iiJDSii

Such as? Are they able to recognize arbitrary GUI elements from various desktop programs, web browsers, etc?

What does your perception look like, are you using raw screenshots? GUI snapshots? Vision is very difficult for these, and snapshots are incomplete, is what I've found in some earlier experiments.

What are some truly valuable companies that would be accurately described as just "UIs around Postgres"?

I think it's a non-sequitur - either companies are much more than just UIs around a DB, or those companies just aren't very valuable (in which case, who cares).

I've heard this idea echoed quite a few times.

But can anybody name a wrapper company as/more valuable than foundation model companies like OpenAI, DeepSeek, Anthropic, Mistral, etc?

Only one that comes to mind is Perplexity, but they're a bit more than a wrapper startup - I think there's some hardcore engineering to get their web search product working so well.

> keep the server up

Oh maybe I didn't understand from the site - it's not a standalone desktop app? What processing do you do on your server side?

Those are good ones. I've fiddled with similar systems before, do you have a rough success rate? I know they can be finicky, especially as you execute through a chain-of-thought action plan, or however you're doing it.

Very cool! Any video demos for sample tasks? I didn't come across any on the website (browsing on mobile).

Is this like window/program repositioning for multiple monitors or something? Just making sure I understand.

Would you describe how every window should be positioned? And if so would you want to just do so once, and then have the configuration (or configuration pattern, as you might have a similar but different set of windows) set up when you ask for e.g. "apply my window snapping" ?

Great question. It's a combination of economics - lower-wage humans do many tasks much better - and technology - precise manipulation of tools and navigation of novel environments is incredibly difficult. Any small seemingly trivial task actually has an insane amount of complexity to it.

Let's say I wanted a robot to take out my trash. It sounds simple but there are so many incredibly difficult tasks when you break it down, each with a near-infinite number of variations in different homes:

- First, learn where in the house it is, and how to get to it. * Is it in a drawer? What kind of drawer, how to open it? * Is it a plastic garbage bag in a bin, with a foot lever? In a drawer? - How does the robot lift out a plastic bag, replace the plastic bag? We don't have the dexterity to do this yet * What happens when the plastic bag gets caught slightly on a corner, or begins to rip? - Let's say we pick up the plastic bag, now we need to move to a door that will take us out of the house * Are there stairs, pets, children, other obstacles that could get in the way? Just this bullet point here could be harder than self-driving cars, which is far from solved * How do we interact with the door to open it? Is it a round knob, is there a deadbolt to unlock, does the door swing outward or inwards?

...etc

This probably barely scratches the surface on all of the variability inside of a home, and yet a small kid can do all this without even thinking, while even a small subset of these problems probably requires billions of dollars to solve in a controlled/closed environment.

Maybe humanoid robot teleoperation + artificial intelligence will get us there, that's the pipe dream of a lot of these humanoid robot companies. But then they need to make money and out-compete some young/lower-skilled workers happy to do things for $10/hour. At which point one wonders how these companies will make money to justify the insane R&D needed for even the simplest of tasks. But hey the same story has played out in other industries where robots have outplaced low-skilled labor. The difference though is that these environments have been heavily controlled, i.e. the same few steps to assemble a widget, the same motions to clean the same type of object, etc.

Interesting examples. Personally, I don't really consider Ebay, AirBnB, Reddit, or Substack to be "technology companies". They are businesses that happen to be online, imo. I'm sure that e.g. AirBnB has lots of machine learning technology now, but I reckon it's doing niche stuff like optimizing conversion rates and profits by customer tracking, recommending, etc. So basically, after-the-fact value optimization. Nothing really invented or new created, aside from their novel ideas and unique executions.

Other actual tech examples seem to fall into 1 of 2 camps: obvious but hard to do (better search engine, better rockets, electric cars, etc), or cool but non-obvious customer end uses (maybe LLMs, VR/AR, curved or flexible high def screens, etc). The latter category has more risk but probably lower hanging fruit to get started, because the market needs are less obvious.

In your example, do you think the customer focus lead to pre-mature optimization and kind of tunnel-visioned the team away from further LLM development? That's another type of trade-off that's probably impossible to predict at the time. I mean who doesn't want customers.

I'm not entirely surprised that OpenAI was able to achieve so much given their structure - they had the mandate of a trendy new research lab, top talent, with 100M+ funding and no need to cater to any early customers. Seems like a great (though typically impractical) way to build big new things. Then they had the right top-level guidance when the tech was getting ready, to pivot and raise more money (unlike XEROX PARC for example).

Indeed that's a good distinction that I don't think is made. Some of the other advice I've gotten from YC/PG essays is of the form 'build what seems cool' (if you're a technical and curious person). This seems to be the 'high reward, high risk' route. I suppose VR would fall into this bucket, it's definitely cool to a lot of people, but from its inception, has taken decades to really get anywhere in a commercial sense - and it still seems quite niche.

Other examples: even though PG mentions them as solving problems, would Microsoft (starting with OS software for a niche machine) and Facebook (college kids online directory) really have been starting as 'problem-first' products? It seems like the founders were more building what seemed interesting to them, and got the high reward by stumbling on the right things (and building them better than competitors).

Still even with the distinction ('person not in search of a problem'), it seems there could be a hammer/nail phenomenon going on if someone, say, builds cool tech of a certain type, and then tries to commercialize from there, in that order. What seems to make sense is to 'build what seems cool', keep an up-to-date mental model on new and emerging technologies, and stay open-minded to problems arising that can be solved. But even then, without a 'problem-first' mindset, could one get too pigeon-holed I wonder.

Not sure where I'm going with this, just thinking out loud. The topic fascinates me.