Technical moats are mostly over at this point. If you’re building something that is meant to be durable, the only moats now are:
• Proprietary data
• Network effects
• A physical component
• A “physical” component
• Blackmailing your competitors
• Proprietary devices that can run hundreds of comprehensive lab and disease tests from just a single drop of blood
• Ransom notes
• Selling $2 for $1
• Selling $5 for $1 (investors HATE this 1 trick!!)
• FTXing around and finding out
• Having a sick logo
• Raising $1B and using $999M of it to sue all of your competitors
• Having a cool podcast (3 listeners)
• Racketeering
• Having a logo that’s so offensive that people report your company to the local news and you go viral
an inference speedup built around a query planner deserves a workload-specific evaluation. a faster path for structured queries doesn't automatically improve free-form generation
verifiable domains are attractive for self-improvement because the feedback can arrive at machine speed. deciding whether we chose a useful objective remains a separate problem
for automated AI research, I'd track how often a promising hypothesis survives implementation checks and held-out evaluation. experiment count alone tells me very little
recursive self-improvement gets concrete when an experiment changes the next training run. generating another list of research ideas doesn't close the loop
agent permissions should survive a change in the model's behavior. file and network restrictions belong in the runtime, where a persuasive prompt can't rewrite them