chadash

> I also see the kinds of companies that get funded and they aren't typically the focused, practical, cashflow positive in short order sorts of companies.

Cashflow positive is fundamentally at odds with VC money in general, for most businesses. The VC model fundamentally requires your startup to be a huge success in a short amount of time. Usually that means throwing money at hiring people and at other growth hacks, in the name of growing as fast as possible. If you want to start a practical, cashflow positive business, SBA loans are for exactly that.

If you are talking about capital to take over an already-operating business, then there are plenty of sources. If you are talking about people who fund pre-revenue software companies that aren’t venture scale ideas, unfortunately there aren’t many of these. Your best bet would be friends and family.

> Should we still learn coding?

As an intellectual exercise, sure.

I don't have a crystal ball, but in my opinion, if you are asking in the context of employment, I think it's very hard to know, and I'd probably recommend against it if you are starting from scratch. Right now, I think that having experience with coding helps me work much more effectively alongside LLMs. Given the progress in the last five years though, I can't be certain that I will be needed in another 10 years. I already recommend against majoring in computer science with the goal of becoming a software engineer. I don't think that the role will go away, but the number of people needed might be much smaller in 10 years, and I wouldn't want to be a new grad in that kind of market.

> If you already know how to code, do you keep learning?

I'm sure others feel differently, but personally, I find it quite annoying to learn new things right now. 5 years ago, if someone came out with a new tool for say, durable workflows, or a new JS framework, I knew that they poured many days of labor and love into the project. They spent many hours thinking through what they were building and the tradeoffs and edge cases. Now, there's just an avalanche of new projects out there and it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Personally, I'm more focused on developing soft skills right now.

I agree that agents can produce decent code. In general, I don’t find agentic code beautiful but neither is most of the code I write. The code for ingesting CSV files into my ETL pipeline doesn’t have to be beautiful, it just has to work.

I think the bigger issue (like many things in software engineering) is a management issue. Once upon a time, I could take a look at the final output of a project and if it looked like a Ferrari on the outside, I could have some confidence that there was a good engine under the hood. OF COURSE THIS WASNT ALWAYS TRUE, but something that looked good, or was performant, or whatever, was a decent proxy for the code underneath being good. And with a smart human, there were ancillary things. Having spent 20 hours coding something, they probably thought through the edge cases that their manager, or product team hadn’t considered.

With AI, everyone’s output looks like a Ferrari, so it is hard to know what the internals are like.

A lot of people will probably look at this and say “well you need better management”, but better management has always been elusive in software engineering. Furthermore, reviewing AI generated code is soul crushing work and I don’t know who wants to do it.

In my guesstimate the number of good engineering managers out there is actually very very small and in practice, the best managers that I’ve seen are the ones who don’t think they are good managers, so they just set a very high hiring bar and hire people who don’t need much management.

That's my point. A good expert asks for context.

I'd correct this to "The need for actual GOOD lawyers will persist I think from my own experience."

I have worked with many lawyers in my career. The bad ones will look at a contract and tell you fifty things that can be improved. Meanwhile, you take the same contract to a really great lawyer and they tell you that's it's not worth fighting over the changes and to just keep it as is. It's kind of like how a beginner or intermediate software engineer might tell you how you can build out a k8s or auto-scaling fargate cluster for your project and a really senior engineer might look at the same thing and explain that it's not worth worrying about scalability right now.

I find that when I feed contracts to ChatGPT (which I do all the time) it will try to find 50 things wrong with it. For example, as a test, i fed chatgpt an employment offer from a US government agency. It came back with 1152 words and 14 recommended (some of them substantial) changes. Meanwhile, any half-decent employment attorney would probably laugh at me if I asked them to redline an employment offer from the State Department.

I'm old enough to remember buying software in cardboard boxes at Bestbuy.

> I don't know how to respond to this point, it's a bit of a strawman.

Why is it a strawman? I can sell you software for $100 once or I can sell it to you for $10/month. I don't think anyone is suggesting that I'm gonna sell it for $10 once though.

In particular, Desert Ant is saying their software is free for 100k active devices per SDK. That's likely a lot more users than most peoples' side projects. Given that, I'm guessing that $50k (even annually) is not a crazy number (yes, obviously $50k is not what a consumer would ever pay).

> If I'm happy with the weights you've given me, and I'm not using your compute for inference and not wanting or needing any updates off you, why should you continue getting money off me and my customers?

I definitely understand the appeal of the desire to “buy it once”, but I think there are a few issues:

- almost no software is static. Look at a package like python Requests and even though it does the simplest thing and has barely changed from a user perspective, it gets updated all the time. This is true for most software. This is doubly true for something like local AI models where both the software and the hardware are changing constantly. Subscriptions motivate sellers to keep their software up to date.

- If I’m an app developer, the idea that I can try something out for $X/month is very appealing versus making an upfront investment of (let’s say) $X*20. This is doubly true for something like local models where I will almost certainly want something new when the models improve.

- To add to the first point, I work at a startup. No one asks questions when I want $20/month licenses. But let’s say I want something that’s gonna be in the 5 figure range annually. If I go to my CFO and ask for $50k upfront and then we implement something and the project fails, I look like an idiot. If I ask for $2000/mo budget for something and then we try it for two months and it fails, no one cares. Subscriptions are just safer in this sense.

Not only this, but perhaps even more nefarious is that AWS gives lots of startups $100k+ in credits. This feels generous when you get it. In reality, it means that (unless you are in a compute intensive startup) you can go for months or years before you hit this, but by the time you do, you already have very solid monthly spend.

Initially, you picked the Multi-ZA RDS db.t3.2xlarge instance because you figured "eh i have credits anyway". Two years later, someone looks at this and says "hey, this is expensive and I bet we can do everything we need on a machine half the size". But then they think "if i downsize it and that works, i'll get a thumbs up emoji on a slack thread. If i downsize it and it causes problems, i'll draw the ire of the whole team. I better leave it alone." And the truth is... by the time your company hits the end of those credits, you're probably at the point where that savings isn't gonna do much. Or maybe you are out of business.

And that is how almost every successful company that uses AWS eventually ends up paying six-figures or more annually.

I think that's fair, but if you add a lot of value on top, a higher price is justified. Would I pay $5 for a great looking homepage, even if I only have to generate 12 images at $0.13 ($1.56 total) to get there? Yes.

Sometimes models are vastly underpriced. Fable is an example. I can easily spend hundreds of dollars using it to code. On the other hand, if I'm looking for AI to review a contract for any obvious mistakes, I don't really care if I spend $0.01 vs $1.00, even if the difference is only marginal. I'll pay quite a bit more for something that's just a little bit better.

Same thing with design, in many cases. When the absolute dollar amounts are small, I'm happy to pay more for even marginally better quality.

Ok, so I signed in to your site and started out. The $0.13 is a bit misleading because by default it generates 4 images per “sketch” so it’s more like $0.50. So I can easily get to $5 in a session, which feels like a good amount. That’s about the amount I would pay to just play around and I like that you start me off with a few credits

If I’m using this towards something that makes me money, I’d pay a lot more, but it really depends on context. In general, I’ll spend $5 like it’s nothing, $20 if it’s nothing and it’s for a business expense, and probably $50-100 for a design scheme for my (quite small) business. I don’t know that I’m a representative sample, but I’ll put my money where my mouth is, because I just added an extra $5 to play around more.

Btw, it’s a really innovative interface. It’s fun and very different from other tools I’ve seen. I quite like it but it’s also a bit confusing. Feel free to contact me if you want customer feedback (info in profile).

I like your product and I’m gonna try it because I’m growing to hate the “Claude generated website aesthetic” but $0.13 is way too cheap.