The Three-Layer AI Framework: Turning a Tech Question into a Financial Strategy

This brilliant, commercially astute question slipped into my DM's the other day, hitting at the heart of the current founder dilemma:

“What AI Service/API should I use for my startup, and why?”

At first glance, it appears to be a technical query. A simple case of choosing between GPT, Claude, or perhaps one of the open-source challengers like Llama. But if you’re launching an early-stage business, this is not a technical choice—it is your most critical strategic and financial decision.

The wrong answer means your runway shrinks faster than a wool jumper in a hot wash, and your unique value proposition withers away.

So, let's lift the bonnet on this one.

To make a future-proof, defensible choice, we must move beyond the noise and apply a simple, three-layer framework: Architecture, Engine, and Moat.

🏗️ Layer 1: The Architecture (RAG vs. The Wrapper)

Before you choose which model to use, you must decide how you’ll use it. This is the choice between relying on a model's vast, general knowledge versus grounding it in your specific, proprietary truth.

To keep things simple, let's call the Large Language Model (LLM) the 'Brain'—a supremely intelligent, but slightly forgetful, tutor. 🧠 😶‍🌫️

🍫 Option A: Direct LLM Use (The 'Wrapper')

This is the simplest approach: you send a user’s query directly to an external, off-the-shelf AI service (like using an OpenAI or Anthropic API). Your app is essentially a beautiful, custom wrapper around a pre-existing brain.

• The Benefit: It’s lightning-fast to deploy. You immediately access the world’s most powerful general intellect (depending on your model selection).

• The Trap: "Context Creep". This is the financial killer! For multi-turn interactions (say, a complex advisory bot), the LLM must re-read the entire history of a conversation to remember what was said. You are constantly paying for the AI to "re-read the book." This relentlessly skyrockets your token consumption costs and renders your unit economics unviable.

📚 Option B: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

If Option A is a costly tutor, RAG is hiring that tutor and giving them a Proprietary Library full of your unique data.

Let's quickly cover what RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) is. 

It’s essentially a mechanism where, before the AI generates an answer, your system first searches a private, curated database (your library) and hands the AI the relevant pages. The AI then uses these specific pages to formulate an answer. This reduces the risk of the AI 'hallucinating' and ensures answers are specific to your business.

• The Benefit: Highly accurate, specific to your niche, and dramatically reduces token costs for knowledge-intensive tasks.

• The But: It can be a "budget breaker". Building a reliable RAG is not free. It requires significant investment in engineering—cleaning, indexing, and maintaining your data. And here’s the strategic error: building RAG on generic, public data, or data which has been created by AI. 

  If your users can find the same information with a better Google search or a clever prompt in ChatGPT, you've spent a fortune to build a library of general knowledge. That's a textbook definition of zero defensibility.

  Secondly. Training a RAG model on AI-generated data is problematic because it undermines the model's ability to provide unique value. RAG relies on a curated library of self-generated data to enhance accuracy and specificity. If this data has been AI-generated or derived from generic sources, it becomes indistinguishable from what users can already access through general-purpose tools like ChatGPT or Google. Again, eroding the competitive edge, as users gain no additional value from your system. To build a defensible AI product, the data must be proprietary, niche, or uniquely tailored to solve specific problems that general models cannot address.

🚚 🏎️ Layer 2: The Engine (Moat vs. Speed)

Once you've decided on the architecture (Direct Use or RAG), you must select an engine—the model itself (GPT, Sonnet, Llama, etc.). This decision is a fundamental trade-off between Defensibility Moat and Speed-to-Market. Let's break it down:

Engine Type	Strategic Benefit (Moat)	Commercial Drawback (Speed)
Closed Source (e.g., GPT 4.1, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4)	Top-tier reasoning, minimal engineering required, fast-to-market.	Potentially high cost per token, vendor lock-in, and no ability to build custom 'brain'.
Open Source (e.g., Llama, Mistral)	Cost control (you run the model), deep customisation (fine-tuning), data moat potential.	Requires heavy upfront engineering, needs in-house expertise, and performance can lag frontier models.

🦉 The Judgement Call

If your product's value is derived from the unique data you hold (e.g., a massive repository of specialised legal documents or gated medical data), you must choose an open-source model you can fine-tune. This gives you a custom, cheaper, and faster brain—a true data moat.

If your value is derived from general intelligence (e.g. data which has been shared, replicated or written about extensively online) and the speed of getting to market (e.g., a clever copywriting tool) is your supposed moat, then a closed model is your fastest route to revenue.

⚙️ Beyond the Token Count: Choosing a Responsible Engine

Founders often fixate solely on cost-per-token, which is understandable. But a future-proof, responsible decision requires looking at four other critical factors:

1. Latency and User Experience: How fast is the model? For a customer service application, a high-latency (slow) model is a non-starter. A marginal cost saving isn’t worth damaging the customer experience—your ultimate moat.

2. Model Bias and Safety: Every model is a reflection of the data it was trained on. Does your chosen engine produce biased outputs for specific demographics? If your product deals with sensitive topics (like finance, health, or legal advice), you need to choose models known for their robust safety and less inherent bias, or fine-tune an open-source model to mitigate these risks.

3. Future-Proofing (API Stability): Relying entirely on one closed model's API (e.g., solely on OpenAI) creates significant vendor lock-in risk. If they raise prices or deprecate a key feature, your business model could crumble overnight. Decoupling your reliance by engineering for model-agnosticism is vital.

4. Ethical Sourcing: Modern consumers care deeply about ethics. Where was the model's training data sourced? Was the process equitable and transparent? This often favours open-source or European-based models with clear data governance.

🏰 Layer 3: The Moat (The Defensibility Test)

This is where commercial acuity meets technological reality. Layers 1 and 2 must serve one goal: Creating a defensible advantage.

It was a lesson I had to learn the hard way when I started my own AI-powered immigration advisory venture. A reliance on public data lacked true defensibility, even with clever RAG and meticulous curation.

Why?

Users already pay for, or have free access to, top-tier general LLMs (ChatGPT, Perplexity). Even though my AI was more accurate in the short term, maintaining that advantage was a race I could never win in the long run. Big tech is getting better at selecting official data sources over crowd-generated data, lowering hallucination, and they're at the forefront of research and development. Even with millions of dollars invested, I would have always faced an uphill battle against them!

Using users' data to fine-tune the model could have improved the AI's intuition, but it wouldn't have made the system truly defensible. Let's not forget customers are fickle creatures! They quickly compare products, and there's no guarantee that the information provided to my platform wouldn't be shared with broader, general-knowledge providers too!

When it came to solving the pain point of fragmented immigration advisory landscapes, I knew I had to go back to the drawing board and reconsider my use of AI to aggregate information.

The ultimate test for your AI startup is simple:

Is your 'AI brain' SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER, CHEAPER, or MORE ACCURATE than what the user can already access on their own?

If the answer is anything less than a resounding 'yes,' you are merely a pricey wrapper.

Your business model will crumble as you continually upgrade your "engine" just to compete, eventually torching your profit margins.

The sustainable path forward? Here are some tips! 

1. ✅ Leverage proprietary data (owned, gated and hard to recreate or buy)

2. ✅ Create experiences that are easily incorporated into routines and workflows, making switching highly inconvenient or financially impossible.

3. ✅ Include a human element, like human-in-the-loop verification. AI alone cannot compete with this value add!

4. ✅ Don't let AI be an experience deal-breaker, e.g. make it an enabler, not a deciding factor in your product's success.

5. ✅ Broker SMB-focused partnerships (if they're also working with OpenAI and Anthropic, you don't have a unique promotional angle).
   

👉 Remember!

Your choice of AI architecture and engine is not a throwaway technical decision; it's a fundamental declaration of your business model and your long-term viability. So, choose wisely.

---

Which layer of the AI stack has been the messiest or most surprising to build for you? Share your lessons below—I’m keen to hear where the rubber meets the road.