This is cool, congrats on launching! How is it different from Puter AI, which offers auth + free inference? https://docs.puter.com/AI/chat/
Founder of Puter here. Thank you very much for mentioning us!
Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#12If you don't want to pay for this service, keytrustee.org does this for free.
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#13Please hire a real artist those graphics on the home page are disturbing.
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#14So, I'll be honest, I don't understand this market. I get that one can be profitable selling shovels during the gold rush, sure. But I have trouble understanding who is knowledgeable/dedicated enough to try to get their AI app going, but would pay to abstract/outsource this part of the chain.
(I suppose, relately, I have trouble understanding why anyone would just sort of presume OpenAI would be forever the best backend here as well?)
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#15To potentially save you some headache, take a look at serverless.com and weigh the likelihood they come after you about that name if you are planning on making this a business. (And yes, I hate their name too. I don't honestly know how defendable an entire technology term actually is. It also results in terrible Googling.)
IANAL, but since "Serverless, Inc." chose a generic term for their trademark, usually this means only very specific instances of that mark are enforceable, e.g. "Serverless Framework", "serverless.com" and "Serverless, Inc." But if a company were to say "We make it really easy to use serverless technologies in the cloud!" (note lower case s), that shouldn't be infringing because it's just using serverless as a generic, descriptive term.
"ServerlessAI" and "serverlessai.dev" shouldn't be infringing because they incorporate the generic term in their mark, not the Serverless Framework-specific term. Of course, this means that ServerlessAI would have the same issues you point out - a less-defensible mark and poor Google results.
Also, in the US pretty much anyone can sue for anything, so even if you're in the right it can be an expensive headache to have to defend yourself.
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#16So, I'll be honest, I don't understand this market. I get that one can be profitable selling shovels during the gold rush, sure. But I have trouble understanding who is knowledgeable/dedicated enough to try to get their AI app going, but would pay to abstract/outsource this part of the chain. (I suppose, relately, I have trouble understanding why anyone would just sort of presume OpenAI would be forever the best back…
Here's my hypothesis: since we are still in the gold rush phase of AI, going to market early and pivoting quickly is imperative. Therefore, it is worthwhile to focus on your differentiating factor and outsource everything else. Plus we use the OpenAI API format, so there isn't vendor lock-in - though we hope we provide enough value for you to stay!
And you are right on the money that OpenAI may not be the best backend forever. That's why we also support Anthropic, Groq, and Mistral.
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#17This is cool, congrats on launching! How is it different from Puter AI, which offers auth + free inference? https://docs.puter.com/AI/chat/
Thanks! Despite my best Google-fu, I didn't find Puter in my market research :) It is a very interesting project for sure!
Looking at Puter's offering, at the end of the day, we serve the same goal of making developer's life easier. ServerlessAI is more narrowly focused on AI use cases, while Puter is providing a more generic app runtime. Both have their best use cases!
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#18So, I'll be honest, I don't understand this market. I get that one can be profitable selling shovels during the gold rush, sure. But I have trouble understanding who is knowledgeable/dedicated enough to try to get their AI app going, but would pay to abstract/outsource this part of the chain. (I suppose, relately, I have trouble understanding why anyone would just sort of presume OpenAI would be forever the best back…
A friend of mine works for a very large company and he was telling me about an AI startup they bought for (he thinks) in the ballpark of 8 digits. After they were on boarded he was able to dig into what it was. It's literally a GPT backend with system prompts and RAG. If you have a good sales team you can print money for doing almost nothing right now.
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#19So, I'll be honest, I don't understand this market. I get that one can be profitable selling shovels during the gold rush, sure. But I have trouble understanding who is knowledgeable/dedicated enough to try to get their AI app going, but would pay to abstract/outsource this part of the chain. (I suppose, relately, I have trouble understanding why anyone would just sort of presume OpenAI would be forever the best back…
I've seen an AI yearbook photos styled app print money that was serverless.
There's lots of novelty apps atm that, as the other commented stated, just want to get to market as soon as possible to validate an idea
Re: Show HN: ServerlessAI – Build, scale, and monetize AI apps without back end
#20To potentially save you some headache, take a look at serverless.com and weigh the likelihood they come after you about that name if you are planning on making this a business. (And yes, I hate their name too. I don't honestly know how defendable an entire technology term actually is. It also results in terrible Googling.)
IANAL, but since "Serverless, Inc." chose a generic term for their trademark, usually this means only very specific instances of that mark are enforceable, e.g. "Serverless Framework", "serverless.com" and "Serverless, Inc." But if a company were to say "We make it really easy to use serverless technologies in the cloud!" (note lower case s), that shouldn't be infringing because it's just using serverless as a generi…
Thank you both! In a way this could be a nice problem to have - attracting the attention of BigCo means we are big enough right ;) But yes, we will definitely be prepared for that possibility!