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
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.
:/ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Or, you can nsay that an automation is a LAM (it's not).
With the definition of the Silvio Savarese’s article (from the podcast you indicate):
> To be clear, an LAMs job isn’t just turning a request into a series of steps, but understanding the logic that connects and surrounds them. That means understanding why one step must occur before or after another, and knowing when it’s time to change the plan to accommodate changes in circumstances. It’s a capability we demonstrate all the time in everyday life. For instance, when we don’t have enough eggs to make an omelet, we know the first step has nothing to do with cooking, but with heading to the nearest grocery store. It’s time we built technology that can do the same.
**
The definition provided by Silvio Savarese highlights the ability of a LAM to not only transform a request into a series of steps but also to understand the underlying logic that connects and surrounds these steps. This includes the ability to adjust the plan as circumstances change.
Based on this definition, claiming that rabbit r1 is a LAM-oriented assistant seems to be inaccurate. If it does not demonstrate the ability to understand and adapt to contextual changes in a logical and effective manner, it cannot be classified as a genuine LAM.
For a true LAM, it is crucial that the technology not only follows a predefined sequence of steps but also understands the logic and purpose behind each step, adjusting as necessary to achieve the desired goal. If rabbit r1 does not meet these criteria, its classification as a LAM indeed needs to be reviewed.
And, with that in mind I can assure you that rabbit r1 it's not a LAM oriented assistant as they claim.
I don’t know exactly how sophisticated the setup is - it’s likely some tooling around langchain or similar - but it evidently DOES do this given the nature of some of the queries that it resolves.
You are suggesting that a LAM must route itself around a critical failure in its tooling. Maybe you also expect a LAM to grow arms and water your plants for you? You are taking an experts definition and projecting some extra magical requirement onto it to dismiss r1 having a LAM.
The r1s LAM sucks, for sure, but it evidently exists in some form.
As for it being a scam overall - I don’t see how they can offer ChatGPT for life with no subscription, so unless they have some other revenue stream they won’t be around for long.