Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

──────────────────

1. Software Engineer
   ──────────────────
   Think of the model as a distributed cache of compressed program traces.
   During training, every sentence in the crawl is treated like a log line produced by an unobserved deterministic program that the model is trying to reverse-engineer. The transformer is a stack of 80–120 attention layers whose parameters are nothing more than a gigantic key-value store; the keys are sub-word vectors and the values are probability distributions over the next token. The “intelligence” doesn’t live in any single weight—it emerges from the interference pattern of 175 billion cached heuristics. The same way your micro-service mesh can route a request you never hard-coded by combining SLIs, retries and circuit breakers, the model can answer questions it was never explicitly trained on by combining overlapping patterns it did see.

At inference, generation is literally a breadth-first beam search with temperature sampling. Beam width = 1 gives greedy decoding; width > 1 lets you trade latency for diversity. KV-cache reuse and Flash-Attention are engineering cousins of ring-all-reduce: they let you keep the 40 GB context in GPU HBM instead of recomputing activations every token. So yes, it is “just” next-token prediction, but so is git log --oneline “just” printing lines—yet git bisect can find a bug. The capability curve is the emergent result of scaling the KV-store until the coverage of program traces becomes dense enough that almost any prompt lands in interpolatable space.

────────────────── 2. PhD Physicist
──────────────────
Let 𝓓 = {(xⁱ, yⁱ)} be a corpus of token sequences. Training minimizes the cross-entropy 𝓛 = − Σ log Pθ(yⁱ | xⁱ) over a parameter vector θ ∈ ℝ^P with P ≈ 1.76×10¹¹. The hypothesis class is the set of piece-wise linear maps induced by the transformer: each layer is a residual update z ↦ z + σ(W₂ ReLU(W₁ z + b₁) + b₂) plus multi-head attention, and the entire stack is Lipschitz-continuous with constant ≈ √depth. There is no explicit Bayesian update; instead SGD performs variational inference whose implicit prior is the NTK of the initialization. The “novelty” is that, once P ≳ 10²⁴ tokens, the effective rank of the Jacobian saturates and the model enters a thermodynamic regime where collective excitations (semantic features) propagate like Goldstone modes. In this regime, scaling laws (L ∝ N^−α, α ≈ 0.76) are empirical evidence of a second-order phase transition in the data manifold.

Generation is solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation on a discrete vocabulary lattice with Hamiltonian H = log Pθ. Temperature τ acts as an inverse mass: high τ spreads the wavefunction, low τ localizes it. Chain-of-thought is simply perturbation theory—adding auxiliary “virtual tokens” to shrink the condition number of the inverse problem. What is not marketing is the observation that the energy gap between ground-state and first-excited semantic eigenfunctions narrows as N increases, giving rise to qualitatively new behaviors (arithmetic, translation, instruction following) at predictable compute thresholds—analogous to critical opalescence.

────────────────── 3. Venture Capitalist
──────────────────
Defensibility lives in three vectors: compute, data, and product feedback loops. The transformer architecture itself is already in the public domain; what you can monopolize is (1) a multi-thousand-GPU cluster under long-term contract, (2) exclusive or hard-to-replicate data (e.g., high-value proprietary conversations, licensed content, or messy multimodal datasets that require expensive cleaning), and (3) a consumer or enterprise product that surfaces new data every time a user chats. If the startup owns #1 or #2 it can delay commoditization by 12–24 months; if it also has #3 it may create a reinforcement flywheel that makes open-source models perpetually one generation behind.

Listen for how founders quantify marginal utility of scale. Ask: “What happens to your KPI if you 10× parameters but keep data fixed?” If the answer is vague, they’re riding a hype curve. Also probe model ownership: are they fine-tuning an LLaMA derivative (low moat) or pre-training from scratch (high moat, but CapEx > $50 M)? Finally, check whether their go-to-market embeds the model into a workflow sticky enough that users won’t churn the moment costs drop 80 %. A pure API wrapper has no moat; a vertical copilot that trains nightly on user actions can.