I went to my first tech conference when I was 13. One of the hot items was a tool that made programmers unnecessary. It was targeted at cheapskate businesspeople. Decades later the company is long dead. But the suckers are still out there. They think that coding is the hard part, in the same way that they think the hard part about building a house is nailing things together. But in both cases, the part you're really paying for is expertise: good development firms and good homebuilders know how to turn hazy human desires into very specific implementations, while also shaping those desires to be reasonable and achievable.
- Disclaimer, I'm a VP E at Engineer.ai
- Pricing is a Supervised Learning Model.
- Custom Features are a Convolutional Neural Net + NLP.
- Resource Allocation (we tap into capacity of other dev shops) is an OR/ML combination.
- Sequencing of what to do is an ML/SL problem.
- Complexity is a Clustering Problem.
- Grading Devs is a Static Code Analysis (industry standard) + NLP Problem.
- Quality Early Warning is a Supervised Learning + Heuristics (we identify early potential problems based on a developer + feature set history analysis)
- Templates being updated based on features being added by onward customers.
---> Building Blocks
- Features are one or many building blocks
- They communicate through an ESB thats allows a smarter way of messaging between individual areas.
- The ESB allows us to "plug n play" -> today it still needs human stitching but that a scale problem we are looking to fix.
We are step 5 out of 12 steps of the way through the final vision - and the above are at varying stages of deployment (some early, some more established).
There doesn't appear to be AI involved. A very good business model, but no AI.
What I expected the founder to say was "we've proven people want our product, now we can scale it even further by building the ai tool we always wanted to build," but I don't see that.