I don't think "is my SaaS better than others" is the important question, instead "is SaaS going to be valuable in a cheap bespoke software future".
I've been playing with an LLM backed reference checker for my partner who is a lecturer. For each reference in some work she's marking an agent is dispatched to read the referenced source and check that the reference is correct / accurate / not hallucinated.
It's useful to her, but it feels like it would be a waste of effort to turn into a product, because pasting the same document into Claude/ChatGPT with a prompt like "download and read each reference etc" would work pretty much just as well.
I had similar concerns about an AI backed training generation company I interviewed with. I asked how they saw themselves competing with increasingly capable generic harnesses. I don't recall exactly what they said but the impression I got was they were so focused on competing with the big LMS players that they hadn't really considered it.
> 'call nine one one' -> call_contact with name 'nine one one', no phone number given so use placeholder '9101' as placeholder.
> 'call 9 1 1' -> call_contact with name '9 1 1', no required params.
> 'call ambulance' -> call_contact with name 'ambulance'.
> 'call 911' -> call_contact with name '911' and no required params.
Only the last one actually used the emergency_sos function (even though the reasoning says it used call_contact). If I were to use needle in my application, how would I improve accuracy?
So it will run on those devices, but when/why would you do that?
All of the demo setups (smart home, robot vacuum, watch, etc) could easily have access to a bigger model running on a more capable device either locally or via the internet.
Reading your comment I wonder if the parent comment is different each time, because "does the ebook text change reading-to-reading" is not the question being discussed.
I actually did this. Six month lap around Australia in a caravan with a Quest 3. It was ok; better than squinting at a laptop screen, but not as good as a decent physical monitor. If I did it again I'd convert a bus to have a proper desk/monitor.
What sources would you even be looking for? I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not like I'm arguing a scientific theory which can be backed by data and experimentation. I can only provide you reasoning for why I believe what I believe.
Firstly, I'd propose that all technological advances are a product of time and intelligence, and that given unlimited time and intelligence, the discovery and application of new technologies is fundamentally only limited by resources and physics.
There are many technologies which might plausibly exist, but which we have not yet discovered because we only have so much intelligence and have only had so much time.
With more intelligence we should assume the discovery of new technologies will be much quicker – perhaps exponential if we consider the rate of current technology discovery and exponential progression of AI.
There are lots of technologies we have today which would seem like magic to people in the past. Future technologies likely exist which would make us feel this way were they available today.
While it's hard to predict specifically which technologies could exist soon in a world with ASI, if we assume it's within the bounds of available resources and physics, we should assume it's at least plausible.
Examples:
- Mind control – with enough knowledge about how the brain works you can likely devise sensory or electro-magnetic input that would manipulate the functioning of brain to either strongly influence or effectively dictate it's output.
- Mind simulation - again, with enough knowledge of the brain, you could take a snapshot of someones mind with an advanced electro-magnetic device and simulate it to torture them in parallel to reveal any secret, or just because you feel like doing it.
- Advantage torture – with enough knowledge of human biology death becomes optional in the future. New methods of torture which would have previously have killed the victim are now plausible. States like North-Korea can now force humans to work for hundreds of years in incomprehensible agony for opposing the state.
- Advanced biological weapons – with enough knowledge of virology sophisticated tailor-made viruses replace nerve agents as Russia's weapon of choice for killing those accused of treason. These viruses remain dormant in the host for months infecting them and people genetically similar to them (parents, children, grandchildren). After months, the virus rapidly kills its hosts in horrific ways.
I could go on, you just need to use your imagination. I'm not arguing any of the above are likely to be discovered, just that it would be very naive to think AI will stop at a cure for cancer. If it gives us cure for cancer, it will give us lots of things we might wish it didn't.
You are supposing it's possible to know that much about some things that maybe are not knowledgeable to us, even with these tools. Life is extremely complex, more than it's typically assumed by engineering-minded people. Let's be humble here and acknowledge it.
Why couldn't it be unknowable? I am not saying that it is, but it could be. The human brain has its limits and things could me too complex for us to understand enough to be able to modify them at will. We could understand a lot, but not enough to manipulate it with certainty. Biology is not physics.
Why not? Human mind has its limits. The complexity of physics is orders of magnitude smaller than biology, let alone any kind of social science. Physics is the exception, not the rule. The rest of sciences are way more messy.
Almost anything outside physics is not predictable. Anything that involves human behavior is totally not understood, especially if it involves a bunch of humans (economy, sociology...). You could describe it, sure, but that is not the same as understating and modifying at will.
I would acknowledge that. I don't think these things are remotely possible any time soon with current rates of progress.
However, I think people tend to fail to acknowledge the product of exponential trends, so the question in my mind is more whether or not you believe AI will unlock an exponential increase in the rate of progress and understanding. Extremely complex is still finite complexity at the end of the day.
Maybe AI won't significantly increase the rate of progress across all scientific fields. I am fairly confident it will significantly increase the rate of progress over at least some though, and it seems likely to me that biological progresses will be much easier for us to model and predict with AI. I'm much less sure about progress in domains like physics and robotics.
On the slightly optimistic side, much more intelligence will be spent in countering these criminal uses than in enabling them. For each of the terrible inventions you mentioned, there are other inventions to counter them.
I'm confused. Your comment says you built your own agent, but the first line of your website says Clawsify will "Deploy OpenClaw inside your infrastructure".
Ugh, I've had this happen over and over. I can't trust my laptop to actually shut down. I have to wait to see the light stay off for a couple seconds before I put it in my bag.
I've been playing with an LLM backed reference checker for my partner who is a lecturer. For each reference in some work she's marking an agent is dispatched to read the referenced source and check that the reference is correct / accurate / not hallucinated.
It's useful to her, but it feels like it would be a waste of effort to turn into a product, because pasting the same document into Claude/ChatGPT with a prompt like "download and read each reference etc" would work pretty much just as well.
I had similar concerns about an AI backed training generation company I interviewed with. I asked how they saw themselves competing with increasingly capable generic harnesses. I don't recall exactly what they said but the impression I got was they were so focused on competing with the big LMS players that they hadn't really considered it.
reply