rajvarkala

5 ms·

1.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Not sure I follow. But, the first paragraph is interesting. You are saying, employees stick around if they are given easy tickets, and companies care about passing along easy tickets so warm bodies do not churn. That will be a big claim.
2.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
If the AI is never going to be manageable, never trustable, then the whole idea of agentic systems is dumb. What is the point of an agent running and you don't trust it? That would be equivalent to calling this whole AI wave useless. M
3.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Indeed. The whole AI game is predicated on the fact that they can deliver work equivalent to humans in some cases. If that is never going to be the case, then this whole agentic stuff goes belly-up. The alternative scenario is they get bett
4.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
How do you verify AWS charges? By inspecting logs? There goes the arbiter. I get the binary part. The biggest difference is the subjective component of outcome? However, a tech provider - especially Agent provider - has to bring down the s
5.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
:)
6.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
One reason slack exists is because of capacity and utilization, less slack -> higher wait times in peak times. Is slack intended for Employee welfare? Come on, we are talking corporate here. The support services are already regimented -
7.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
We just give today's human performance metrics to AI agents. AI agent developers internally have a metric they are targeting to improve. That itself violates goodhart law.
8.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Interesting. Let's take the case of infra spend on AWS. Amazon says you invoked serverless calls 100k times and you are charged for it. How are you trusting them?
9.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Understood. So, a better way is to keep him on a retainer? Or let Amazon or Cheaper store do a cost-plus model? I think that is the core of the argument. It is the risk-sharing between buyer and seller. If sold on outcomes, seller carries a
10.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
The price will be what you are willing to pay. No justification required, excepting for fairness (info asymmetry and what else?). It is written by me. Unfunded bootstrapped !!call it dire straits.
11.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
The agent builder loses contract .. Is this not force enough to make AI worthwhile?
12.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
:)
13.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Of course, there is displacement. Jobs evolve.
14.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Yes. Always exists. There neesd to be a secondary mechanism to verify . But, again, such systems already exist. The folk theorem guarantees this. In a repeated game, people crave reputation. For instance, seller over-resolving will suffer
15.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
This is actually what I thought. Although, AI agent developers can capture 1:10 of value delivered - assuming AI agents deliver - but with competiton among Agent builders, the value capture will go down. That is one possibility
16.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
oversimplified surely, sweeping assumptions.... As much as I hate the assumptions, the worst case scenario is that AI is surely affecting some jobs.
17.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
I think what you described would be a good definition of outcome. But, Who bills customers that way if you think about software providers? The prevailing models are fixed fee , hourly fee or infra-spend fee. There is an argument to be made
18.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Sure, incentives can be gamed. The same oversight mechanism that applies to humans cannot correct the flaws of AI agents? What do you think is the catch? I am not saying things are clearly defined in most settings. But my accounting agent (
19.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
The same applies to human agents as well. Humans are incentivised differently ? How? The same oversight mechanism that applies to humans cannot correct the flaws of AI agents?
20.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Hi alberth, I'd assume an outcome is a negotiated agreement between buyer and Agent provider. Think of all the n8n workflows. If we take a simple example of Expense receipt processing workflows, or a lead sourcing workflow, I'd t
21.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
I often go back to customer support voice AI agent example. Let's say, The bot can resolve tickets successfully at a certain rate . This is capturable easily. Why is this difficult? What cases am I missing?
22.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Understood. Take for instance, customer support Agent , that is supposed to resolve tickets. Assuming it resolves around 30% tickets by an objective measure. Do you think that cannot be captured and agreed upon by both sides?
23.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Some definitions of outcomes I believe are very easy to determine. Even if the outcomes are easy to determine, the outcomes I am certain are negotiated between the buyer and seller, just as a service contract. There could be some workflows
24.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
Hey , As costs vary, I think it becomes even more important to track costs for each task. Also, if costs also vary a lot without usefulness, it becomes difficult to pass these costs onto the customer. Hence pricing needs to take care of vol
25.
Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents(valmi.io)
33 points by rajvarkala 9mo ago|68 comments
26.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
I am curious to know your opinions to the questions I am thinking about. What do you think are the challenges with AI Agents pricing? How you are currently pricing your AI Agents work? Would be great to know what HN community thinks.
27.
Show HN: Built Valmi to bill AI Agents(Open Alternative to Paid.ai, Legacy Zuora(github.com)
4 points by rajvarkala 9mo ago|7 comments
28.
by rajvarkala 9mo ago
It'd be amazing to receive feedback and thoughts.
29.
Show HN: Valmi: Outcome-Billing and Payments for AI Agents (Open Source SDK)(github.com)
2 points by rajvarkala 9mo ago|1 comments
30.
by rajvarkala 3y ago
Hi, Co-Founder of valmi.io here. Airbyte protocol is a spec derived from singer.io and it is a way to interact with and launch docker containers. Moreover, airbyte_cdk is under MIT license. Could you please elaborate on what kind of permis

More ›