This article says something that seems very false to me once you step outside of the developer sphere:
> Most LLM users seem willing to change from Chat-GPT to Claude, for example.
Talk to people who aren't engineers and it's all ChatGPT. Many don't even know about the concept of an LLM or a provider, just literally "ChatGPT". The South Park episode where they parody this stuff? They call it ChatGPT. The stuff students use every year to help with homework? ChatGPT. The website that "chat.com" redirects to? ChatGPT. And cai has cornered to market on horny/lonely male teens.
The moat here is the broader consciousness that a very very large population of people have adopted. Articles like this take something technical -- the cost of switching over to an LLM, which is cheap -- as an assumption that it will happen, without taking into account just how difficult it is to change social forces.
This doesn't mean ChatGPT will forever be what people use. Maybe it will fail spectacularly in a year. But it's OpenAI's game to lose here, not the other way around.
> Most LLM users seem willing to change from Chat-GPT to Claude, for example.
Talk to people who aren't engineers and it's all ChatGPT. Many don't even know about the concept of an LLM or a provider, just literally "ChatGPT". The South Park episode where they parody this stuff? They call it ChatGPT. The stuff students use every year to help with homework? ChatGPT. The website that "chat.com" redirects to? ChatGPT. And cai has cornered to market on horny/lonely male teens.
The moat here is the broader consciousness that a very very large population of people have adopted. Articles like this take something technical -- the cost of switching over to an LLM, which is cheap -- as an assumption that it will happen, without taking into account just how difficult it is to change social forces.
This doesn't mean ChatGPT will forever be what people use. Maybe it will fail spectacularly in a year. But it's OpenAI's game to lose here, not the other way around.