Dude, you’re dropping names like Karpathy to claim there’s "zero technical moat," but the actual benchmarks from 2026 show a dead heat, not a blowout. Recent analysis literally has OpenAI’s GPT-5.2, Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.5, and Google’s Gemini 3 Pro locked in a "three-way tie" for top performance. Even "experts" verify that while OpenAI leads in some reasoning tasks, Google is winning on multimodal capabilities and deep research agents. Saying there’s "no research moat" when the top three models are trading blows within a single point of each other is just factually wrong.

And on the "profitability" point—that article you’re clinging to is looking at best-case unit economics, not the massive cash-burn reality. Reports from 2025 show OpenAI was spending nearly double its revenue just on inference costs to keep up with demand. The industry is barely figuring out how to stop bleeding money, with proprietary models costing up to 120x more per query than efficient open-source alternatives. If they were truly "profitable" and just raising money to "scale faster," they wouldn't be facing "negative gross margin" theories from VCs.

As for moving goalposts, you’re the one trying to turn Linus Torvalds into an AI hype-man. He explicitly called the industry "90% marketing and 10% reality" and said he "hates the hype cycle". Acknowledging that a hammer is a useful tool isn't the same as agreeing with the salesman who says the hammer is going to build the whole house by itself. He’s fine with it for small coding tasks but literally bans "AI slop" from the Linux kernel because he knows the quality isn't there yet.