[flagged]
IMHO this was always the use case that AI mattered for: education. To give people less skilled a leg up when learning something fits the desired use-cases for generative AI. Its low stakes (given we're in education) and has a human check before hitting production (in that the dev runs the output to see if it works). The best thing about generative AI is it generates that curiosity to those who never studied CS, as it gives them something that kinda works and lets them tinker with it to change output. Its extremely healthy.
To be honest though I figure if you were born 20 years earlier you'd have read a book and managed to make the transition the same, albeit the output product might have been slightly less impressive.
The tragedy of such an incredible time to be alive, is that it will likely further re-enforce the fact that most humans can't be bothered. When given this technology, having to expend the effort you have, is likely still too much effort for most. We saw this with the early internet where almost all of human knowledge was available for free online and most people wouldn't be interested in expending the effort to learn it.
btw, it looks like your localization is a bit off in the pricing section: "30 créditos incluidos" when in EN.
This has always been the case
Both domain and programming expertise are still required with agents. You just picked up yours along the way. The larger and more complicated the architecture, the more human guidance is needed.
But the 2 "hidden skills" needed to master agents are really the one's you've demonstrated here. Those are communicating clearly and being willing to listen and learn. Perhaps your hospitality background is a benefit here because those are not common dev skills, especially communicating about programming in plain English as you did with the LLM.
OP's comments in the thread, in turn, are plagiarized, presenting obvious LLM output as his own work, in a bid, I imagine, to drum up engagement and discussion, pushing the post higher on the front page.
The dishonesty and clumsy attempts at manipulation are unmistakable. This is AI slop, through and through, and the author deserves censure, not praise.
Is this maybe something the AI stuck in that you might have accidentally overlooked?
> CURRENT METRICS (being honest): • 6 paying customers
Meanwhile, your website claims "5000 paying customers".
> 5 verified reviews from real creators
5 out of your 6 customers wrote a review? On your site? Really?
1. The "5000 have already taken advantage" was AI-generated placeholder text that I should have removed before going live. I've just updated it to reflect the actual metrics (6 paying customers).
2. The reviews were also AI-generated examples to demonstrate the feature, not real customer reviews. I should have made that clear or removed them entirely.
This is a learning moment for me - I got caught up in trying to make the landing page look more established than it actually is. The core product works (it's a tool for content creators to generate video ideas), but I clearly need to be more transparent about the actual numbers and not use misleading social proof.
Thanks for keeping me honest. I'm updating the site now to reflect the real metrics. The 6 paying customers and $65 MRR are genuine numbers I'm proud of, even if they're small.