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" ...




![Knowledge graph of the transformer paper lineage — from Attention Is All You Need to DPO, mapped as an interactive concept graph [generated from a CLI + 12 PDFs]](https://theai.report/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Knowledge-graph-of-the-transformer-paper-lineage--from-Attention-Is-All-You-Need-to-DPO-mapped-as-an-interactive-concept-graph-generated-from-a-CLI--12-PDFs-600x440.png)



