In an era of opaque AI models, traditional contractual lock-ins are failing. The new retention moat is trust, which requires radical transparency about data sources, AI methodologies, and performance limitations. Customers will not pay long-term for "black box" risks they cannot understand or mitigate.

AI labs may initially conceal a model's "chain of thought" for safety. However, when competitors reveal this internal reasoning and users prefer it, market dynamics force others to follow suit, demonstrating how competition can compel companies to abandon safety measures for a competitive edge.

The current trend toward closed, proprietary AI systems is a misguided and ultimately ineffective strategy. Ideas and talent circulate regardless of corporate walls. True, defensible innovation is fostered by openness and the rapid exchange of research, not by secrecy.

Fears of a single AI company achieving runaway dominance are proving unfounded, as the number of frontier models has tripled in a year. Newcomers can use techniques like synthetic data generation to effectively "drink the milkshake" of incumbents, reverse-engineering their intelligence at lower costs.

The choice between open and closed-source AI is not just technical but strategic. For startups, feeding proprietary data to a closed-source provider like OpenAI, which competes across many verticals, creates long-term risk. Open-source models offer "strategic autonomy" and prevent dependency on a potential future rival.

The "golden era" of big tech AI labs publishing open research is over. As firms realize the immense value of their proprietary models and talent, they are becoming as secretive as trading firms. The culture is shifting toward protecting IP, with top AI researchers even discussing non-competes, once a hallmark of finance.

A common misconception is that Chinese AI is fully open-source. The reality is they are often "open-weight," meaning training parameters (weights) are shared, but the underlying code and proprietary datasets are not. This provides a competitive advantage by enabling adoption while maintaining some control.

Despite billions in funding, large AI models face a difficult path to profitability. The immense training cost is undercut by competitors creating similar models for a fraction of the price and, more critically, the ability for others to reverse-engineer and extract the weights from existing models, eroding any competitive moat.

As algorithms become more widespread, the key differentiator for leading AI labs is their exclusive access to vast, private data sets. XAI has Twitter, Google has YouTube, and OpenAI has user conversations, creating unique training advantages that are nearly impossible for others to replicate.