This is so obviously fake news that it's a good litmus test of the people who are boosting it.
There's no way that a team of programmers can ever produce code quickly enough to mimic anything close to the response time of a coding LLM.
There's no way that a team of programmers can ever produce code quickly enough to mimic anything close to the response time of a coding LLM.
Coding LLMs do not solve the problem of it hallucinating, using antiquated libraries and technologies and screwing up large code bases because of the limited context size.
Given a well architected component library and set of modules I would bet that on average I could build a correct website faster.
Builder.ai didn't tell investors they were competing with GitHub Copilot, Cody, or CodeWhisperer. Those are code assistants for developers. They told investors they were building a virtual assistant for customers. This assistant was meant to "talk" to clients, gather requirements and automate parts of the build process. Very different space.
And like I said in another comment, creating a dedicated, pre-trained foundation model is expensive. Not to mention a full LLM.
Questions:
1. Did Craig Saunders, the VP of AI (and ex-Amazon), ever show investors or clients any working demo of Natasha? Or a product roadmap?
2. Was there a technical team behind Saunders capable of building such a model?
3. Was the goal really to build a domain-specific foundation model, or was that just a narrative to attract investment?
Creating a dedicated pretrained model is a prerequisite of any LLM. What do you mean by "full LLM"?
LLMs are a type of foundation model, but not all foundation models are LLMs. What Builder.ai was building with Natasha sounded more like a domain-specific assistant, not a general-purpose LLM.