73% of AI startups are just prompt engineering

The bigger question is, this is the same story with apps on mobile phones. Apple and google could easily replicate your app if they wanted to and they did too. That danger is much higher with these ai startups. The llms are already there in terms of functionality, all the creators figured out the value is in vertical integration and all of them are doing it. From that sense all these startups are just showing them what to build. Even perplexity and cursor are in danger.

The author never explains how he is able to intercept these API calls to OpenAI, etc. I definitely believe tons of these companies are just wrappers, but they'd be doing the "wrapping" in their backend, with only a couple (dumb) companies doing the calls directly to OpenAI from the front end where they could be traced.

This article is BS. My guess is it was probably AI generated because it doesn't make any sense.

If we overlook that non-determinism isn't really compatible with a lot of business processes and assume you can make the model spit out exactly what you need, you can't get around the fact that an LLM is going to be a slower and more expensive way of getting the data you need in most cases.

LLMs are fantastic for building things. Use them to build quickly and pivot where needed and then deploy traditional architecture for actually running the workloads. If your production pipeline includes an LLM somewhere in the flow, you need to really, seriously slow down and consider whether that's actually the move that makes sense.

[1] - There are exceptions. There are always exceptions. It's a general rule not a law of physics.

The message might not even be wrong. But why is everybody's BS detection on ice in the AI topic space? Come one people, you can all do better than this!

Thanks for flagging. Though whenever such a made up thing is flagged, we lose the chance to discuss this (meta) topic. People need to be aware how prevalent this is. By just hiding it every time we notice, we're preventing everybody to read the kind of comment you wrote and recalibrate their BS-meters.

I don’t think that’s the expectation set by “everyone else” in the AI space, even if it arguably is for OpenAI (which has always, at least publicly, had something of a focus on eventual omnicapable superintelligence.) I think Google Antigravity is evidence of this: there’s a main, user selected coding model, but regardless of which coding model is used, there are specialized models used for browser interaction and image generation. While more and more capabilities are at least tolerably supported by the big general purpose models, the range of specialized models seems to be increasing rather than decreasing, and seems likely that, for conplex efforts, combining a general purpose model with a set of focussed, task-specific models will be a useful approach for the forseeable future.