[dodu_]

It's funny how many of the startup-pilled HN crowd have completely abandoned the widely accepted principles like "solve a real problem" or "make something people want" in favor of solution-first thinking "how can I shove AI into something" which was always looked down upon.

This industry has lost its collective mind with this hype cycle. I'm not even against the technology, but this is all just shockingly reckless.

[JumpCrisscross]

To be fair, there is a lot of acquisition capital looking for plays to throw at a wall and see if it sticks. The set of start-ups explicitly built as features, not standalone products, has always legitimately been non-zero. And when you get concentrations of acquisition capital, like we have now among the AI majors, you’ll see preference for that—versus the traditional product mode-of start-up.

Building a proper product is still good advice. But if you think you can slip that and flip a feature into a quick sale, that’s a higher ROI.

[dodu_]

I dunno, making a "feature" that provides dubious-at-best value in hopes that potential buyers are currently so blinded by the hype they'll fall for a wider range of bullshit than normal so I can slip one by them and leave them holding the bag while I ride off into the sunset with millions seems like it could be pretty accurately described as a scam.

I guess people can dress it up as business savvy and market timing or whatever pretentious lingo they want to make themselves feel better about it, but it's really just scamming by another name.

But we're in the Scam/Grift Economy now anyway so I guess everyone is trying to get theirs while they still can, and I guess that's what we're seeing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> making a "feature" that provides dubious-at-best value in hopes that potential buyers are currently so blinded by the hype

That’s not how these businesses are best built. Instead, the founders tend to look at what an industry should be doing, but due to incumbent politics hasn’t been able to. You build the thing from the outside, bypassing those politics. Once you have it, you’re parachuted in.

> it's really just scamming by another name

There is plenty of this in bullshit-product companies, too. At the end of the day, a bolt-on exit strategy is absolutely legitimate. Most people can’t execute on it because it requires understanding both the economic niche and high-level corporate politics at a few major players. So there is probably more noise in feature-only startups than in the broader startup ecosystem. But again, most startups fail for good reason.

[zombot]

> principles like "solve a real problem" or "make something people want"

Those have been dead for at least a decade now, and AI was not the culprit. When you can sell useless stuff that nobody knew they wanted and still make ROI, why would you limit yourself?

The thing with AI is that there is no ROI (except for Nvidia) but when world dominance with total power is the putative reward, the gambling gets more reckless than ever before.

[toponijo]

"How can I shove AI into something" is just seeing if a new technology can be used to solve a problem that's already solved. It's low effort high value compared to solving a new problem. Although I agree that people are being reckless and shoving it in when it doesn't make a significant improvement.

[disqard]

I'm not advocating for being this way... but if you're starting a company primarily so you can have an "exit strategy", then it is natural to primarily virtue-signal to Wall St (instead of "solve a real problem")

tl;dr: this AI cargo-culting is ultimately unsurprising to me.