Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#101

Post by TeMPOraL »

abrbhat wrote: post #86
tyre wrote: post #15

What I really want from Anthropic, Gemini, and ChatGPT is for users to be able to log in with them, using their tokens. Then you can have open/free apps that don’t require the developer to track usage or burn through tons of tokens to demonstrate value. Most users aren’t going to manage API keys, know that that even means, or accept the friction.

At some point the model providers will realize they don't need to provide apps, just enterprise-grade intelligence at scale in a pipe, much like utility companies providing electricity/water. Right now, they have to provide the apps to kick-off the adoption.

The problem is that "enterprise-grade intelligence", by its very nature, doesn't want to be trapped in a pipe feeding apps - it subsumes apps, reducing them to mere background tool calls.

The perfect "killer app" for AI would kill most software products and SaaS as we know them. The code doing the useful part would still be there, but stripped off branding, customer funnels and other traps, upsell channels, etc. As a user, I'd be more than happy to see it (at least as long as the AI frontend part was well-developed for power users); obviously, product owners hate this.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#102

Post by robbomacrae »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #61
tyre wrote: post #15

What I really want from Anthropic, Gemini, and ChatGPT is for users to be able to log in with them, using their tokens. Then you can have open/free apps that don’t require the developer to track usage or burn through tons of tokens to demonstrate value. Most users aren’t going to manage API keys, know that that even means, or accept the friction.

When you share an app you created in Google AI Studio, it will use quota from the logged in user, instead of your own quota.

As someone who has been waiting for the same thing as op tyre posted, I went to investigate this claim and it seems that it might be true but only when running apps within the Google AI Studio itself.. ie if you were to make an app that was on something like the App Store using Google AI Studio, it would be back to an API key that the developer bears the costs for.

The problem with the current model is that there is a high barrier to justifying the user pays essentially a 2nd/3rd subscription for ultimately the same AI intelligence layer. And so you cannot currently make an economically successful small use case app based on AI without somehow restricting users use of AI. I don't think AI companies are incentivized to fix this.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#103

Post by stingraycharles »

tyre wrote: post #15

What I really want from Anthropic, Gemini, and ChatGPT is for users to be able to log in with them, using their tokens. Then you can have open/free apps that don’t require the developer to track usage or burn through tons of tokens to demonstrate value. Most users aren’t going to manage API keys, know that that even means, or accept the friction.

So basically oauth-style app connections. Makes sense.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#104

Post by TeMPOraL »

manuelmoreale wrote: post #94
StarterPro wrote: post #78

Once again I have to ask: Aren't we just obfuscating everything to the point of knowledge loss? Between long COVID and ai, nobody will be able to make fizzbuzz in Java, let alone code a frontend by hand.

Or think critically. Or write proper emails. Or a multitude of other things. Why bother when you can outsource everything to the computer. If this trend continues is gonna be interesting to see how people will evolve in 10 or 15 years.

It's kind of the point of the computers.

It may not seem like it now, but that's because a big chunk of software industry is making money on introducing friction, and preventing automation, because the user interface that sits between a person and some outcome they desire, makes for a perfect marketing channel.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#105

Post by Libidinalecon »

burnto wrote: post #16

They are unfocused. Need to stop with the mba playbook moves like this and just make the model worth paying for.

"We need to put out maximum press releases to stay relevant because all we have is the brand" seems to be the strategy.

To me, that is a tell they are basically cooked because catching Google in actual model performance is not really the position anyone would want to be in here in a horse race.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#106

Post by kevin061 »

Libidinalecon wrote: post #105
burnto wrote: post #16

They are unfocused. Need to stop with the mba playbook moves like this and just make the model worth paying for.

"We need to put out maximum press releases to stay relevant because all we have is the brand" seems to be the strategy. To me, that is a tell they are basically cooked because catching Google in actual model performance is not really the position anyone would want to be in here in a horse race.

I remember the headlines, a year ago or so. Something like "How Google built the first LLM but then shelved it due to risk and unprofitability and lost the AI race"

Interesting times we live in.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#107

Post by abrbhat »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #101
abrbhat wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point the model providers will realize they don't need to provide apps, just enterprise-grade intelligence at scale in a pipe, much like utility companies providing electricity/water. Right now, they have to provide the apps to kick-off the adoption.

The problem is that "enterprise-grade intelligence", by its very nature, doesn't want to be trapped in a pipe feeding apps - it subsumes apps , reducing them to mere background tool calls. The perfect "killer app" for AI would kill most software products and SaaS as we know them. The code doing the useful part would still be there, but stripped off branding, customer funnels and other traps, upsell channels, etc. As…

(Good) Apps take the context of the user and their use-case from their head and make it into something the user can see and interact with. An app might or might not be the 'product'. Unfortunately it seems there is always going to be some 'product' so dark patterns might be here to stay.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#108

Post by TeMPOraL »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #98
digitaltrees wrote: post #58

They. Will. Steal. Anything. That. Works.

Explain how they will "steal" these apps? (currently available): Adobe Photoshop AllTrails Booking.com Expedia Instacart OpenTable Spotify Tripadvisor Airtable Apple Music Canva Figma Lovable Replit Target Zillow

All of those, for many or most users, would be best used as tool calls to ChatGPT. That takes care of all the hold those companies have over users, which they use to extract money. As for stealing the useful parts:

- Adobe Photoshop, Canva, Figma, Replit, Lovable - are all kinds of Computer Aided creation tools, and once converted into tool calls, can be gradually reproduced and replaced feature by feature.

- The rest, they're just fancy (and user disempowering) wrappers around proprietary databases and/or API calls to humans. Those cannot be trivially reproduced, because code is neither their secret sauce, nor their source of value. But they can still be pressured into becoming tool calls along with competition, and subsequently commoditized.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#109

Post by TeMPOraL »

abrbhat wrote: post #107
TeMPOraL wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that "enterprise-grade intelligence", by its very nature, doesn't want to be trapped in a pipe feeding apps - it subsumes apps , reducing them to mere background tool calls. The perfect "killer app" for AI would kill most software products and SaaS as we know them. The code doing the useful part would still be there, but stripped off branding, customer funnels and other traps, upsell channels, etc. As…

(Good) Apps take the context of the user and their use-case from their head and make it into something the user can see and interact with. An app might or might not be the 'product'. Unfortunately it seems there is always going to be some 'product' so dark patterns might be here to stay.

Right. Problem is, the user interface is also the perfect marketing channel, because it stands between the user and some outcome they want.

Due to technical and social limitations, most apps are also limited in what they can do, this naturally shapes and bounds them and their UIs, forming user-facing software products.

Intelligence of the kind supplied by SOTA LLMs, is able to both subsume the UI, by taking much broader context of the user and the use case into account, distilling it down to minimal interaction patterns for a specific user and situation, and also blur the boundaries of products, by connecting and chaining them on the fly. This kills the marketing channel (UI) and trims the organizational structure itself (product), by turning a large SaaS into a bunch of API endpoints for AI runtime to call.

Of course, this is the ideal. I doubt it'll materialize, or if it does, that it'll survive for long, because there's half a software industry's worth of middlemen under risk of being cut out, and thus with a reason to fight it.

Re: Developers can now submit apps to ChatGPT

#110

Post by manuelmoreale »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #104
manuelmoreale wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or think critically. Or write proper emails. Or a multitude of other things. Why bother when you can outsource everything to the computer. If this trend continues is gonna be interesting to see how people will evolve in 10 or 15 years.

It's kind of the point of the computers. It may not seem like it now, but that's because a big chunk of software industry is making money on introducing friction , and preventing automation , because the user interface that sits between a person and some outcome they desire, makes for a perfect marketing channel.

> It's kind of the point of the computers.

It kind of isn't? If I read your comment and rather than taking the time to think about what you said and respond to you I simply prompted one of the many tools to "write a comment that disagrees with TeMPOraL" something would be lost.

And the point of the computer is not to replace me everywhere it can. Also, automating something is one thing. It requires deliberate actions. Outsourcing is another thing.

Post reply on HN