but I agree. Facebook is nothing more than a rent-seeking middle man between you and your friends/family. Instead of just talking to your family normally, like over the phone, now you have to talk to them in between mountains of Sponsored Content and AI-generated propaganda. It provides no productive value to the world except for making the world more annoying and making people more isolated from one another. When you realize this, you realize that a lot of other supposedly valuable tech companies operate in the exact same way. Worrying that our parents' retirement depends heavily on their valuations!
- Karrot_Kream 1y ago
  > Worrying that our parents' retirement depends heavily on their valuations! Maybe you should short the stock to hedge your parents' retirement :)

jorblumesea 1y ago

they understand that, and that's why they're making it sticky by adding in app purchasing, advertising, integrations. also why they hired OGs from IG/FB. They are building the moat and hoping that first to market is going to work out.

dantyti 1y ago
I do not believe that advertising and purchasing is at the top of the list of things what make software sticky
- jorblumesea 1y ago
  they are trying to become/replace google. they are first to market for an entirely new query paradigm and in app purchases and advertising are just one aspect of a platform.

wahnfrieden 1y ago

That's why they're working on consumer hardware

an0malous 1y ago
And business partnerships, government partnerships, and AI regulation (to establish laws that keep competitors out). Sam knows they have no moat and will try every avenue to establish one. As Peter Thiel says: “competition is for losers”

Mistletoe 1y ago

I actually prefer Google Gemini. 2.5 is free and works awesome for what I need AI for. It just made my resume I uploaded immeasurably better last night. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bard/comments/1mkj4zi/chatgpt_pro_gpt5_vs_gemini_proflash_pro/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bard/comments/1mkj4zi/chatgpt_pro_g...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

mallowdram 1y ago

That's a precise, incisive observation: OpenAI is trivial (any AI provider is), supported by evidence as demonstrated. It has no claim to operating software that's specifically distinct from others.

yubblegum 1y ago

> Migrating to a different LLM is an afternoon's work at most, not nearly the complexity of porting an app between OS' or creating a robust hardware driver model. I question this. Each vendor's offering has its own peculiar prompt quirks, does it not? Theoretically, switching RDBMS vendors (say Ora to Ingress) was also "an afernoon's work" but it never happened. The minutia is sticky with these sort of almost-but-not 'universal' interfaces.

mgh95 1y ago
> I question this. Each vendor's offering has its own peculiar prompt quirks, does it not? Theoretically, switching RDBMS vendors (say oracle to postgres) was also "an afernoon's work" but it never happened. The minutia is sticky with these sort of almost-but-not 'universal' interfaces. The bigger problem is that there was never a way to move data between oracle->postgres in pure data form (i.e. point pgsql at your oracle folder and it "just works"). Migration is always a pain, and thus there is a substantial degree of stickiness, due to the cost of moving databases both in terms of risk and effort. In contrast, vendors [1] are literally offering third party LLMS (such as claude) in addition to their own and offering one-click switching. This means users can try and if they desire switch with little friction. [1] https://blog.jetbrains.com/ai/2025/09/introducing-claude-agent-in-jetbrains-ides/ https://blog.jetbrains.com/ai/2025/09/introducing-claude-age...
- gretch 1y ago
  The current LLMs support data export/import inherently because the interface is pure text. All one needs to do is say something like “tell me all of personalization factors you have on me” and then just copy and paste that into the next LLM with “here’s stuff you should know about how to personalize output for me”
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- RussianCow 1y ago
  Moreover, it's trivial to run several LLMs side-by-side for a while and measure the success of each, then migrate to the one that performs the best. And you can even migrate in-progress chats since all the context is passed on each call anyway.

llmslave 1y ago

They only invented modern AI, can easily be replaced!!

kllrnohj 1y ago
They did nothing of the sort. Google invented modern AI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need OpenAI turned that research into a product before Google, which is a huge failure on Google's part, but that's orthogonal to the invention of what powers modern models.

threetonesun 1y ago

The play OpenAI is making has nothing to do with the underlying models any more. They release good ones but it doesn't really matter, they're going for being the place people land when they open a web browser. That is incredibly sticky and not easily replaced. Being the company that replaces the phrase "oh just Google it" is worth half the money in the world, and I think they're well on their way to getting there.

kllrnohj 1y ago
But that also makes them the product itself and requires standalone profitability which is not at all like the Windows' analogy being presented.
- threetonesun 1y ago
  I agree, in general. I don't know what the world looks like in 10 years if all of the weird attempts at fitting an LLM as a replacement to what we have currently actually works, however. Facebook is probably the closest analogy, where there's plenty of room to grow, but at some point you're going to have the OS builders shut down your efforts unless you want to build your own OS.
scottyah 1y ago
I do say ChatGPT when referring to LLMs/genAI in general, but I do hate saying it as it is nowhere near as nice to say as "google". I will switch immediately once something better comes up.
- wilsonnb3 1y ago
  “Chat” is already in the youth lexicon, originally referring to an amorphous blob of live stream viewers. It now kind of refers to a non-existent but omnipresent viewer of your life. I think ChatGPT might turn into just “chat” as the next evolution of the term.

aerhardt 1y ago

Yeah, I'm extremely loyal to ChatGPT Plus and Codex, but is't because OpenAI has a native Mac app that I like, and Codex included with Plus and has served me well enough to not look at Claude. I like GPT-5 quite a bit as a user. I'll concede none of these are small things - they've had my money for 2+ years - but they're not gigantic advantages either. At an enterprise level however, in the current workload I am dealing with, I can't get GPT-5 with high thinking to yield acceptable results; Gemini 2.5 Pro is crushing it in my tests. Things are changing fast, and OpenAI seems to be the most dynamic player in terms of productization, but I'm still failing to see the moat.

Insanity 1y ago
I don’t think they will get any moat. I might be wrong on this of course, but I don’t see a killer feature for these stochastic parrots that can’t be easily replicated
- ebb_earl_co 1y ago
  > … stochastic parrots… What a wonderful phrase, mind if I borrow it?
  - airstrike 1y ago
    It's commonly used at this point, for what it's worth
  - cmrdporcupine 1y ago
    "the term stochastic parrot is a metaphor, introduced by Emily M. Bender and colleagues in a 2021 paper, that frames large language models as systems that statistically mimic text without real understanding" https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    Never mind the phrase. If your parrot can compete in international math and programming competitions at the gold-medal level and make entire subreddits fail the Turing test, I would like to borrow your parrot.

pants2 1y ago

Much of the value I get from ChatGPT is based on it's memory system that has a good profile on me. For example if I ask it to find me something to eat at X restaurant, it will already know my allergies, dietary preferences, weight goals, medications, other foods I like, etc and suggest an item based on that, all workout me explicitly telling it. Moving from ChatGPT to Claude I would lose a lot of this valuable history.

Fuzzwah 1y ago
I like to ask each llm what it knows about me. I feel like I could take that output and feed it into another llm and the new one would be up to speed quickly....
cool_dude85 1y ago
Or you could type up "My allergies are X, Y, Z, I have the following preferences..." etc. and put it into whatever chat bot you like. Obviously this is a bit of a pain, but it probably constrains significantly how much of a premium ChatGPT can charge. You might not bother if ChatGPT is time and a half more expensive, but what if it's 3x as much as the competition? What if there's a free alternative that's just as good?
- pants2 1y ago
  I pay for the $200/mo ChatGPT, to me that's insanely cheap compared to the value it provides. Better pricing is highly unlikely to make me switch. If a competitor were able to sustain a lead in model intelligence/capability then I'd consider it.
- sumedh 1y ago
  > Or you could type up "My allergies are X, Y, Z, I have the following preferences..." Why use a car when you can just walk?
  - nbngeorcjhe 1y ago
    tbh most americans could do with walking more

yen223 1y ago

A lot of the points also apply to Google as a search engine, yet we're still seeing Google owning about 90% of search engine usage.

BeetleB 1y ago
Google search requires a lot of resources to crawl, keep indices up to date, and provide user level significance (i.e. different results to different users). Then couple it with their other services (Google Maps, etc). The competitors have not come even close to Google's level of quality. With LLMs, it's different. Gemini/Claude are as good, for the most part. And users don't care that much either - most use the standard free ChatGPT, which likely is worse than many competitors' paid models.
- psychoslave 1y ago
  It's not just the quality. The are people who do complain about how they perceive it significantly decreased over time. Yet there are many other factors, including presence as default search engine in so many setup out there.
kllrnohj 1y ago
Google is a product not a platform. How many companies are still using Google search for their intranets? (yes yes I'm old, don't remind me) Meanwhile bing search is actually a platform, and is what then powers other "search engines" (duckduckgo, kagi, etc...)
Andrex 1y ago
Google was always terrified by the fact that they had no moat in Search. This was clear from interviews and articles at the time. That's why they decided to roll up the ad market instead, and once they had the advertisers Search became a self-fulfilling monopoly. Google Search would be moatless if not for the AdMob purchase.

ryukoposting 1y ago

OpenAI's moat is the data you give it. It's the same reason so many people have GMail accounts, even though we all know Google sucks. It's not that you like GMail better than any other email service, it's because migrating to another service is a pain in the ass. OpenAI will either use customer data to enshittify to a level never seen before, or they will go insolvent.

DebtDeflation 1y ago

That's why OpenAI is hard pivoting towards products now. The big one IMO is Instant Checkout and Agentic Commerce Protocol. ChatGPT is going to turn into a product recommendation engine and OpenAI is going to get a slice of every purchase, which is going to disrupt the current impression/click adtech model and potentially Google and Amazon themselves. It's an open question how hard they can do this without enshittifying ChatGPT itself, but we'll see.

int_19h 1y ago
The notion that people would be willing to let LLMs spend money is, frankly, insane given the hallucination problems that still don't have any clear solution in sight.

djmips 1y ago

Was windows hard to replicate? Not really.