By embracing adversarial interoperability - instead of chasing hundreds of integration deals across industries that put LLMs in products, they focused fully on integrating product access into chat, by combination of business deals, apps/MCPs, and engineer/designer support for users, all directed towards the goal of having the LLM become the "superapp" where work is done, gradually replacing product classes in order of how easy it is.

There's lots of easy but drudge work to enable this that needs to be done at the fringes. For example, LLMs today could easily replace most people's smartphone homescreen experience, or travel/commute experience, as the data is there and LLMs have the capability, even prices are acceptable - what's missing is explicit first-party support to wire it up, keep it wired up.

One step up, what's missing is accepting this explicitly as a goal: to replace software, to make existing products (whether whole or in pieces) the tools AI uses to do work for you. All the vendors seem to carefully walk around the idea, but avoid engaging with it directly, because once they do, they'll be competing with everyone instead of milking them.

▲

rune-dev 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They can’t even deliver their own flagship products without bugs, and terrible UX. So I’m doubtful of their abilities.

These are also the same companies allowing their AI to make decisions in war, have no qualms about the mental issues they’re causing in people, and have abused workers in 3rd world countries for years.

But you think they’re holding out on “destroying the software industry” out of the goodness of their hearts? Come on

▲

fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent [-]

I think his reasoning was pretty clearly presented as not the goodness of their heart but rather the medium to long term predicted outcome on their bottom line. Ultimately failing or getting tangled up with regulators any more than necessary is to be avoided. If you move too early and it chases people away from your platform which undermines your ability to keep innovating then a competitor who held back will ultimately eat your lunch.

▲

mrbungie an hour ago | parent [-]

But then there is no safe way for them to "mortally wound" the software industry. The full argument is moot.

I would add there are more reasons why this wouldn't work: costs due to OOM more usage, adoption/AI backlash, adversarial environment, players with big head starts (Google).

	▲	fc417fc802 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I believe the original commenter made that exact point. You don't need to personally win in order to mortally wound someone. It can be informative to speculate about whether or not something is possible regardless of it being strategically advisable in the current context.