7 ms·
is it?
by bbeonx 2mo ago
is it?
- ed_balls 2mo agowe'll be better off - assuming we'll generate revenue on our own. LLMs have opened up an enormous new frontier of micro-SaaS opportunities. One person can now build what used to require a small team. The real problem is zero-sum work, especially when the only moat was knowledge asymmetry that is now public knowledge.
- varjag 2mo agoSoon it doesn't require even that one person
- chpatrick 2mo agoAnd the saas won't be required either because people can just get these problems solved directly.
- mhitza 2mo agoWhy would anyone use your micro SaaS when they can build their own? Have you seen a different perspective? Cause in my informational bubble SaaS ain't doing too well since vibecoding became more common.
- muspimerol 2mo agoThere's still a cost/benefit to building and maintaining a service. LLMs make it easier to build, but the cost does not scale to zero.
- mhitza 2mo agoI'm in agreement with your claim, though if you recall some of these micro SaaSes went hyperfocused on niches. The value proposition is then smaller, with larger data liability than with some behemoth's of SaaS. Though for the later ones, one might also ask themselves if they are worth their cost when using 20-30% of provided functionality.
- jug 2mo agoThis will also make it harder to compete because it holds true for everyone, not just you. I am already, this year, seeing vibe coders put out some decent stuff on App Stores but the problem is marketing it. You no longer automatically stand out just because you have a cool app. You may not even do so with reasonable early traction via social media. And then what? Throw venture capital onto the problem? In an AI saturated world? Really?
- yoz-y 2mo agoAlso the drive to innovate goes down. It took weeks for the creator of 2048 to make a low quality clone of Threes. Now people can make relatively high quality ripoffs in days, even hours.
- Marha01 2mo agoYes. Every great technology developed to date has been a net positive for the human race. Including the more controversial ones, like internal combustion engines or nuclear power. Why should AI be different? I think the critics always fixate on the negatives, but ignore the potential big positives.
- mrbungie 2mo agoLong-term, sure. Short-term it is going to cause a lot of suffering.
- muldvarp 2mo agoThere are many technologies that have not been a net positive for humanity. Leaded gasoline comes to mind immediately. For many other technologies it is also hard to determine because counterfactuals are hard to reason about. Even then past performance is not an indicator of future results. Just because you think internal combustion engines were a great invention, doesn't mean AI cannot be bad for humanity.
- Marha01 2mo agoI wouldn't say that leaded gasoline is a great technology like AI, it's a pretty niche tech. Gasoline in general is comparable to AI, and the pros of that outweight the cons. Modern civilization would be impossible without gasoline. >Even then past performance is not an indicator of future results. It is not perfect or guaranteed, but it can definitely be an indicator. Technological progress is the main reason for the massive standard of living increases that we have witnessed in the last ~200 years. If someone wants to argue that this trend will stop or even reverse, they need very strong arguments, IMHO.
- muldvarp 2mo agoI suspect your reasoning is circular if you only consider "great" technologies.
- 2mo ago