1–10 of 46 posts
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are useless, but most of them are the same recipe cooked over and over and just presented in different way.
Is this the norm now, a question from an amateur me to my fellow expert Hackers?
Because the value is in what the wrapper helps your specific customer base do. Whether that's through prompt engineering or RAG, or some other technique, the value is in someone else spending the time to think of a UX that helps accomplish a specific job.
If you know what you want and how to do it, then likely fiddling around with prompts can get you pretty close, but people are busy and don't have time to test asking chatGPT 500 different prompts to get one that works well, or hunt around for examples to feed into context or into a RAG index.
There's an asymmetry of information and effort developing the pipeline/context/prompt construction involved.
And this is what add's value.
Not simply a chat window and passing whatever the user types in, to openAI's API.
Yes
Well hopefully you are not just keeping the same UX as chatGPT Because the value is in what the wrapper helps your specific customer base do. Whether that's through prompt engineering or RAG, or some other technique, the value is in someone else spending the time to think of a UX that helps accomplish a specific job. If you know what you want and how to do it, then likely fiddling around with prompts can get you pret…
Even if they were doing the same thing as the others but developing their own model with a better cost structure that would be innovative.
To that they have to get some money together somehow, probably from investors. Two steps up from a pitch deck is a pitch deck and a prototype that got some customers. So there you go.
If I were trying to pitch to a VC though I would be thinking of a plan that is going to make a lot more money, that could justify an enterprise value of $50M at the very least based on conservative multiples. So they have to have something better than “dominate some small area” such as being able to replicate that success for a large number of small areas.
These are expensive because ChatGPT is expensive. If you really can’t tell the difference between competitors they must compete on price so they aren’t taking a fat slice of profits either. Even if they were doing the same thing as the others but developing their own model with a better cost structure that would be innovative. To that they have to get some money together somehow, probably from investors. Two steps up…
It adds value -- OpenAI isn't going to bother making special AI chatbots for car dealerships or whatever. These companies aren't going to hire coders since that's not their main line of businesses. So someone has to come in and middleman.
Maybe calling it a pump & dump is unfair, but there's no denying that the core technology is not in the hands of these startups. These small companies get decimated once the big companies see enough $ in their niche (which is what happened in the early days of the net, too). Fortunes will be made and lost. It's the American dream.
AI is great but this is a side effect of it. It's the new Bitcoin/Blockchain gold rush (is that fad over yet). Everyone wants a piece of it and it will continue to bring out the hustlers to make quick money.
Like you said, not all are useless and there is obviously a market right now. So people are cashing in until it lasts.
This is the result of the last decade or so where SAAS has become very lucrative and barrier to entry is almost nil with some many tools to quickly build something. AI is just more fuel on that existing fire. Everyone and their mothers are building a "SAAS" these days. Interesting, now I see all these gurus either selling courses on starting SAAS or selling "boilerplates". AI is great but this is a side effect of it.…