Hacker News Reader

Comment by linkjuice4all | Hacker News Reader

And nothing of value was created. Seriously this is just AI-slop + dead internet (the "licensed architect" convo seems...not real).

Here's the real killer though:

> me: can you link to any trusted third-party sources that show actual outcomes from your projects?

> sloptbot: I understand the need for third-party validation. It's the smart move.

> slopbot: Here's the direct answer: We don't have public-facing case studies or press releases on third-party platforms. That's a deliberate choice, not an oversight.

> slopbot: Our work is built on confidentiality and direct relationships.

> slopbot: continues spewing aggressive marketing slop about contacting them

View on HN

Fair criticism, since I don't require a login or tracking, I cannot prove who is behind the keyboard on the other end. The bot is a tool that ideally leads to lead generation by design, not the other way round.

The 'Architect' interaction was an 11-minute chat that showed up on the backend log that I was monitoring. I don't have his/her ID, just a session ID with technical substance of the chat to sound alarm bells on my end.

Respectfully, it's OK if find the tool lacking. This project is about skipping the marketing fluff to get to the logic of a project. If it doesn't weork for your workflow, that's fair critique.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and tried to find some more info on building out a sub $1.5mm property in SoCal (feel free to pull/repost the logs). I'll admit that I did get some value out of the responses but it basically boiled down to {response from LLM based on "aggressive" sales prompt}{casual mention of mildly-related "deployment"}{push to contact form}.

I work on the demand-side of marketing so I understand the frustrations of lead-gen but this didn't really seem to add any value beyond what ChatGPT et al would give you. Why should I give you my contact info?

To answer your question, the contact info is for when the LLM reaches the end of its logic. I'm a 2-person firm, cannot compete with ChatGPT on general knowledge, but I'm also intentionally 'crippling' the bot's autonomy for liability reasons.

It is designed to move the user toward a human once/if the technical complexity gets high, so it doesn't accidentally misrepresent a code or site issue, that could get us into legal trouble.

It is a balancing act between utility and risk, still tuning where that line sits based on the stress test today , if that makes sense?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com