8 ms·

So, a supposedly trillion dollar worth, about to IPO company thinks their moat is a specifically named Markdown file.

by moezd 28d ago

vrighter 28d ago
just the filename. The contents of the file are unstructured, besides being markdown
- brookst 27d ago
  But the semantic meaning can be agent-specific. For instance, my Claude.md files have things like “never present multiple questions in walls of text, use `AskUserQuestion` with clear tradeoffs described”
  - vrighter 27d ago
    it is still just an unstructured file
embedding-shape 28d ago
Making your tool less compatible with the rest of the ecosystem at large not only makes it harder to move to your tool, but also harder to move away from your tool. Given these AI labs basically have no moat, seems they're trying to hold on to every little piece they can do make it harder to move away, even if it's a really tiny and marginal feature, like specifically titled file on disk... Kind of embarrassing overall, but I guess they make so much money no people there have any shame left to feel.
- xienze 27d ago
  > Making your tool less compatible with the rest of the ecosystem at large not only makes it harder to move to your tool, but also harder to move away from your tool. That's true but this is really not something that's a barrier to switching, just an annoyance for users. All it takes is a rename/symlink/reference whatever from the user's perspective. If it required a lot of rearchitecting on Anthropic's side or it was a _lot_ harder for users to adapt to I'd understand them standing their ground on this issue. But neither of those are true, it's just pettiness.
  - embedding-shape 27d ago
    Depends on how you use these harnesses, I don't interact with any of them directly for example, but have my own harness around them, mostly so I can collect all the different ones under one "roof". With that, comes certain expectations of where things live. Anything that has "CC uses file path X" for example would require refactoring/changes, compared to other agents. Contrived example, but sometimes it's more than just "mv AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md".
- OJFord 27d ago
  It's not a moat, or much of a barrier because you can literally just rename it, but it is 'good' marketing/branding. People talking about CLAUDE.md is much better for Anthropic than people talking about AGENTS.md.
austin-cheney 28d ago
Why do people continue to use the word “moat” only in context of AI companies?
- girvo 28d ago
  I don’t think that’s true? I’ve been here quite a while now and it goes back a long long time in the startup world
- deleted 28d ago
  [deleted]
smoe 27d ago
I think it’s more branding than moat. Free advertising if every vibe coded repo on GitHub has a CLAUDE.md at the root. And its probably also to make people think there’s something special about Claude.

So, a supposedly trillion dollar worth, about to IPO company thinks their moat is a specifically named Markdown file.

by moezd 28d ago

So, a supposedly trillion dollar worth, about to IPO company thinks their moat is a specifically named Markdown file.

vrighter 28d ago

just the filename. The contents of the file are unstructured, besides being markdown

brookst 27d ago
But the semantic meaning can be agent-specific. For instance, my Claude.md files have things like “never present multiple questions in walls of text, use `AskUserQuestion` with clear tradeoffs described”
- vrighter 27d ago
  it is still just an unstructured file

embedding-shape 28d ago

Making your tool less compatible with the rest of the ecosystem at large not only makes it harder to move to your tool, but also harder to move away from your tool. Given these AI labs basically have no moat, seems they're trying to hold on to every little piece they can do make it harder to move away, even if it's a really tiny and marginal feature, like specifically titled file on disk... Kind of embarrassing overall, but I guess they make so much money no people there have any shame left to feel.

xienze 27d ago
> Making your tool less compatible with the rest of the ecosystem at large not only makes it harder to move to your tool, but also harder to move away from your tool. That's true but this is really not something that's a barrier to switching, just an annoyance for users. All it takes is a rename/symlink/reference whatever from the user's perspective. If it required a lot of rearchitecting on Anthropic's side or it was a _lot_ harder for users to adapt to I'd understand them standing their ground on this issue. But neither of those are true, it's just pettiness.
- embedding-shape 27d ago
  Depends on how you use these harnesses, I don't interact with any of them directly for example, but have my own harness around them, mostly so I can collect all the different ones under one "roof". With that, comes certain expectations of where things live. Anything that has "CC uses file path X" for example would require refactoring/changes, compared to other agents. Contrived example, but sometimes it's more than just "mv AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md".
OJFord 27d ago
It's not a moat, or much of a barrier because you can literally just rename it, but it is 'good' marketing/branding. People talking about CLAUDE.md is much better for Anthropic than people talking about AGENTS.md.

austin-cheney 28d ago

Why do people continue to use the word “moat” only in context of AI companies?

girvo 28d ago
I don’t think that’s true? I’ve been here quite a while now and it goes back a long long time in the startup world
deleted 28d ago
[deleted]

smoe 27d ago

I think it’s more branding than moat. Free advertising if every vibe coded repo on GitHub has a CLAUDE.md at the root. And its probably also to make people think there’s something special about Claude.