Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | gravity2060's commentslogin

The points raised may be interesting, but the ai-slop writing here really detracts.


What is with all the articles taking a dump on AI being written with AI's assistance?


Perhaps ai bros are saying it to discourge people from reading it. Idk just a hypothesis.


I come here for the comments first, then decide if it's worth reading the article.


All of the above points align with our organization’s experience. But there is one more thing happening as well: we have more people in more roles able to create software solutions for issues that used to be brute forced via physical processes. (We are a small manufacturing business.) While these aren’t big giant enterprise projects that require deep swe experience, they are simple software tools that are improving process and productivity everywhere. It is pretty amazing what happens when your head of shipping can build a bespoke tool to solve a problem that previously they dealt with through burning through a lot of labor hours.


One of my beliefs about AI, for small / medium sized companies it allows them massive speed ups and generally increases their capability (I'm also in this space), existing employees of all types essentially get massive speed boosts / opens pathways not available before. For big companies, they are likely to have a bunch of problems due to size, communication pathways, management structures, decision making structures, etc.


I would be really interested in the details of these kind of tools that are improving processes and productivity.

Are they reasonably documented/audited/put into any sort of version control like a lot of internal tooling? Or are they the kind of the thing that gets whacked together on the fly in a "move spreadsheet data from A to B", "I want a list of people's schedules with custom highlighting" kind of things.

Not doubting your productivity increase, I'm just curious how people quantify that when they say it.


One of our BAs created a site that tests the effectiveness of copy / layout adjustments. I don't even know exactly what that's called but he's able to do statistical analysis much faster on what works and what doesn't. It's really cool to watch him thrive and I feel like some of the thinkers that were not devs are going to find themselves to be one but in their specific domain in a few years


Yes. In the same way that spreadsheets are the dev tools for non-devs, LLMs could step into that role, but with much more powerful end result. With the caveat that in the same way you can create a powerful foot-gun with a spreadsheet you can probably create a foot-cannon with an LLM.


yeah the Coinbase CEO gleefully pointed that out as well and now the market thinks they are totally incompetent every time some UX quirk is found

looks like orgs have to have engineers on for optics. like having a legal staff with no lawyers, or a cybersecurity staff with no IT or certified people. Software has famously not needed state licenses or industry certification, but maybe thats a direction to consider to give utility to company optics.


What does it mean to say 30,000 monthly credits and 1500 daily refresh credits? If my project takes 7000 credits (the way your demo does) then does that mean I couldn’t actually do it on the lowest available pricing plan because I couldn’t use 7000 credits in one run? If this is the case, what am abysmal pricing model!


The daily refresh isn't a cap on usage, it's additional credits you get each day (resets to 1,500 nightly regardless of use).

You can use your full 30k balance in a single run if needed. The daily refresh just tops you back up over time so you're not waiting for a monthly reset.


In the demo video you shared (yt link) how many credits did that whole project take? What is the prices to fix elements of it (for example of you dislike a minor aspect of the generated spreadsheet do follow up instructions utilize only the narrow subset of agents that has been demoed to that subtask, or does it create new agents who have to create new context in the narrow follow up task?)


Credits are consumed by the blocks that get generated, not by the agents themselves. Some blocks are cheaper than others. A simple prompt or image block is a single model call, while browser use or deliverable blocks like documents and spreadsheets run models in a loop and cost more. Blocks also cost more when they have more blocks connected to them (more input tokens).

In the demo video I shared, the task cost about ~7,000 credits since it ran around 10 BrowserUse blocks and produced multiple deliverables.

If you want to fix a specific block (or set of blocks), you can select them and the chat will scope itself to primarily work on those. In that case fewer blocks run, so it's cheaper.


7000 credits, ouch. The tool is really cool, I do think it's super useful. I also like the swarm particle animations in the backround.


Is it possible to build self-improving swarm loops? (ie swarm x builds a thing, swarm y critiques and improved x’s work, repeat…)


We've only partially explored this so far, but it's a great suggestion.

The canvas architecture naturally supports this kind of loop since agents can already read and build on each other's outputs — so the plumbing is there, it's more about building the right orchestration on top. Definitely something we're exploring.


This is a tool I need. But I am so tired of stuff like this getting abandoned after 4 months that I am reluctant to even try.

I wonder if the ease of building amazing new projects leads to a sort of cycle of fatigue and end-user resistance that leads to even faster abandonment.

Very cool idea and looks like a neat implementation. I am cheering for your success and cheering even more deeply (in a philosophic sort of way) for this to be still around in few years.


Thanks a lot! I think that's the kind of support that helps keeping such projects around.

I do have more feature ideas I want to add and I'm basically dogfooding this to myself and I have no plans to abandon it so far.


This is interesting, but the pricing model does not incentivize trial. I would have tried if I could test the ai feature for 7 days, but the free version not having the ai makes me move on.


You say this, “ Want to appear more often in AI responses? Gumshoe offers tactical suggestions to improve your brand’s rank in AI search.” But how? I’m not asking for trade secrets, but is it just about publishing seo-style content on Rover’s website that is optimized for LLMs instead of Google algo?

And what is the moat? Won’t every SEO agency just morph to selling this?


Yep pointing out features of someone’s site that aren’t optimized for LLM’s is part of it. But the bigger piece is figuring out what 3rd party content is being used as sources for a relevant topic.

SEO agencies use software like this to help their clients. We are already working with some of them. Someone has to do the work of upgrading one’s website & content & it’s usually an agency. We won’t be offering the services - we’ll partner with agencies to do that.


Any plans for an API?


Not in the next quarter, but in Q2 2025.


What do you anticipate pricing will be? How much can the user manage (create) the vocab list?


Hello, thanks for checking out. Vocab builder plan will likely cost $4 per month. That's for unlimited vocab creation (custom vocab). unlimited scheduling for review.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: