Comment by nehagetschoice

Appreciate the candid comments and opinions here. I'll break it down and go over them - 1. Having access to data is not the problem we're after (most companies have the first-party data in-house). The key challenges are around having a platform that fundamentally separates strings (copies) from code, and lets you update them effortlessly, based on inferences from that data. So, I am not sure I understand why this is a Google/Meta product? 2. UX is not the value add from this product - agree with you on it (even if it appeared to be the emphasis). The ability to make scientific edits without re-deployments and accelerating continuous iterations based on user feedback, is what we are going after. 3. Curious why you think A/B test results are fictional? Getting stat sig results is probably the surest way to conclude results. Perhaps there's a different angle you are talking about here? 4. RE: don't A/B test at all. Given the number of users that get exposed to every change a consumer company as large as Twitter makes, not testing can be disastrous, which brings up another great point - Large companies are struggling to use all the (generic) gen AI content today, because it needs to be performance tested before it can be placed in front of millions of users, and that's not scalable today. 5. You may be alluding to another good point - copy is as much as art, as it is science, and writing it well takes context, quality, and expertise. That's something we hold a strong opinion on, and we don't see this or any other tool eliminating that expertise. The goal is very much to streamline and augment those workflows.