billions were poured over AI companies (and yes, nowadays, if you are writing a stateful loop on top of LLM API you are considered as an AI company).
it will take sometime for new money to arrive into the cycle.
this CTO was simply naively trying to fulfill the Sam Altman (and the likes) promise "the future of AI", "90% of our code is written by AI" and so on.
this is the is on the borderline of scam, sure enough misleading the public.
In the best cases, they were able to reach funding or paying users. Architecture debt is one of the worst kinds of tech debt, so if you set it up right, it’s really hard to mess up.
In the worst case, after my contract ended, the CEO fired the whole US engineering team and replaced them with offshore resources. This was an example of messing up despite the architectural and procedural safeguards we built.
I do not want to do that work. Cleaning up junior code is easy, because they mess in predictable ways.
LLM generated code can be extremely complex at the same time that nonsensical. It has a line of genius and then code that does nothing. It can use many different libraries mixed in inhuman ways.
Better to let that companies shut down and do something better elsewhere.
No such thing with AI.
Wouldn’t that rule out that exit strategy?
Or did M&A also get vibed to oblivion now?
I can see how a tech-centric person would see the described business as viable, but putting on my founder hat, I realize that it faces enormous risks:
- Any competitor could build the same product with less janky UX; users tend to hate even unavoidable usability issues.
- There's no compliance strategy even remotely possible in the described scenario.
- If a capital investment becomes necessary for business scaling, I cannot imagine this organization passing even a perfunctory level of due diligence.
Would be happy to hear out if that makes sense.
I think it's a hoax.
Is the solipsism hitting yet?
aldidoanta•5mo ago