| ▲ | bandrami 3 hours ago |
| > few users, no revenue or minimal revenue The 900 pound gorilla has for a while been "where is all the output of these LLMs?", and this seems to be the answer; the number of apps on the various app stores has skyrocketed over the past two quarters but installs overall are actually down a little bit. So it seems like we've had an explosion of software that one or two people use. Which is a cool situation to think about but is pretty bearish for the "AI as a profitable business" idea. |
|
| ▲ | tmikaeld 3 hours ago | parent [-] |
| Marketing was a problem with apps even before AI, which, with today’s slopforests makes it even harder for consumers to see any of your trees even if they wanted to. |
| |
| ▲ | bandrami 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Right but if we're going to a small-batch bespoke development model then "marketing" more or less disappears because why would I pay someone to talk to an LLM when I can also talk to an LLM? The money goes from the end user to the lab in this model. | | |
| ▲ | jambalaya8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What happens then, though? Is it good to have tens or hundreds of thousands of potentially angry marketing managers roaming around that were developed out of careers? | | | |
| ▲ | bandrami 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I should expand that: the money goes from the end user to the lab and only in the cases where the marginal utility of the small app exceeds the cost. |
| |
| ▲ | davidgl 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 100 points for the term Slopforest :-) |
|
