 |
|
Of course. I’m technical, and not a capitalist desperately seeking alpha. I’m not the target audience. Strongly suspect that’s common here. |
|
|
|
Went to a summit recently where all of the sponsors that had "AI enhanced yada yada" looked all the same. If I didn't know what the company was doing, then there was no differentiator at all. Bland. |
|
|
|
|
At this point, anything that even so much as _mentions_ AI, as a major selling point or not, is an immediate turn off and a reason for me to never use or stop using something. I don’t care about any arguments towards “well sometimes it can be helpful, as long as it’s done right” I am just So. Unbelievably. Burnt. Out. I don’t want to hear those two letters next to each other again for the rest of my life. The complete oversaturation is driving me insane, honestly I preferred when everyone was desperately screaming about web3 and nfts and the metaverse, that was _significantly_ more tolerable than this AI barrage. |
|
|
|
|
You are more than correct. Lots of these companies struggling for VC money end up having to rebrand and scream about being 'AI-powered' as the last chance for survival. Somehow they are also believe they are 'AI companies' contributing to AI research all of a sudden, but are just an API call away to someone else's AI model. Like previously when everyone was an 'internet company' then a 'technology company', then 'robotics company' now an 'AI company' and soon a 'quantum computing company', then they really are confused on what they actually do. |
|
|
|
Honestly? You're thinking about it wrong. AI can make most products more useful. That doesn't mean it's going to always be implemented well. Think about all the companies that were selling boxed desktop software in the 90s. The ones that survived almost universally found some way to incorporate networking/internet into their product. At the time, there was plenty of skepticism, and you could have said they were chasing a fad. But to early adopters of the internet, the value was plainly obvious. Of course, many tried to adapt but executed poorly, so they still didn't make it through the paradigm shift. That doesn't mean ignoring the shift was a better plan. |
|
|
|
There is also the caveat that some companies tried things that work now, but didn't work back then. I don't remember the specific company, but something like Uber was tried back then. and it just didn't work. "Internet is available" is not the same as "internet is ubiquitous" and some ideas require the ubiquity for it to work out, even if the execution was otherwise fine. "LLMs are pretty neat" is not the same as "AGI is ubiquitous." So there are some AI products that people will try, that will fail horrendously, and it won't be because it's a bad idea or executed poorly, but it's because the AI behind the idea isn't ready yet.
|
|
|
|
> AI can make most products more useful That's what the people shoving it down our throats keep saying but the reality is the vast majority of products don't need AI and are often made worse by it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future AI possibly, but what’s currently available needs to actually be fit for purpose or it’s just a waste of resources. Many 90’s games added video elements because that’s ‘something new we can do’ without actually improving the gameplay. It’s that kind of low effort tacking on of cool features that you really need to avoid. |
|
|
|
It's an example of the evergreen strategy, find people who are throwing money at a trend and get their money. Reminds me of the VR arc on the show Silicon Valley
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if we roll our eyes. Adding the AI-powered to your pitch deck multiplies your valuation by infinity, because without AI you get zero investor interest, with AI you might find some funding. Pretty much every fund I'm on talking terms with is focusing their portfolio on AI, and their LPs won't put cash into a non-AI play |
|
|
|
English (US) ·