6,223 karma · joined February 7, 2014
Do you think this is how companies sell things? With uncapped liability?
Do you think AWS reimburses customers for their lost revenue when they have an outage?
Mercedes has a ~5% profit margin on this revenue.
SaaS, even AI SaaS is expected to have much higher profit margins at scale.
And on top of that, Mercedes shrunk by 10% revenue over the last year, rather than growing, which makes sense because they missed EVs and are now managing decline and returning money to shareholders.
Can you say more about the application space you're targeting?
I think there might be space for "source available" enterprise software where you can use an LLM to modify it in a way that is cheap to continue reintegrating in new releases.
It may also be reasonable to send your prompts to the vendor and see if it is a feature they are willing to maintain.
You can argue that games are derivative, but I think most revenue still goes to premier titles, not knock offs.
There may be disruption to me as a producer, but I think the results for people as consumers will be great.
There will be change, there is already change in our careers here, but I do not fear the need to change and do something different.
On net for humanity, I am certain the change will be positive even if some people including myself will experience disruption.
I think most fully autonomous jet drone programs are also designed to work with a main crewed fighter jet that coordinates them, so there is also a benefit in getting the fighter jet to be able to fly better than a pilot.
When we work trial people, 100% of people ask for Claude rather than Codex or anything else.
When I talk to people at non-AI tech events everyone basically says they use Claude and have not tried an alternative.
Developers writ large are actually not that interested in trying multiple tools, they like customizing their chosen tool and tweaking it forever.
I think developers are as susceptible to brand marketing as everyone else. It's why almost everyone has a Macbook.
Claude Code has largely won individual developer mindshare and has been on top ever since it came out. The benchmarks change, but almost nobody opts to use anything other than Claude IME when I ask them. Enterprise is more competitive since they care about costs and other things, but developers leaning towards Claude puts a thumb on the scales there.
The product doesn't have much lock in, so it is possible to dislodge Claude, and Anthropic could (and some may argue is likely to) just shoot themselves in the foot again and again and again, but Google has never been particularly good at enterprise sales, and they have never actually been at the frontier of intelligence.
I think Google's incentives have mostly about building models for their products, which makes them focus more on the cheap end, and while they need that, it feels like the Innovator's Dilemma is biting them here.
I own a lot of Google stock from working there in the past and have been quite happy about their trajectory up until the last 6 months, but I am getting pretty antsy about their AI story these days.
I keep harping on about the "virtual staging" that real estate agents have been doing for a decade that is equally deceptive and annoying and already gets labeled, and the labels don't actually help because you're still left trying to decipher what is real yourself.
If they wanted to actually do something useful, they'd get together with the legislature and pass a law saying that real estate listings need to come with floor plans that are accurate within X% under the penalty of some sort of fine with a private right of action. But passing laws is hard and faces opposition.
Politician makes a grand statement they do not have the authority to meaningfully act on to get headlines, DCWP issues a weak sauce disclosure rule and the news cycle moves on because this is not actually anybody's priority.
Politicians routinely say they will do things they do not have the authority to do, and it's often very important to understanding what will actually happen to have some understanding of what authorities are available to them, or at the very least ask Google/LLMs about it.
Existing law doesn't have the authority to ban all AI images as inherently deceptive, and DCWP isn't going to be spending a bunch of time prosecuting individual images.
I agree with Mamdani that these images are often deceptive and misleading and sifting through the bullshit is annoying (and was annoying with virtually staged images too). It's just not going to go anywhere. The energy would be better spent on zoning and building code reform.
He can probably get DCWP to engage in the normal rule making process, but at most this is probably going to get some AI disclosure somewhere, which is what we had for "virtually staged" lies.
This has also been a problem long before AI with "virtually staged" apartments.
I did some basic reading but don't really see anything particularly wrong with them.
AFAICT, the argument being advanced against Corgi is that insured customers might be doing risky things assuming their insurance will bail them out. This just doesn't ring true to me because I think most startup founders are just willing to accept more risk and accept that sometimes that includes legal risk.
When you look at Corgi's marketing, e.g. https://www.corgi.insure/ai what you'll see in the common risk triggers is basically compliance: AI Safety Audits, VC due diligence, EU Regulation. It's basically all about showing other people that you're "doing something", not because you think you need or want insurance.
I think the comparison to Delve is actually quite apt: startups generally do not care about SOC 2, they just need the checkbox that their customers are asking for. And startup's customers often themselves don't really care, they are just doing it to satisfy their own SOC 2 requirements, ad infinitum.
I think the main people that are being potentially deceived here are not Corgi's customers, those customers' customers, but I don't think they truly care either and are also checking a box.
They found a way to sidestep regulations in a non-traditional way, they're using AI for underwriting, but like I said, there's no actual evidence the underwriting is wrong.
Is a startup gets insurance for something they couldn't get insurance for elsewhere and then Corgi goes belly up, the startup is our their premiums but otherwise in the same place.
For all we know, there are multiple risk groups under the hood for different risk types/profiles to insulate mispricing of different policy types.
Honestly, I feel like startups don't buy insurance at all unless customers ask, there's just nothing meaningful there to insure. If you fuck up that badly you're probably just going to go out of business even if the insurance check comes through.
I agree that insurers definitely faces the urge to underprice risk because the shoe will drop later, but there's no actual evidence here that they're mispricing risk of that people buying it really think it's going to save them if they do something risky.
I think the main question about Corgi is: are they underpricing risk so severely that they go bust? And honestly, we have no idea.
For all we know startups are buying overpriced insurance from Corgi because they have a better brand and are easier to deal with than Berkshire's army of underwriters.
Though it's also worth noting that the main reasons startups buy insurance is not because they want insurance, but because enterprise customers demand insurance. Which is to say, it's not out of the realm of possibility that funded startups are not actually that price sensitive, because they just want to get the deal signed and move on.
We got our insurance elsewhere because we're a little older, so I have no actual opinion of Corgi, but there's a lot of stuff that enterprise customers demand that is driven by some compliance checklist. Delve took this to an extreme, but directionally, they were providing the service customers wanted, and at least in the insurance market, you can just pay more to paper over your problems rather than addressing the core risks in a way where there is no fraud. We pay for random shit we don't need that delivers no value for enterprise customers to tick boxes, for all I know Corgi fills the same need.
Can I imagine a venue kicking out 2% of their former clients on some criteria? Absolutely yes.
Kicking out 2% of website visitors may still be totally reasonable if the cost to serve them is meaningful, or if they are less than 2% of revenue.
His defense for 98% being bad is that some CSS thing people were arguing about only had 70% coverage on his website.
Our b2b dashboard didn't support Safari for a while at all and it was entirely not an issue because everyone had a simple workaround to just use Chrome and the dashboard wasn't really the main product.