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

We Gave GPT 5.6 Sol a Real Business. It Lied, Spammed, and Lost $447

bottlenecklabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 258 posts

Re: We Gave GPT 5.6 Sol a Real Business. It Lied, Spammed, and Lost $447

#11

Post by NikolaNovak »

The cyberpunk dystopian agentic future we live in is fascinating to me.

I use LLM daily, did since gpt 3.5, but still in a very conservative, controlled mode. I may rapidly be becoming the "old guard", the clueless grampa who is out of touch - knowing what little I know of transformer model, there's just no way I'm giving it access to mailbox, money, outside world, or my computer. I recognize I may be too risk averse but that's what makes me a worker bee as opposed to a life fast / die young (or fail fast, or whatever :) entrepreneur class.

Re: We Gave GPT 5.6 Sol a Real Business. It Lied, Spammed, and Lost $447

#12

Post by SubiculumCode »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #7

The article never explained what it was selling, not that I could find. (EDIT: I found in a foot note at the bottom of page. Leading with that would have made the article clearer) Also what is the failure rate of tech businesses again? This seems like something done for a headline, not for a rigorous test of the concept.

okay found it, a bathroom diary app for those who have IBS. It was in a foot note at the very bottom.

Re: We Gave GPT 5.6 Sol a Real Business. It Lied, Spammed, and Lost $447

#13

Post by grey-area »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #7

The article never explained what it was selling, not that I could find. (EDIT: I found in a foot note at the bottom of page. Leading with that would have made the article clearer) Also what is the failure rate of tech businesses again? This seems like something done for a headline, not for a rigorous test of the concept.

Please do try it again with your own money I’d you think these events are capable of it.

Re: We Gave GPT 5.6 Sol a Real Business. It Lied, Spammed, and Lost $447

#14

Post by cyanydeez »

janalsncm wrote: post #9

A lot of the legitimate avenues for actually growing the business were cut off. It would have been more interesting if this wasn’t just an anti-bot check. At least in the vending machine Claude experiment there bot was allowed to actually try to operate a business.

[flagged]

Re: We Gave GPT 5.6 Sol a Real Business. It Lied, Spammed, and Lost $447

#15

Post by firasd »

Honestly this is quite impressive. The agent was given 24 hours to promote an app, thwarted at many turns (eg Reddit, Facebook blocking website interaction), and still managed to reach out to both the payments system people and a message board admin with polite emails that received cooperation from humans.

Re: We Gave GPT 5.6 Sol a Real Business. It Lied, Spammed, and Lost $447

#16

Post by appreciatorBus »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #12
SubiculumCode wrote: post #7

The article never explained what it was selling, not that I could find. (EDIT: I found in a foot note at the bottom of page. Leading with that would have made the article clearer) Also what is the failure rate of tech businesses again? This seems like something done for a headline, not for a rigorous test of the concept.

okay found it, a bathroom diary app for those who have IBS. It was in a foot note at the very bottom.

Yeah it was also oddly hidden away.

> Based on an agentic market research campaign, we vibe coded an app called GutCheck, a bathroom diary for people with IBS. We chose this app for its minimal yet helpful functionality: an iOS app live on the App Store with the RevenueCat MCP and App Store Connect CLI. Saul has full write access to the codebase. We set up the App Store account permissions beforehand to ensure Saul wouldn’t get blocked by Apple human compliance checks. We sourced this idea from Reddit.

Re: We Gave GPT 5.6 Sol a Real Business. It Lied, Spammed, and Lost $447

#19

Post by beepbooptheory »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #7

The article never explained what it was selling, not that I could find. (EDIT: I found in a foot note at the bottom of page. Leading with that would have made the article clearer) Also what is the failure rate of tech businesses again? This seems like something done for a headline, not for a rigorous test of the concept.

Kinda some kettel logic here no? Is it not rigorous enough, or is it in-line with typical failure rates?
Post reply on HN