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

Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

carllippert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#11

Post by Harmohit »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me). Let's assume that businesses can buy an off-the-shelf black box of AI that will run whatever business IT process they want to run. Customer data goes in, actions for humans to perform come out. It's basically an automated call centre full of humans. Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? Do you just…

I completely agree. I do not believe that AI is a disruptive technology like computers and the internet was. It will at best be a + 25 % efficiency for business processes - which is awesome and I am all for it. But it is not a game changer that will fundamentally change how things are done.

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#12

Post by [deleted] »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me). Let's assume that businesses can buy an off-the-shelf black box of AI that will run whatever business IT process they want to run. Customer data goes in, actions for humans to perform come out. It's basically an automated call centre full of humans. Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? Do you just…

[deleted]

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#13

Post by danpalmer »

winrid wrote: post #7
keeptrying wrote: post #6

How do you build Stripe payments with LLMs. Only very shallow SaaS may be killed with LLMs but not 98% of em.

I can't even get an LLM to accurately demonstrate how to use the Stripe API except for very basic scenarios.

Having built a relatively standard, not particularly complex Stripe integration with 3DSecure, there is no way I'd trust code written by an AI for it. Hell, I set up code review sessions just to walk through the code and discuss. Transactionality, idempotency, what happens if a customer drops out of the flow at the 3DSecure prompt, how do you re-engage them, what happens if they want to continue, etc. It's hard both in terms of having a detailed understanding of the technology components, and in terms of understanding the UX requirements, customer support requirements, etc.

Taking a payment with Stripe is a 5 minute job. Taking thousands of payments a day, without ever double charging someone, and without ever losing an order, while optimising the UX and allowing a customer support team to provide good service, that's a huge task. (Also no criticism of Stripe, having looked at Braintree circa 2019 I expect it would be significantly harder with them).

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#14

Post by _wire_ »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me). Let's assume that businesses can buy an off-the-shelf black box of AI that will run whatever business IT process they want to run. Customer data goes in, actions for humans to perform come out. It's basically an automated call centre full of humans. Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? Do you just…

> Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me)

OK

> Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it?

What do you do when something goes wrong with a human?

Do that.

End of story.

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#15

Post by danpalmer »

Harmohit wrote: post #11
danpalmer wrote: post #4

Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me). Let's assume that businesses can buy an off-the-shelf black box of AI that will run whatever business IT process they want to run. Customer data goes in, actions for humans to perform come out. It's basically an automated call centre full of humans. Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? Do you just…

I completely agree. I do not believe that AI is a disruptive technology like computers and the internet was. It will at best be a + 25 % efficiency for business processes - which is awesome and I am all for it. But it is not a game changer that will fundamentally change how things are done.

As with all disruptive technologies. Uber was 10x better than taxis when it was being pumped full of VC cash, now it's better enough that it's my go-to choice, but not by a 2x margin. AirBnB was 10x better than hotels when it was being pumped full of cash, hadn't realised that people might trash places, and chancers hadn't filled the platform with crap properties, now it's a wash and only another option alongside hotels. Bitcoin, well, lol.

AI looks 10x better than the alternative, while it's being pumped full of VC cash and while we haven't realised all the downsides (because so far we've only seen idealised marketing promises). It'll work out to be an expensive and not much better option.

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#16

Post by re-thc »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me). Let's assume that businesses can buy an off-the-shelf black box of AI that will run whatever business IT process they want to run. Customer data goes in, actions for humans to perform come out. It's basically an automated call centre full of humans. Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? Do you just…

> Do you just drop the customer? Well that's lost revenue, or an easy win for another company

Works for Google. Lots of their stuff has non-existent support even today.

At the end of the day it might cost more to acquire the customer than not.

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#17

Post by peterdobs »

re-thc wrote: post #16
danpalmer wrote: post #4

Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me). Let's assume that businesses can buy an off-the-shelf black box of AI that will run whatever business IT process they want to run. Customer data goes in, actions for humans to perform come out. It's basically an automated call centre full of humans. Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? Do you just…

> Do you just drop the customer? Well that's lost revenue, or an easy win for another company Works for Google. Lots of their stuff has non-existent support even today. At the end of the day it might cost more to acquire the customer than not.

[dead]

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#18

Post by danpalmer »

_wire_ wrote: post #14
danpalmer wrote: post #4

Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me). Let's assume that businesses can buy an off-the-shelf black box of AI that will run whatever business IT process they want to run. Customer data goes in, actions for humans to perform come out. It's basically an automated call centre full of humans. Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? Do you just…

> Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me) OK > Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? What do you do when something goes wrong with a human? Do that. End of story.

This is my point, you can't. You can't hold an AI accountable in the way you can with a human, whether that's accountable to a contract or accountable to the law, and the only ways in which you can hold an AI accountable involve escalating to a human, at which point we're back to where we are now without AI and requiring essentially the same software and business processes.

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#19

Post by danpalmer »

re-thc wrote: post #16
danpalmer wrote: post #4

Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me). Let's assume that businesses can buy an off-the-shelf black box of AI that will run whatever business IT process they want to run. Customer data goes in, actions for humans to perform come out. It's basically an automated call centre full of humans. Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it? Do you just…

> Do you just drop the customer? Well that's lost revenue, or an easy win for another company Works for Google. Lots of their stuff has non-existent support even today. At the end of the day it might cost more to acquire the customer than not.

This is a decision that companies can take, and some do (although I'd somewhat contest the google example, I've had good experiences before working here, and I'm biased of course).

I think the issue will come when companies start dropping customers that don't fit certain templates. They'll be accused of using racist or sexist AI, or something like that, and it'll be hard to defend against that because AI is a black box. With humans you can say "we have a policy against this", or "we'll retrain our employees", but that won't be possible for AI in the same way. Yes you can "retrain" an AI, but that retraining looks a lot less like a corporate education program, and a lot more like an IT change request, and surprise surprise, we're back to buying software systems.

Re: Back To Atoms: Why we can stop building SaaS and build the future instead.

#20

Post by android521 »

danpalmer wrote: post #15
Harmohit wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. I do not believe that AI is a disruptive technology like computers and the internet was. It will at best be a + 25 % efficiency for business processes - which is awesome and I am all for it. But it is not a game changer that will fundamentally change how things are done.

As with all disruptive technologies. Uber was 10x better than taxis when it was being pumped full of VC cash, now it's better enough that it's my go-to choice, but not by a 2x margin. AirBnB was 10x better than hotels when it was being pumped full of cash, hadn't realised that people might trash places, and chancers hadn't filled the platform with crap properties, now it's a wash and only another option alongside hot…

This won’t age well. Let’s come back in a few years.
Post reply on HN