What the hell happened? Unless it was an actual defrauding of investors, but how were the investors so stupid?
The current Gemini canvas implementation is pretty wild and can create you an app or website very very easily. Not as easy as ordering a pizza sure, but still even with just a few iterations you have something truly decent. Occasionally you luck out and the "one shot" is precisely what you want, but that typically requires an extensive prompt so you're beyond pizza range then.
Perhaps they were just too ahead of their time in that regard... But then if they'd waited then Google and OpenAi and Anthropic would have just eaten their lunch anyway (provided Claude was not too busy blackmailing you anyway!)
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/14/20805676/engineer-ai-arti...
(same company, before rebranding to builder.ai)
* - with AIStudio at least...
It says a lot when public services are deteriorating pretty much everywhere while investors blow hundred millions on fruit pressing machines and LLM wrappers
Democracy isn't just about showing up every few years and putting a name in a ballot, it's a framework that requires a whole bunch of other things. A lot of EU countries and the US are getting closer and closer to oligarchies
How are UK citizens voting for deteriorating services?
- Voting Tory, you get cutting of public health services (e.g NHS) and and Brexit.
- Voting Reform, you get the same plus a healthy dose of xenophobia and nationalism (it's thinly veiled-fascism, really).
- Voting Labour, you get the same cuts but with a nice label of "progress", so you can feel good about yourself. All the while flat prices are skyrocketing and your doctor's appointment might not ever happen, but there is always money for militarizing police and for sending abroad some bombs to kill Palestinians.
If people did want improved public services, they should have voted for somebody like Jeremy Corbyn, who had the decency to distance himself from the absolute disgrace that Labour has become, or at least for the Greens/Socialists. But people did not, in fact, want improved public services, not really.
They preferred to either vote for the xenophobe thugs of Reform, the xenophobe elitist Tories, or the pretend-liberal oligarch/capital-loving "Labour", none of who have any incentives to improve public services. You get what you vote for.
Have a look at lot of founders on linkedin. You'll notice a lot go to the same small set of universities, or worked for same companies. Then there's the odd exception. But they're the exception.
Its silly to think talent is actually that concentrated.
I think everybody knows why some people can get investment to literally throw down the drain on insane moon shots, while others struggle to even survive. I'm sure lots of people have moonshot ideas that might work. Only a very small in group get investment.
If there’s a good growth story contact people who write smaller checks who would also be interested in using the product.
Ultimately the business of VC means that you're dealing with people how have a high risk tolerance but need the potential high payout to balance their risk.
If you have a sustainable, profitable, but small business that needs capital to expand, but likely won't grow significantly, you're better off talking to a family office or individual investors. I'd avoid banks if you can help it.
If you actually do think you have a plausible VC investment then it's a game of networking. Go through every person you know and look for someone who knows someone who can give you an introduction. If all else fails there's cold outreach but those can be difficult. You might need to bring on a partner who can handle that side of things if it's critical to your business.
But, that aside, since I’m just getting into the Lean Startup:
In chapter 12—startups typically need Scarce but Secure Resources:
“too much budget is as harmful as too little—as countless dot-com failures can attest—…”
I suppose this falls under case-and-point. They had too much money and blurring the lines between real customers and early adopters. This whole thing could have probably been figured out for a couple mil I’d imagine (though I’m no expert).
> TikTok (business model: "Uber for Vine") is more popular than Facebook (business model: "Uber for Sino-Soviet Propaganda"), presumably because it bypasses the middleman and delivers the content straight from the source. Hackernews debates whether it's just a matter of time before it turns out to be evil, or whether a social-media application targeted at children and operated by a government full of genocidal monsters is and shall remain "fun." Other Hackernews point out that the app, which is operated by a company in which the murderous, barbaric Chinese government has an ownership stake, is mean to fat people.
> Github (business model: "Uber for README.MD") directs its employees to eat its own dog food. Because of Github's acquisition by Microsoft (business model: "Uber for customer abuse"), it turns out that what Github engineers are eating came out of the dog to begin with. Hackernews tries to figure out whether they, as customers of Microsoft's latest desperate attempt to get anyone to use Azure, have any control over their information, or whether they'd be better off remaining with their existing workstation-as-a-service provider, Apple (business model: "Uber for garden walls").
Seems to be covered already!
You're right. It would be a prime time to launch ZombAI
It just requires lateral thought.
Pay the completely untrained gig-workers peanuts to review AI written code to create a universal blockchain "bank without borders". I mean what could possibly go wrong?
So I reject the notion of throwing the baby out with the bath water as much as the hype bubble around them.
What we do need, as with any novel technology, is oversight and regulation. Which is difficult this time around when the grifters are also the ones in power.
Try asking an LLM. I'm not going to regurgitate what can be easily found elsewhere, or just deduced with a bit of thinking.
The constant groupthink negativity around this topic on HN is exhausting. It's just as bad as the hype.
I mean, most modern financial instruments are fairly similar, albeit slightly more regulated, so what do I know. In a short span, we have witnessed speculative buying of GPUs, crypto mining (aka using shit ton of electricity and hardware to produce NOTHING of value), dropshipping, and my favorite: the tremendous value that NFTs and all other web3 trash brought to society, I can't help but wonder why people are tired of the crypto fads, especially since crypto delivered NOTHING of its promises:
- you can buy limited amount of stuff with it and you often need to convert it to "real" money
- its unstable and unregulated, so it's just a breeding ground for scammers and snake oil salesmen
- It fails hard on its privacy/anonymity promise, as it's LITERALLY the most traceable thing in the world, especially considering wallet scramblers are outlawed in many places
So much negativity for no reason, all web3 so far has been super successful and extremely useful for society! /s
Also, the benefits of crypto as a currency aren't all that. We already have instant money transfers that everyone uses day-to-day without any hitch. Crypto can do it too, sure. Keyword too.
There can be other benefits like transparency or anonymity but:
1. We can already achieve transparency through regulation and largely have.
2. Anonymity for currencies is pretty much bad. We tried that in the past, turns out lots of organized crime.
False.
> We don't need more securities, sorry.
That's your opinion.
> We already have instant money transfers that everyone uses day-to-day without any hitch.
We do? Please let me know of an instant way to send money to any country on Earth, without exorbitant fees or trusting a single corporation.
> Anonymity for currencies is pretty much bad. We tried that in the past, turns out lots of organized crime.
Ah, yes. Let's abolish cash as well.
It's easy to strawman the case that all cryptocurrencies have no practical value. Groupthink is promoted on forums like this. What takes a bit of maturity and honesty is acknowledging that beyond the negative things cryptocurrencies have been used for, the technology is fulfilling the promise of evolving our financial systems. While you continue to scream and shout that it's a scam, millions of people will continue to benefit from it every day.
Okay, but most people aren't using bitcoin as currency.
> That's your opinion.
Okay, and most people's opinion. Yeah we don't need more securities, especially scammy ones. Sorry you're in the minority.
> We do? Please let me know of an instant way to send money to any country on Earth, without exorbitant fees or trusting a single corporation.
I don't pay for my fucking coffee in Venezuela. 99.99% of transfers don't go across countries.
And, if you need that, that's what credit cards are for. They're fast and I'm not going to get kidnapped and have my fingers stolen because I have an Amex blue card.
> It's easy to strawman
Really? You don't think appealing to usecases like "inter-country transfers" isn't strawmanning?
The reality is crypto-currency has exceedingly small usecases that aren't already covered by other technologies. And then, of those that are covered, the alternatives are proven, faster, cheaper, and safer.
> Ah, yes. Let's abolish cash as well.
Nobody ever said this, but we do put limits on cash to prevent laundering.
And it's saved a lot of lives. Sorry, I don't think letting organized crime flourish is worth for some principle of privacy you have. I don't care about you or your principles, I care about real outcomes, in the real world. And, fortunately, legislatures in pretty much every country agree with me.
Where are blockchains widely used nowadays, pray tell?
That's all I can think of, though.
It's the same thing with LLMs, they are basically an extremely sophisticated autocomplete, but I'll be damned if I don't see 1911 articles per day that claim they are sentient, and Sam the perv needs just a couple more billion dollars to reach AGI, just behind the corner. The average pundit's critical thinking is just so disappointing.
I never mentioned throwing them out; I specifically mentioned that they are niche - they have useful applications in very specific domains.
That use isn't dependent on hype, because they don't need a bunch of investment dollars to somehow find a use-case and create artificial demand.
As an example, someone proposed a while ago that banks could use a blockchain to facilitate near instant foreign exchanges; for the sake of argument let's say that's a feasible thing for them to use it for, and is an improvement over their existing system for them.
The customer doesn't need to know and likely doesn't care that it uses a blockchain to facilitate the transfer. They care that the transfer was much quicker.
Eh, your entire comment was dismissive about the "technologies", and not unlike countless similar reactions about the topic. So any serious points you wanted to make were easy to miss within the sarcasm.
I do agree with your point that valid use cases don't need to rely on hype, but at the same time, the technology that powers it doesn't need to be invisible to users. Some amount of marketing around it shouldn't be an issue. The thing is that we've been flooded with it for the past decade+, and the critical thinking public has become desensitized to the bullshit. But this doesn't mean that underneath that there is zero legitimate value, as some people vocally claim.
Never gonna happen.
> easier to use than a smartphone app
Google is pushing their Gemini to Android phones pretty hard. I upgraded my phone yesterday and Gemini wanted to take over my power button (no way). What's going to be easier than that?
There are objectively situations where other widgets (and other ways to interact) can be helpful, e.g. if my hands are full of stuff, or when I am lying on my bed and too lazy to pick up my phone. But those situations are very limited. Amazon has learned the hard lesson that people don't really use Alexa other than a smart timer, after billions of dollars of investment. I don't see how that changes any time soon.
VR and AR headsets on the other hand have several good usecases, they just aren't for everyone.
Social VR, more fun exercise and the media watching experience is quite nice, especially on planes and in general nice on the Apple Vision Pro.
Google, apple, Microsoft...
My genuine question--outside of programming-related use-cases (which are remarkable), what has come out of the generative AI "boom" that's a profitable product, or has a viable path to profitability?
What "business transformation" has happened in the private sector as a result of "agents" or whatever? What companies look promising (don't say another VSC fork)?
I'm not into this space, but I also assume that translation work is moving from a writing to an editing job, since an LLM can do that pretty well. I just had an LLM correcting my German mistakes for an email I had to send today.
I'm also not sure that profitability is relevant just yet, as inference costs keep going down. Programming-related use-cases do encompass a lot of why GenAI is useful, simply because they make anyone able to write their mothertongue a programmer. It's fine if LLM-based products bootstrap with high-margin industries like tech, and move into thinner margin ones as costs go down. Of course I'm also not saying the current valuations and hype are justified (I don't know).
Even if there are use cases, all of them are operating at extreme losses. As someone else said, maybe throw away video content? But I suspect that the providers are burning piles of cash to maintain users which is true for all AI driven products.
I mean, I'm a software developer and we have AI tools that we use, maybe not customer facing, but we have internal tools that provide lots of value.
Random example #1: we regularly scrape our competitors for their prices and offers, but it's insane to maintain all of that because our competitors update their pages/dom frequently so this doesn't scale over dozens of competitors and thousands of products. We replaced thousands of Playwright scraping code with few hundreds of lines of instructions for an LLM to find the information on the pages itself (it can figure out where/what is).
Random example #2: we sell some products that require lots of customer care and instructions as we're in the home maintenance business and sometimes there are questions about products and their installations that are extremely specific and we do have a chat and call center for our customers to assist them. What our customer care reps do is that they need to find and combine information often from multiple hundreds-page long PDFs. Thus we built an OCR+Rag pipeline to assist our customer care reps. This has provided tremendous value and cut our costs by a lot. It also has the potential to replace them completely and move them to other tasks, but it's gonna be a long time before we can really trust an LLM for that. The risks of giving incorrect or wrong information is too great right now. But internally customer care reps can double check the information as the LLM points out the original pdf sources (up to the specific line).
On top of that I'd say that there's also other tools that both make money and help us, such as AI in creative software like Adobe tools. Some of our graphic experts said that this speeds them up a lot, we need to produce or edit tons of images, illustrations, etc for our products.
And those are just few random examples of how AI definitely can speed up and improve margins of our company, while making cloud and saas vendors money too.
Seems like the above scenarios save a lot of time, aka money.
Maybe not as much as the AI leaders hyped up.
The other example also improved a lot customer satisfaction when dealing with our reps as they are much faster now, can often answer questions without putting them on hold.
I guess my examples weren't exciting (billion dollar) enough.
By all accounts it looked like another web dev sweatshop and it just used AI as bait.
Decided to just step back from it all. Most AI startups are all talk and no action. Long hours and weekends with nothing to show for it.
I'm not seeing anything like the same level of heads or stack complexity in this wave (Vercel, Firebase etc.), and the vendors involved get cheaper every day ... along with increasing ability to run models locally with no metered costs at all
Now you need to deal with all the traditional infra, plus a bunch of specific infra dealing with LLM apps, even if you’re just a wrapper using vendor APIs.
How are things in any way simplified? I only see more layers of complexity.
> A partner at accounting firm PKF Littlejohn signed off the UK accounts of the artificial intelligence start-up, despite having previously served as a director of another company also set up by Builder.ai’s founder, Sachin Dev Duggal, according to a review of hundreds of filings analysed by the Financial Times.
I mean, if you qualify that question like that, then probably closer to 100%.
What would be more interesting to know, is how many AI founders starts out as "not hype-chasing", but end up self-enriching/capitulate their startups regardless, basically turning into it rather than starting out like that.
A great candidate for the Theranos of AI, even with Microsoft involved as an investor.
We'll see a new wave of fraud(stars) being exposed out of this AI hype.
look at all the awards and brands!
but then again they also highlight how you don't have to know anything about tech to use them, so I'm sure setting "fixed pricing" for a fixed number of "features" is a great way to snake oil salesman potential customers
Perhaps we should treat them as the Forbes 30 under 30 of SaaS.
contrary to builder.ai, we now have success stories in this area: lovable, cursor, replit agents and so on
Builder.ai was also a "success" until someone double checked their books and discovered they were inflating their revenue by about 300%. Much to consider.
Flash of the Silicon Valley show.
I think the big and juicy AI applications are just so that GPUs can go brrrr[1]. Just gimmicks.
Real and useful applications will come from SLM that can be run on SoC like phones or Raspberry PIs and LLMs optimized to run on consumer grade hardware like the 3060s, not with those models that require multimillion dollar setups to be able to run.
Aug 2019 - WSJ report that for builder.ai the "AI" means "Actually people in India"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ai-startup-boom-raises-question...
FT pick up the trail over a year ago with a series of reports:
Mar 2024 - Men behind builder.ai named in criminal probe
https://www.ft.com/content/7ff3c5fc-e390-4ca8-9c7d-11fd56ab7...
Mar 2024 - The wild ride of a Microsoft-backed tech unicorn
This is a full detailed profile of the CEO and the company detailing their wild spending and fundraising details:
https://www.ft.com/content/11afc46c-b435-489d-a9f1-134ad0c00...
It all falls apart after that report:
May 2024 - CEO steps down
https://www.ft.com/content/f8882c90-ef69-4a62-aecf-9d3725aca...
May 2024 - builder.ai finds auditor had links to previous CEO:
https://www.ft.com/content/26c98590-e8f9-4cd9-83d6-db0d25ad2...
Apr 2025 - builder.ai restates revenues and hires outside auditors to investigate inflated sales
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-31/microsoft...
and this week they folded. The website was up 48 hours ago last I checked, but has now been taken down.
I genuinely think twitter and LinkedIn has ruined the brains of founders who follow fads after losing the goals and visions they had when they first started.
Big tech then swoops in and buys up any _worthwhile_ startup for cheap and consolidation of power continues for tech.
If only there were some signal in the behaviour of a person who calls themselves “chief wizard” that might suggest they were prone to making poor quality business decisions.
For real: this is not a job title that would be adopted by a “serious person” - a real expert, with real insight, and a real plan to deliver. Why have investors given his company tens of millions of dollars?
I get that investors are looking for that 10x return and are ready for some failures along the way but that mindset seems to be used as cover for a lot of dumb money. Whereas the reality is that VCs and corporate backers would enjoy much better returns if they simply avoided the most obvious grifters.
People who can’t answer specific questions about delivery with concrete answers - Elizabeth Holmes, the WeWork clown, this guy, and on and on - should be avoided. And especially if they have dumb job titles.
Builder.ai was then able to raise $75mn from some of its existing shareholders to try to fix its balance sheet, according to two people familiar with its finances.
It often seems like you are more likely to raise VC by being a fraud than by being a responsible person who wants to do something positive in this world.
You can't 10x - 100x and get an exit on a responsible person who wants to do something positive in this world.
louthy•8mo ago