I fact-checked the “AI Moats are Dead” Substack article. It was AI-generated and got its own facts wrong.
A Substack post by Farida Khalaf argues AI models have no moat, using the Clawbot/OpenClaw story as proof. The core thesis — models are interchangeable commodities — is correct. I build on top of LLMs and have swapped models three times with minimal impact on results. But the article itself is clearly AI-generated, and it's full of errors that prove the opposite of what the author intended. The video: The article includes a 7-second animated explainer. Pause it and you find Anthropic spelled as "Fathropic," Claude as "Clac#," OpenAI as "OpenAll," and a notepad reading "Cluly fol Slopball!" The article's own $300B valuation claim shows up as "$30B" in the video. There's no way the author watched this before publishing... The timeline is fabricated: The article claims OpenAI "panic-shipped" ...
