[F7F7F7]

You’re much more impressed than I am.

90% of use cases will be covered by an official API.

They’ll cover the other 10% with “teaching”. Essentially you telling the AI what the lazily written markup actually means. Then they save it into an automation template. QA teams have only been doing that for the better part of 3 decades.

I know a company that employs a building of a 1,000 people doing nothing but performing 1 click. So they put a human in the scraping /automation loop so they don’t violate the site/services TOS.

Good luck with that.

[com2kid]

Uber wants people in its app, they want to show ads for their subscription membership services, and they want to upsell you on services, and they want you to see sponsored restaurants first when you order food. Uber wants to own the relationship with customers, so they can ~exploit the customers more~ extract more value.

VC backed and publicly listed companies need endless growth, user-centric systems like what Rabbit is offering break those business models apart. Which is why I predict everyone is going to be fighting super hard against making UIs that just get shit done.

[gffrd]

Agree with everything you're saying.

Watching the keynote, I found myself thinking how unhappy Uber would be with skipping over interacting with them entirely: there's no "Uber experience" you have when you're in the car, so what do you get from Uber that any random company with a tie in to Rabbit can't get you?

Option 1: a shift in devices/model like Rabbit pull the magic carpet out from under companies like Uber, and everything becomes purely transactional.

Option 2: rabbit-like market creates exclusivity-based need, to ensure Uber is the number-one (or only) rideshare choice, so it doesn't matter that customers aren't "experiencing" Uber. Uber relinquishes the experience to the agent (unlikely).

Option 3: Uber et al wage war against agents and make their use impossible