[ai-x]

This is saying we have hundreds of open source OSes and Windows will never be a monopoly.

Software always gets monopoly simply by usage. Every time a model gets used by esoteric use cases, it gets more training data (that a decentralized open weight model doesn't get) and it starts developing its moat.

[Barrin92]

>This is saying we have hundreds of open source OSes

we don't, we have about 3 operating systems that have the decades of hardware and software compatibility that makes them widely usable. They're the most complex and complicated things we've built. LLMs are a few thousand lines of python hooked up to a power plant and graphics cards. This is the least defensible piece of software there ever has been.

[nl]

It's more like saying AWS has a monopoly on virtual machine hosting.

(For those unaware, AWS doesn't have a VM monopoly, and the market dynamics seem similar)

[illiac786]

I think windows has historical monopoly.

They bundled it with PC hw and the vast majority of apps only ever got published for windows, and this over decades (one would argue it’s still true).

The starting point for LLMs is very different. Who would publish today a software that only integrates with chatGPT? Only a small minority.

Thus I agree, I struggle to see how a monopoly can exist here. A GPU monopoly or duopoly though, perhaps.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Software always gets monopoly simply by usage

Most software isn't made by monopolies. More directly, enterprise-software stocks are getting hammered because AI offers them competition.

[kelipso]

It’ll be a bunch of tiny moats in that scenario. LLMs are way too generic, adaptable, flexible in how you use it to make a big most out of it.