Increasingly, we're also seeing the moat shrink somewhat. Frontier models are converging in performance (and I bet even Mythos will get matched) and harnesses are improving too across the board (OpenCode and Codex for example).

I get why they're trying to do that (a perception of a moat bloats the IPO price) but I have little faith there's any real moat at all (especially as competitors are still flush with cash).

No matter what, common people are quickly losing agency in that discussion.

This feels a bit like a strawman. How do you assess it to be bad software without being an engineer yourself? What constitutes successful for you?

If anything, AI tools have revealed that a lot of people have hubris about building software. With non-engineers believing they're creating successful work without realizing it's a facade of a solution that's a ticking time bomb.

The reality is avoiding a ground operation was probably the wrong move at this point (ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not)

It's really hard to truly guarantee surface to air capabilities are gone when you're relying purely on sat images + aerial surveillance (and obviously this carries risk). Iran has fairly portable SAM systems that are public knowledge.

Avoiding working in deeply unethical areas also shields the company from legal or PR liability.

This is a REALLY hard problem that the US cannot solve alone. It would require extensive global coordination.

Not insurmountable, but this is not something you can easily roll out piecemeal. If even a single aircraft lacks the compatible equipment you're back to the existing system.

This is using hardwired weights with on-die SRAM used for K/V for example. It's WAY more power efficient and faster. The tradeoff being it's hardwired.

Still, most frontier models are "good enough" where an obscenely fast version would be a major seller.

Money and only money talks nowadays. It's sad.