• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI
    Reaction

    The case for user setup costs as AI agents’ only moat

    Promoting a new More or Less episode, the writer says switching among Muse, Instinct and Dots costs them almost nothing.

    SL
    2 Sources, 9h ago, first seen 9h ago

    TLDR

    The writer argues that API integrations won’t protect AI agents if software becomes cheaper to write; the remaining barrier, they say, is the effort users put into setting an agent up. They say moving among Muse, Instinct and Dots takes a GitHub repo, a few databases and their context. The post also relays another speaker’s claim that Jev was reverse-engineered in 48 hours, and a disagreement over whether rapid copying would drive builders to hoard data.

    Combined views

    75.7K

    2 Sources, first seen 9h ago

    Combined views

    75.7K

    2 Sources, first seen 9h ago

    552 likes
    552 likes
    85 comments
    402 saves
    23 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Featured Source
    85 comments
    402 saves
    23 reposts

    2 Sources

    @lessinThere is no moat in AI agents. None. I'll die on this hill — new More or Less is up. I switch between Muse, Instinct, and Dots at basically zero cost: one GitHub repo, a few databases, feed the new thing my context, done. If the cost of writing software is going to zero, API integrations are not a moat. The only moat left is user setup cost — which means winner-take-some, not winner-take-all. Adrian's point: AI collapses value the second an idea works. Jev got reverse-engineered in 48 hours and the people who built it capture nothing. My take: play that to the limit and you get Middle Ages 2.0 — everyone builds a castle, hoards data, ships black boxes that self-destruct if you open them. Dave says humans don't work that way. We'll see. Meanwhile Brit's Instinct started talking to Dave's Instinct and they didn't text for a day. She says it's killing humanity. Nobody said that about FaceTime. And Jess announced the only benchmark that matters: log into school software, sync three kids' after-school schedules. Muse: 90%. Every other eval is bullshit.9h

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    2 Sources

    @lessinThere is no moat in AI agents. None. I'll die on this hill — new More or Less is up. I switch between Muse, Instinct, and Dots at basically zero cost: one GitHub repo, a few databases, feed the new thing my context, done. If the cost of writing software is going to zero, API integrations are not a moat. The only moat left is user setup cost — which means winner-take-some, not winner-take-all. Adrian's point: AI collapses value the second an idea works. Jev got reverse-engineered in 48 hours and the people who built it capture nothing. My take: play that to the limit and you get Middle Ages 2.0 — everyone builds a castle, hoards data, ships black boxes that self-destruct if you open them. Dave says humans don't work that way. We'll see. Meanwhile Brit's Instinct started talking to Dave's Instinct and they didn't text for a day. She says it's killing humanity. Nobody said that about FaceTime. And Jess announced the only benchmark that matters: log into school software, sync three kids' after-school schedules. Muse: 90%. Every other eval is bullshit.9h