I heard the no moat theory before and I don't get it. The open source models are about a year or two behind the latest ChatGPT in terms of quality. That means companies will always be willing to pay premium to use ChatGPT and not rely on open source. So even if/when Google and Apple (and perhaps Meta) catch up in terms of A.I quality, there's still so much money to be made for OpenAI. One interesting by product of late game capitalism like this is as more and more jobs get destroyed due to A.I, so will subscriptions. So it might be a mixed bag in the end for the tech giants if there's no real economy to buy the products anymore, but we're a long way from there.

I think no moat vs moat is a false dichotomy. They have a moat (better researchers and data) and are about to make it even better (network effects).

It was on researcher's opinion at a competing company, and everyone treated it as fact.

Yeah, this is something I've been saying as well. Their true "moat" is their network of people who know and understand how to know use their tech.

It’s the “we will make this so easy for you that you never want to switch” moat. Definitely akin to Slack, which also has the integration glue to keep you on their platform. Even though there are many Slack alternatives now that are really great, most companies on Slack will opt to stay there rather than invest in migrating.