[podgietaru]

I can't help but think building an "everything" app is so.. both unbelievably ambitious, and a folly. I am not personally convinced that people want all the things that this super app purports to do.

I am from a generation that still sits behind a desktop computer when making "big purchases." I can't even buy a flight on my phone. I am so much less likely to want to have an AI agent do that for me.

Then the idea that daily consumption of these products will drive people to use them more at work... I have a very different life outside of work. My use of AI outside of work is exceedingly different to what I use it for at work.

I sometimes feel wildly out of touch. But sometimes I view this as the VR moment. To me there are some things that I think may always be preferable to do outside of that ecosystem. And for me, a lot of tasks that 'agents' enable are small enough or important enough that I want to do them myself.

I don't think I'll ever be comfortable allowing an agent to call me a taxi, or order food on my behalf. Because the convenience of asking for food isn't worth the chance it'll mess up, and opening an app and looking at a menu is simpler.

I also think we're coming to a moment where we can start identifying the markers of AI generated content on sight. And I think there's a growing animosity to it. I might be comfortable asking AI something, but when I am looking for or searching for other content, seeing AI content markers make me angry at this point.

To finish, I do just sort of straight up hate the idea that we're comparing this moment to the invention of electricity. It's on the face of it absurd.

[torben-friis]

I've worked for 3 different startups where the CEO at one point gave us the talk of "we're building a super app".

Admittedly openAI is in a better position to do it, but not by much.

Everyone wants to be WeChat in china. No user wants that from them.

[try-working]

WeChat is not a super app. It's a browser. Tencent WeChat is the equivalent of Google Chrome.

[Rohansi]

Is it a browser or like a browser? I've never actually used it but from what I understand WeChat's mini programs are like web apps but not something you can open up in a typical browser.

Alternatively, you could say browsers are the original super app.

[yanhangyhy]

its a super app.

I think the core issue isn’t what underlying technology is used, but rather the service providers. They package their services into mobile apps or WeChat mini programs, and restrict functionality on browsers. For many ordinary people, this provides convenience, but for those who care more about privacy, it’s quite problematic.

WeChat in China covers almost every aspect of life. Even someone like me, who doesn’t want to use it often, can’t avoid it. Some restaurants’ online ordering systems only support scanning via WeChat—that is, WeChat mini programs. People can pay utility bills, call taxis, shop, and make financial investments all within WeChat. Alipay offers similar functions as well.

WeChat is also one of the largest content platforms in China, similar to Medium. Countless creators set up subscription accounts on WeChat and gain more users through readers’ sharing and reposting.At the same time, government information is often released through the WeChat platform.

[efreak]

Medium is not one of the largest content providers anywhere, in any form that I'm aware of. There's no users sharing and reposting (arguably one of the drivers of network effects in modern social networking), no PSA, no apps or third-party extensibility, no taking over third party platforms in unrelated areas.

[try-working]

I can pay my bills in Chrome too. You really fail to understand my point that WeChat is just a browser for web apps - H5 as they are called here in China.

[try-working]

WeChat mini apps are called "H5" in China because they were enabled by the introduction of HTML 5. They are built on Tencent's WXML, which is an HTML derivative.

WeChat is a browser for mobile web applications, a small slice of the web universe gatekept by Tencent. WeChat was modelled after Gmail. So, it is very much like Chrome - you have your communications inbox, and your web apps, in the same app.

[dlev_pika]

cries in Musk

[oidar]

>> To finish, I do just sort of straight up hate the idea that we're comparing this moment to the invention of electricity. It's on the face of it absurd.

Do you feel that any technology is comparable in it’s impact?

[BitsAndObjects]

Most of modern medicine, by which I mean each discovery and invention in their own right, stand alongside electricity. Particularly vaccines.

AI isn’t there yet. You could turn off AI tomorrow and there’d be a shock but people would quickly switch back. You could not do the same for electricity, medicine, combustion engines (or steam engines/turbines), computers, the internet, modern building materials, etc. You try to swap back off any of those and the modern world (literally and figuratively) collapses. Turn off AI, and there’d be a financial collapse but afterwards everything would return relatively easily to an earlier way of doing things (ye know, the way from just 4 years ago, and which is still 99% of how people do things :) )

[chuckadams]

I think the Internet is the more apt analogy. But even with electricity, you could have taken it away within the first couple decades of its popularity and society would have shrugged it off. Once they got used to that telegraph thing, not so much.

[BitsAndObjects]

Yeah, I agree, but AI isn’t there yet. It’s too early to call it one way or the other. There’s plenty else that’s as important as electricity in my view, and maybe AI will join those ranks in 15 years or so when it’s gone through the hype loop and when the economy has recovered from the now-basically-inevitable AI- and war-fueled turmoil of the next decade.

[jonah]

Sure, but compare this to "turn[ing] off" combustion engines a mere four years after commercial adoption rather than 162 years later (now). Back then, going back to horses wouldn't have been as big of a deal as it would be now.

[rpdillon]

That's primarily a function of the time for adoption, though, not the utility of the technology. In 20 years, people would not be able to so easily say that they could turn off AI with no impact.

[BitsAndObjects]

That..what..no. The question was whether there are any comparable to electricity, of which I have put forth a number of examples. And also offered my opinion that it is too early to judge whether AI will be as significant or not.

There are loads of technologies that, despite being decades old, do not qualify. So, no, it’s not “primarily a function of time”. It absolutely is about the utility. We can only be in a position to judge utility when sufficient time has passed, and AI ain’t had enough time yet to prove its utility. Given enough time, it might prove as useful as electricity, or it might just sit alongside computer operating systems - never quite making it onto anyone’s “this changed the world” list, even if it has as much utility as an OS.

[rpdillon]

Sure. I'm just more optimistic than you are about the enduring value of AI. Time will tell.

[l72]

> I don't think I'll ever be comfortable allowing an agent to call me a taxi, or order food on my behalf.

I don't let another human do that! When we as a group order lunch, I always want to input mine directly or at least double check the order.

[simianwords]

I think you lack imagination. This is going to be the future because it is legitimately a step up from the previous ways of doing things. I can do things that were way more difficult before.

It doesn't have to be AI all the way - no one's asking AI to book things on its own and make the payments on their own. What does work is, make AI do the research and you verify and you do the payment. Human in the loop.

To me this is clearly the future - AI has access to all the data sources and can translate your intent by accessing these tools in a loop and use intelligence to automate things.

[podgietaru]

Maybe there's a scenario where that is useful. But again, I don't know why I'd want an AI to do this research for me. I hop on Skyscanner. I type my location, and where I'd like to go. It presents me with a list of options, and I can then use the filters to find times that work best for me.

I see a flight that isn't in my time frame, but is actually like 400 euros cheaper. And I decide in that moment that waking up at 5am is worth the savings.

I'd have not typed that into a prompt. I made that decision at the moment I saw the possibility. I didn't even know that it was an option prior to that moment.

Then I go look at hotels. I have a list of requirements, but I see that one of the hotels that I just glanced at has a really nice long pool, and the amenities look nicer from the images. I change my mind at that exact moment, I can walk 15 minutes more to the beach.

Now it should be even clearer why this is important for food.

[esafak]

Think of personal assistants that rich people have. They learn your habits and take care of business, like making your travel plans. The promise is to give you that for much less.

[LEDThereBeLight]

Right now, you’d use skyscanner directly for finding flights. Maybe Expedia for hotels. What if instead of needing to know about what app to use for every different type of thing you wanted to book, and dealing with their own separate UIs and dark patterns to upsell you, you just ask ChatGPT to curate a list for you, and then tell it to book once you’ve chosen?

In 20 years, we may not be writing UIs for apps anymore. We may just be writing tools for AI agents to consume.

[HWR_14]

You had me going until you said this is even clearer why it is important for food. Food is cheaper and has less impact on your life. I'm much more tolerant of a mistake or suboptimal experience with food.

[podgietaru]

Yeah, sure, but you also have many more options. More intolerances. And opening a menu to look at some food takes a minute.