> Here’s how you know you’re in denial: You use terms like “AI washing”, you think ChatGPT is just a toy and everything built on top of it is “just a wrapper”.
The author provides lots of words explaining how everyone has the wrong answers but doesn't do much to provide any right answers.
> You can’t bolt AI onto SaaS. You have to rebuild around outcomes.
To borrow a quote from Blazing Saddles:
Not only was it authentic <consulting> gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
I do find their phrasing you quoted somewhat concerning, as it's sort of a loaded question begging.
They are using a sort of rhetorical device to narrow the nature of opposition to their concerns as presented in a such way that might seem manipulative to you due to it being persuasive in tone, but perhaps due to the argument/appeal not landing, you find the setup as deployed unconvincing, which I think is part of the nature of your opposition, if I may be so bold as to assume.
I don't know how OP would write the same kind of piece without trying to appeal to your intellect and beliefs about AI, but they might not have needed to assume that we don't already agree with them, or that if we disagree that it's for the reasons or in the ways that they say.
On the other hand, I think you might be underestimating the explanatory power of TFA, as think pieces like this generally are prospective in their perspective.
But on the grasping hand, I think you're onto something here:
> Before-after-bridge (BAB). The BAB methodology is another popular framework among sales-converting copywriters. The first two parts of BAB are similar to the "How it started/How it's going" meme.
> 1. Start with a "before" snapshot of something or someone in their version of hell.
> 2. Quickly go into the ultimate solution for whatever was paining that person -- here is where you add your dramatic flair in BAB. Talk about how much this "after" stage is idyllic, magical, heavenly, etc.
> 3. End the story by talking about the "bridge" that linked the before and after stages. That bridge should be your product or service.
All things considered, this may be a good post even if it is content marketing for the company they work at, but at least they mention that upfront instead of waiting until the end of the article.
Are you talking about TFA or my comment? I don’t use AI in any capacity in my usage of HN, so I will assume you didn’t mean me. I get subtle AI vibes from TFA myself, and they work for an AI startup, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they did use it.
I can't tell everyone how to build their business - but I do actually detail that you need to walk away from the solution you built and revisit the problem you want to solve in an "AI Native" way.
That means think of the future without the usual windows-icons / SaaS-seat solution but rather how you built this with agents, a chat interface, etc.
This about pitching, not about building. What you can put in a vibe coded demo and a slide deck versus what functions in production a year later are very different. "Three Stanford kids in a trenchcoat" will always be able to get some kind of funding. That's less about technology and business principles and more about the legacy of P. T. Barnum.
Forget about AI and vibe coding and consider that those three Stanford grads might genuinely have found a way to deliver a significantly better product that will put your product out of business. The challenge then is this: How much of your yearly spend should you dedicate to researching these potential improvements yourself? Should you try to be an “early adopter” or a “late mover”?
> AI and agentic AI doesn’t improve SaaS. It replaces the need for it. Not the functionality—the entire concept of software as an intermediary between intent and outcome.
This paints with a pretty broad brush. Are agentic AI solutions precise yet? Are they secure? How costly are the mistakes they intrinsically make?
Is questioning the premise of the article just going to be met with dismissive bucketing into recycled stages of grief?
Summary: Don't sell software to help humans do X, sell software to do X directly for much more money... because that is currently known to work really well, right?!
> Here’s how you know you’re in denial: You use terms like “AI washing”, you think ChatGPT is just a toy and everything built on top of it is “just a wrapper”.
The author provides lots of words explaining how everyone has the wrong answers but doesn't do much to provide any right answers.
> You can’t bolt AI onto SaaS. You have to rebuild around outcomes.
To borrow a quote from Blazing Saddles:
Not only was it authentic <consulting> gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
The scene in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNC3OciAF3w
I do find their phrasing you quoted somewhat concerning, as it's sort of a loaded question begging.
They are using a sort of rhetorical device to narrow the nature of opposition to their concerns as presented in a such way that might seem manipulative to you due to it being persuasive in tone, but perhaps due to the argument/appeal not landing, you find the setup as deployed unconvincing, which I think is part of the nature of your opposition, if I may be so bold as to assume.
I don't know how OP would write the same kind of piece without trying to appeal to your intellect and beliefs about AI, but they might not have needed to assume that we don't already agree with them, or that if we disagree that it's for the reasons or in the ways that they say.
On the other hand, I think you might be underestimating the explanatory power of TFA, as think pieces like this generally are prospective in their perspective.
But on the grasping hand, I think you're onto something here:
https://www.kompyte.com/blog/overcoming-sales-objections-sto...
> Before-after-bridge (BAB). The BAB methodology is another popular framework among sales-converting copywriters. The first two parts of BAB are similar to the "How it started/How it's going" meme.
> 1. Start with a "before" snapshot of something or someone in their version of hell.
> 2. Quickly go into the ultimate solution for whatever was paining that person -- here is where you add your dramatic flair in BAB. Talk about how much this "after" stage is idyllic, magical, heavenly, etc.
> 3. End the story by talking about the "bridge" that linked the before and after stages. That bridge should be your product or service.
All things considered, this may be a good post even if it is content marketing for the company they work at, but at least they mention that upfront instead of waiting until the end of the article.
AI schlock
Are you talking about TFA or my comment? I don’t use AI in any capacity in my usage of HN, so I will assume you didn’t mean me. I get subtle AI vibes from TFA myself, and they work for an AI startup, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they did use it.
I can't tell everyone how to build their business - but I do actually detail that you need to walk away from the solution you built and revisit the problem you want to solve in an "AI Native" way.
That means think of the future without the usual windows-icons / SaaS-seat solution but rather how you built this with agents, a chat interface, etc.
This about pitching, not about building. What you can put in a vibe coded demo and a slide deck versus what functions in production a year later are very different. "Three Stanford kids in a trenchcoat" will always be able to get some kind of funding. That's less about technology and business principles and more about the legacy of P. T. Barnum.
Forget about AI and vibe coding and consider that those three Stanford grads might genuinely have found a way to deliver a significantly better product that will put your product out of business. The challenge then is this: How much of your yearly spend should you dedicate to researching these potential improvements yourself? Should you try to be an “early adopter” or a “late mover”?
> AI and agentic AI doesn’t improve SaaS. It replaces the need for it. Not the functionality—the entire concept of software as an intermediary between intent and outcome.
This paints with a pretty broad brush. Are agentic AI solutions precise yet? Are they secure? How costly are the mistakes they intrinsically make?
Is questioning the premise of the article just going to be met with dismissive bucketing into recycled stages of grief?
What the fuck is that?
Summary: Don't sell software to help humans do X, sell software to do X directly for much more money... because that is currently known to work really well, right?!
Yes, that's the direction we're going in globally. You can keep ignoring it but it's not going away.
Probably eventually in some way, but for sure not now.
If AGI comes around, why would customers go to an AGI "reseller" instead of paying for the AGI directly?
So if I sell project management software for the construction industry, I should pivot to... selling houses?
No, you should pivot to solve the project management issues without thinking about it in terms of a SaaS CRM that someone uses manually
Riiiigghhht.
Which part do you disagree with?