Suddenly, I had a feeling that the blockchain public chain and the AI big model are somewhat similar, both being heavily duplicated and built at the bottom of these two industries. After discussing them using GPT, it was quite profound: Same place 1. They are all universal infrastructure, and competition is inevitable. Both large models and public blockchains are essentially underlying generic technologies. The core features of this type of technology are high entry barriers, high potential returns, and ecological competition. Therefore, every country, company, and fund hopes to have its own version, even if the underlying is similar, it must be redone to form independent control. 2. There is a phenomenon of "duplicate construction", but it stems from reasonable motives. Seemingly repetitive, it is actually a necessary differentiation between technology, computing power, compliance, and interests. The reason why large models are retrained under the same architecture (Transformer) is because data privatization, computing power distribution, and fine-tuning directions are all different; The reason why public chain projects need to be rebuilt on the premise of EVM compatibility is to meet different performance, regulatory, and economic models. 'Repetition' does not reflect waste, but the natural result of a diversified system. 3. They are all shifting from "creating technology" to "creating ecology". The technological threshold has been broken, and the real focus of competition has shifted to ecological integration and user retention. Large scale model competition application ecosystem (Copilot, AI Agent, enterprise embedding scenario); Public chain competition asset ecosystem (DeFi, RWA, L2 scaling, gaming applications). After technological homogenization, ecological capabilities determine long-term disparities. Different places 1. The concentration of technical architecture varies. The trend of big models is the centralization of computing power and capability - the number of leaders is decreasing, the model size and inference cost are extremely high, and ultimately a pattern of a few giants is formed; Public blockchains are modular and layered - Ethereum becomes the underlying consensus layer, with a large number of L2, L3, and application chains appearing on top, forming a networked competitive structure. The role of open source is different between the two. Open source models such as LLaMA and Mistral mainly reduce entry costs, but do not change the pattern of computing power and data centralization; The open source of public blockchains (OP Stack, Polygon CDK) has truly expanded the space for sovereignty and economic innovation, allowing more teams to build new ecosystems on the Ethereum framework. 3. The landing direction of business logic is different. The main theme of the big model is service commercialization - API subscription, enterprise solutions, vertical integration; The main theme of public chains is capital financialization - token incentives, ecological investment, and liquidity economy. The former is driven by cash flow, while the latter is driven by asset pricing. summary >Big models and public chains are indeed similar: both are duplicating the construction of the underlying layer and competing for ecological dominance. But the paths have diverged: large models tend to be centralized and commercialized, reusing open source, while public chains tend to be modular and decentralized, reusing Ethereum. A pursuit of unity in intelligence, and a pursuit of diversity in value.