Just serving the model over API seems like a natural fit and is what many of them are doing. So simply being the cloud provider for your own open weight model can be a source of revenue

▲

charcircuit 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What is the moat? The time it takes for AI to rewrite an efficient inference stack for a new model? Considering most LLMs follow a similar architecture, adapting to a new model shouldn't take that much time.

	▲	InsideOutSanta 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There is no moat. At the moment, all of these companies are burning money to gain mindshare and market share. That's what Thinking Machines is doing; they're not looking for a business model.
	▲	dgellow 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Nobody in the LLM world has a moat, or even an actual business model
	▲	bellowsgulch an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't know why people keep saying there's no moat. There's no moat. Having a FUCK ton of money to train these gigantic fucking models and retain the brains to make it happen is a moat. You're not going to train one using a VPS from LowEndBox.

▲

dyauspitr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But so can everyone else. What’s the moat for spending all those billions. I understand the Chinese angle, they need to undermine American models as a matter of statecraft, but what is the business model here? It just seems like VC charity.

▲

kingleopold 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

use open models to gain marketing/users/attention and then go closed? maybe

▲

wyre an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are no moats. LLM's are a commodity. The point in spending all of the billions is to have strong domestic open-weight models.

One of the worst case scenarios regarding LLM's is monopoly control, so these billionaires know they need to invest in competition.

▲

3848488459 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	fragmede 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Mira Murati's success isn't because she's a woman.