311–320 of 398 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue it's not CEOs job to code his own dashboards... This sounds like a vibe coding side project. And I'm sorry, but whatever he builds will most likely become tech debt that has to be rewritten at some point.
Or to steel-man it, it could also end up as a prototype that forced the end user to deal with decision points, and can serve as a framework for a much more specific requirements discussion.
This article made no sense to me. It is talking about AI-generated code eating SaaS. That's not what is going to replace SaaS. When AI is able to do the job itself — without generating code — that's what is going to replace SaaS. AI-generated code still requires software engineers to build, test, debug, deploy, secure, monitor, be on-call, handle incidents, and so on. That's very expensive. It is much cheaper to pay…
Not to mention the author appears to run a 1-2 person company, so ... yeah. AI thought leadership ahoy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For one thing, the threat model assumes customers can build their own tools. That's not the threat model. The threat model is that they won't have to - at some point which may not be right now. End users want to get their work done, not learn UIs and new products. If they can get their analysis/reports based on excels which are already on SharePoint (or wherever), they'd want just that. You can already see this hap…
The president of a company I work with is a youngish guy who has no technical skills, but is resourceful. He wanted updated analytic dashboards, but there’s no dev capacity for that right now. So he decided he was going to try his hand at building his own dashboard using Lovable, which is one of these AI app making outfits. I sent him a copy of the dev database and a few markdown files with explanations regarding cer…
"It" being "that it's harder than it looks"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clojure is just better than CL in pretty much every respect. Excellent and well designed standard library, great concurrency primitives, core.async, built-in transducers (CL has SERIES which does a kind-of similar thing, but isn't as well designed and integrated) and the dominant immutability all let me write more maintainable code. Also, I can re-use model code on the client side (ClojureScript), so there is lots of…
I did not try Clojure so I cannot comment on how well implemented the features you quote are, when compared to CL. All I can say is that CL also provides much of the same functionality with its standard, cl-async, lparallel, parenscript, while (im)mutability is a matter of preference (IMO correct decision by CL) rather than dominance. The way I see it, is that CL is superior (opinion) due to reader macros and native…
So, I kind of know what I'm talking about :-) And I don't miss anything from CL: I honestly can't find a single reason to switch back to CL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president of a company I work with is a youngish guy who has no technical skills, but is resourceful. He wanted updated analytic dashboards, but there’s no dev capacity for that right now. So he decided he was going to try his hand at building his own dashboard using Lovable, which is one of these AI app making outfits. I sent him a copy of the dev database and a few markdown files with explanations regarding cer…
All tech problems are actually people problems. once the Csuite builds their own dashboards, they quickly decide what they actually need versus what is a nice to have.
If corporate decisions could be made purely from the data recorded then you don't need people to make those decisions. The reason you often do is that a lot of the critical information for decision making is brought in to the meeting out-of-band in people's heads.
I'm CTO at a vertical SaaS company, paired with a product-focused CEO with deep domain expertise. The thesis doesn't match my experience. For one thing, the threat model assumes customers can build their own tools. Our end users can't. Their current "system" is Excel. The big enterprises that employ them have thousands of devs, but two of them explicitly cloned our product and tried to poach their own users onto it.…
> But my key takeaway would be that if your product is just a SQL wrapper on a billing system, you now have thousands of competitors: engineers at your customers with a spare Friday afternoon with an agent.
I think the issue is that the "two of them explicitly cloned" were trying to clone something that's more than "just a SQL wrapper on a billing system."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The technology of LLMs is already applicable to valuable enough problems, therefore it won’t be a bubble. Dot-com was a bubble despite being applicable to valuable problems. So were railways when the US had a bubble on those. Bubbles don't just mean tulips. What we've got right now, I'm saying the money will run out and not all the current players will win any money from all their spending. It's even possible that…
The big models will never run locally, and I doubt that titan and co will run locally, just way to much resources needed
Observably, the biggest models we have right now have similar complexity to a rodent's brain, which runs on far less power. Limiting factors for chips in your phone is power, power efficiency is improving rapidly.
> Agents don't leave How wrong the author is about that! IMO As soon as the bubble bursts, which is already evident and imminent, these agents will raise their subscription fees to ridiculous amounts. And when that happens, entire organizations will abandon them and return to good ol' human engineering
> IMO As soon as the bubble bursts, which is already evident and imminent, these agents will raise their subscription fees to ridiculous amounts. And when that happens, entire organizations will abandon them and return to good ol' human engineering It's worse than you state; a primary premise of the current AI expansion and investment, continuously repeated, is that computational resources are increasing for the same…
We’ll need AI not because it is actually better but because future generations won’t have personal computing hardware to start learning when they are 7.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "we'll just build it internally" or "we can just throw it into an LLM" all of the time. Is that a bluff used to negotiate the price?
If it is a credible bluff, does it work?
In fact having sold stuff If a lead says this, it is a huge red flag for me that I probably don't want to do business with them because they are probably a "vampire customer"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of that matters to this point, though I'd dispute some of it if I thought it did. "Can they keep charging money for it?", that's the question that matters here.
It matters to the comparison being made between the dot com boom and an ai boom, they have completely different fundamentals outside of the hype train. There were not as many consumers buying online during dot com boom. To the extent currently more is being spent on AI than anything in the dot com boom. Nor did companies run their businesses in the cloud, because there was no real broadband. There’s no doubt there’s…
My computer doesn't have enough RAM to run the state of the art in free LLMs, but such computers can be bought and are even affordable by any business and a lot of hobbyists.
Given this, the only way for model providers to stay ahead is to spend a lot on training ever better models to beat the free ones that are being given away. And buy "spend a lot" I mean they are making a loss.
This means that the similarity with the dot com bubble can be expressed with the phrase "losing money on every sale and making up for it in volume".
Hardware efficiency is also still improving; just as I can even run that image model locally on my phone, an LLM equivalent to SOTA today should run on a high-end smartphone in 2030.
Not much room to charge people for what runs on-device.
So, they are in a Red Queen's race, running as hard as they can just to stay where they are. And where they are today, is losing money.