[supermatt]

Humane brooch(mentioned by author), Alexa, Siri, whatever, also fails on all these points, or doesn’t offer the respective functionality. Why is the author giving them a free pass?

What is wrong with the tooling using playwright scripts for services that don’t provide an api? What does the alternative offer? What is this magic ai automation the author thinks exist supposed to use?

This whole article is just singling out one interface from many, and doesn’t understand the very basic backend implementations these agents, including ChatGPT plugins, Siri, Alexa, etc, use.

I’m flagging this post because it is unjust.

[mypalmike]

The company promised there is a "LAM", or "Large Action Model" which uses AI to perform actions. The claim is that it can perform actions on-the-fly that the Rabbit devs never considered, rather than simply turning NLU into a fixed set of actions as with Siri, Alexa, etc.

[supermatt]

I don’t see anything like that on their marketing doc. Maybe you are projecting your unrealistic ideals onto it?

[raulparada]

Please reconsider; the article is rather poor, yes, but the reasons you cite for flagging are not any better. Just watch this single minute of the Coffeezilla video, doing a comparison of the marketed features and the actual results. https://youtu.be/zLvFc_24vSM?si=91sG63QKUhFpx44J&t=18

[supermatt]

The lam clearly exists, as that is what maps from the LLM to actions, otherwise it wouldn’t be able to do anything.

The actions are definitely faulty, as per the door dash example. I can’t get Alexa to play my last audiobook consistently. They all suck. Amazon own audible and still can’t get it right.

It IS faster than chatGPT. Even if it’s using GPT for inference the transcription and TTS latency are less than is available from OpenAI - at least at present.

Rabbit is just a “better” understanding alexa with less actions IMHO. They all suck, so why pick on this one specifically? Amazon charges $50 for an echo dot which cant even answer a basic question.

[raulparada]

:/ ok, fair I guess, difficult to argue on _expectations_, but you, me and the next (informed) guy know this is a scam by any stretch of the imagination. I really would like to save even a single person those $200.

[mtgr18977]

The difference is how Alexa was advertised vs. how the rabbit r1 was advertised.

[mtgr18977]

Maybe you should watch their announcement video again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22wlLy7hKP4

Or the interview of the CEO, Jesse Lyu aboutn the LAM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-MNgciL5hw

If you're still sure that the LAM is present in their product, that's fine, but my view (and I understand how plugins, LLM, AI and other related things work) ist thre are no LAM in the rabbit r1.

[supermatt]

Nowhere do they say the LAM will magically infer how to perform a task from the UI. ALL their documentation says it learns from actual UI sessions. That means someone clicking through the site/app to fulfill a task.

[mtgr18977]

You need to see the videos with more attention ...

Or, at least, think about the misleading with the rabbit r1 by readning a little more about it.

Like this: https://nitter.poast.org/JD_2020/status/1794057162819260461#...

EDIT: I think a end-user doens't need to read the documentation to understand how the "magic" happens, this user just want the buy something that works as advertised.

[supermatt]

I do not need to read a junk article like that because I already know how a LAM would work. It will turn an intent into an action. If you have been following anything about agents and LAM in general you would know this. Here is a good podcast giving a primer on what they do and how they work: https://changelog.com/practicalai/254 - granted you can’t expect the general public to know the “magic” but we are supposedly more technical here - and I’ll stress that my original point was against singling out rabbit when the alternatives do EXACTLY the same thing, and they promise no less