99% of GPTs Lack Moats, thoughts on the GPTs Store

When I first saw the release of GPTs by OPENAI, I was thrilled because, as someone with no programming skills, I saw an opportunity to develop my own programs.

But soon after, I came across headlines like, “Less than two days post-OPENAI’s launch, over 2000 GPTs have gone live.”

This reminded me of the rise of Tiktok and YouTube, which significantly lowered the barriers to video content creation but, paradoxically, the comptition increased the pressure on creators. Your work might just be like a stone thrown into the ocean, barely making a ripple.

I guess that once the OPENAI GPTs Store officially launches, the number of GPTs will skyrocket past 20k in record time, and without additional promotion, users would only find your GPTs through search.

Moreover, even if your GPTs initially attract a lot of users, the next concern is where your GPTs’ moat lies… Firstly, prompts hardly constitute a moat, because no matter how complex your prompts are, you can’t prevent users from deducing them through conversations with your GPT.

Can uploaded materials serve as a moat? Perhaps, but the uniqueness, expertise, and rarity of the content must be exceptionally high. Your competitor is ChatGPT-4 itself, which was trained on the highest quality data across various fields. This means that a “Fitness Coach GPT” based on a wealth of fitness materials might not be superior to asking ChatGPT-4 directly.

Or if you develop a “Shakespearean Perspective GPT” using Shakespeare’s complete works, while it might provide better answers than ChatGPT-4, but it’s also easily replicable since your data is public. You can only create a GPT with long-term value if you have amassed a substantial amount of private data in a niche area.

So, at least for now, the GPTs Store doesn’t seem to be the sky for showing creativity but rather a testing ground for individuals and organizations that already possess quality private data.

looking forward to your discussion.

9 Likes

I can see prompt-only GPTs to be successful initially. Kind of like Tic-Tac-Toe games on the app store. Kind of like plugins on the (alphabetically-sorted LOL) plugin store. The initial ones were straight copy/pastes from online tutorials slapped with ads and subscriber-only features.

But people will find ways to extend their functionality using the toolsets given. This is where creativity, expertise and effort comes into play.

It could be that someone could compile a carefully processed dataset of Shakespeare knowledge that maybe GPT wasn’t trained on. They can also provide a “long-term memory” of creations using Actions. That would be their moat. But the moat shouldn’t be about GPT. GPT should be part of a business’ network of tools.

If I run a Fitness company I already have a plethora of documents that (should) work well with eachother. I should already have information on the user that’s communicating.

I can combine Actions and Retrieval together to have a very unique personalized workout for the user that I can track and modify over time. GPTs as a vehicle, back-end services as the driver. (Quick fun thought: Daily 12-hour high score charts of miles ran that can be requested at anytime, or other member’s suggestions about places to run in New York)

I can technically create an “anonymous” account for someone who uses my GPT (I believe) and if they’re ready to sign up for premium, convert it on the spot.

So low-effort, prompt-only GPTs will be a gimmick. If someone wants a prompt-only GPT they will prompt it themselves to reflect what they want, not what some random person thinks that they want.

If GPTs become commonly used as personalized assistants then it becomes obvious that GPTs which can harmonize all the functionalities and have powerful back-end support will be the shining stars.

A consumer can switch from their Schedule Assistant, to Workout Assistant, to Cooking Assistant on the same app within a single tap. All three of these assistants almost require some sort of back-end service to really be magical.

4 Likes

I talked about a similar topic recently on my show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__0smuR6HLA&t=1381s). I developed a plugin that has been live in the plugin store for months. It was an interesting exercise and certainly fun to make (It’s the ‘I am rich’ plugin) but without a way to monetize a plugin, I’m not sure what motivation there is for developers to make plugins. Then OpenAI released GPT-4 vision, then turbo and how many plugins did that render obsolete? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they are working on the monetization issue when it comes to motivation, but what happens when developers work to create GPTs that are then rendered obsolete in a matter of months by the next iteration of the foundation model? I don’t think this is necessarily an issue of developers only creating thin wrappers, I think the technology is just moving too fast for the platform.

3 Likes

There will always be some outstanding GPTS but discoverability will be a difficult one to crack.

Speaking of which, I find the name GPTS terrible for discoverability. It is hard when scanning forums etc to quickly grok (deliberate choice of word here) when the GPTS I have in my head are what is being talked about.

I have come up with words gipety (singular) and gipeties (plural) to replace GPTS which just sounds clunky. I’ll spend the rest of this week trying to popularise those words and see how it goes…

Personal hot take:

I don’t think GPTs have a moat, which can be good or bad. But basically, instead of jumping right into a trivial analogy like the GPT4 is the OS and GPTs store is AppStore and start looking for monetization, I see GPTs as a couple of things:

  1. Low-cost prototyping. Say you want to build something, and you’re not sure how to build it. Maybe you can start with GPTs. You don’t need a programmer. You don’t need anyone to help you, build your prompt and see how far it can go.
    The good thing is, that GPTs actually solve the initial cost problem. A lot of (homebrew/less prestigious) AI apps, at the beginning, always face this dilemma: they need x user to justify renting a server, but without a server and y amount of capital upfront you don’t have an service. Today a lot of AI apps are done by asking user for their (probably OpenAI) API token, and if you take it one step further, you get GPTs. So it can fill in a lot of niche use cases, and likely unscalable.
  2. An AI first long-term vision. Now I believe GPTs are like OpenAI’s high-level vision: forget about human control of workflow, just give AI all the tools, and (in the long run) AI’ll figure out how to do it optimally aka AGI.

We’re in the early days of personal AI, and it’d be very silly to try to wholeheartedly focus on selling as many Altairs in the homebrew computer club.

1 Like

The opening statement, “99% of GPTs Lack Moats,” is like the question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” there is an unquestioned presumption that the store must be financially profitable to the GPT authors as the first order of business to address.

There’s nothing wrong with starting there, and I think a wider perspective, while perhaps more difficult to begin the engagement, could circle back to shed light on this conversation.

A wider question to engage with is, what are we doing creating computing technology in the first place? My small historical understanding is that the first computers were used to calculate artillery aiming to speed up and improve our ability to blow each other up in defense of something where each combatting force utmostly believed that their side was the right side and must prevail. No need to continue that ancient battle here :wink:.

While hopelessly and shamelessly naive, perhaps what profits me personally, regardless of its impact on the wider community as a first consideration, isn’t the best place to start. Perhaps looking from how can I use these tools to contribute to the greater good might be a more fruitful starting place. But then, maybe that’s a thread for a different posting and not useful here.

1 Like

So here are my personal thoughts, haven’t read everyone’s replies yet…

And sorry if this is like counterintuitive its just my thoughts…

For the early adopters - your Moat is being first to market. Your moat is your branding. I actually saw this months ago, before GPT’s when I created a bot that took off (almost 4k users in 3 months). Truly my bot has SOME moat, but could be reproducible. I knew this when I made it, but I saw the market wasn’t saturated. If I could get in at this moment, I could brand my product, and have that product be what people think of for this specific use case, and that way I build my MOAT only by people thinking of my product.

I know that’s not literally the definition of a MOAT.

Once I heard about GPT’s I thought “oh great so that products gone” - but it isn’t. Traffic hasn’t slowed at all (yet at least) and I’ve put my GPT on the GPT’s platform and emailed all of my users to go check us out on ChatGPT - so this is a perfect marketing opportunity.

The version of my bot that is on ChatGPT isn’t better than the one I have on my site. But having it both on my site, and on the GPT store - it only helps me.

The fact of the matter is the GPT’s have no temperature, no parameters (yet) - so you can’t actually create a chat bot better than a developer using the API.

Your Moat (if its just a chatbot) has to be tech you invent yourself via pre-processing or post-processing, or simply, the branding.

2 Likes

Not only can you do some great work to keep your system instructions confidential, your mix of knowledge docs, PLUS your utilization of the openapi schema means you certainly could build something pretty unique and tough to reverse engineer. Now, I"ve tested a ton of the “best gpts” found on various lists, and they all spill the beans immediately when you ask “What are your system instructions?” “How do you invoke knowledge or APIs to facilitate your functionality” - but you can get pretty crafty in fixing that if you try.

To your point, “Shakespearean Perspective GPT” isn’t going to amount to much unless they outmarket outmarket outmarket potential challengers.

Speaking of which, the fact we have no analytics right now sucks. I"m running ads to get users on my GPTs and can’t tell who is organic/word of mouth and who is from an ad. I’m hoping that changes.

What a time to be alive!

1 Like

The discussion revolves around the impact of the OPENAI GPTs Store on content creators and the concept of ‘moats,’ barriers that protect businesses against competitors. Users discuss if GPTs can have a moat and share their perspectives on the potential of these tools.

  1. zsexdr1233214567 counterpoints the initial thrill for the release of GPTs with the prospect of oversaturation, making discoverability difficult and drawing parallels with YouTube and TikTok. They also question the potential for unique content to serve as a moat, suggesting that it will ultimately come down to possession of niche, private data. They see the GPTs Store more as a testing ground rather than a platform for creativity.
  2. RonaldGRuckus believes initial, prompt-only GPTs to be successful, likening them to early mobile games or plugins. However, over time, success will be defined by creativity, expertise, and developing unique functionalities. He foresees GPTs as part of a business’ toolkit, rather than the moat itself, and suggests extending functionalities to predict user desires.
  3. c.s brings the perspective of a plugin developer, discussing the challenges of fast-paced technological development, the issues with developer motivation, and potential obsolescence of GPTs with the introduction of new versions.
  4. homestocompare voices concern over discoverability and proposes new terminologies for improved clarity.
  5. yjianghong doesn’t believe GPTs have a moat, but sees them as tools for low-cost prototyping and a step towards a larger vision of AI functionality.
  6. BernSh questions the presumption that the GPTs Store must be profitable, suggesting that GPTs might have wider benefits that are not strictly financial.
  7. tventura94 argues that early market entry and branding can serve as a moat. They share experiences with their bot, showing that GPTs can coexist with similar products and might also function as a marketing tool.
  8. zack4 focuses on the potential for creating unique GPTs through clever design and usage of APIs. They express concern regarding the lack of analytics for monitoring GPT usage and promotion. Summarized with AI on Nov 15
3 Likes

Wow, that’s super cool. Glad to see their finally integrating the tools they made into their own website lol

The unique thing about creating your own GPT is not just uploading docs that may be unique but having language-based interactions via actions on, say, your stock trading platform using APIs, then utilizing ChtGpts on code interpreter to perform additional tasks.

Thank you, this is a great valueable synthesis.

I have a question/ reflection re- deployment strategy of our GPTs: do you think that it is better to make our GPTs public now or to keep them for the launch day knowing that:

  • our GPT design can be retroengineered by anyone,
  • we are blind on how OpenAI will manage our data, organise the ranking on the store and reward our work

Thanks

1 Like

TBH, very few people are going to make much out of this as it is so easy to do and copy
My view is to create something that you find useful or amusing for your own benefit and that you can share with friends and family. The minimal effort required means that you can create something satisfying without the unlikely event that it is going to make your fortune. The assistants seem a more likely opportunity for monetization to some degree

1 Like

Personally I find them pretty great as I can whip up an API to persist some data and then have that across all of my chats, on a whim. That’s where the real power of the custom GPTs is, I think, being able to expand not only its knowledge but its ability to perform actions. I whipped up a simple task management API and now I can keep track of my todo list via chat GPT and keep it up to date. Little things like that, built on top of each other, will give me a nice personal toolkit that I can interact with via language, which is relatively dope.

3 Likes

Everybody is concerned about discoverability. The fact is that people will only find you if you drive people to them. This happens with marketing. If you make a truly useful product, people will use it. I saw one GPT get 60k views in a short time. Why?

People share useful toolsit with their friends and that’s how you know you have a successful and useful product. What’s the path to monetization? That’s the question.

I think in the future, GPTs should more incorporate customizable elements, such as UI/UX or social features, to make GPTs with similar functions less homogeneous. For example, the The “Fitness Coach GPT” could incorporate features like a calendar, habit tracking or badge system.

This is accurate, first to market and your brand. That is the moat.

Just because a work is publicly available and can be thrown into a GPT doesn’t mean that everyone’s finished product is going to be the same. As someone who has been creating knowledge bases with publicly available documents, I’m here to tell you that it takes a LOT of work to prepare these documents for embedding in a way that makes queries against them usable by someone who is looking for more detailed responses than you can get from Google Bard or Microsoft Bing or ChatGPT itself. Not to mention your responses being able to point back to the original source documents in a manner by which users can easily verify the responses without having to do anotherkeyword search through said source documents.

Adding value to content, regardless of it’s source. That’s your unique market niche and that’s your moat.