When I click on "Pricing" in the nav bar, it scrolls down, and the first thing that catches my eye is "$2100 / month". I happened to see this time that this is the benefit you're projecting and it is actually $2.50/hour. On the previous times I've visited your website based on your HN comments, I've always thought $2100/month was what you were going to charge me and closed the tab.
I've been frustrated myself that people don't read what's right there on the page when they come to my startup app's landing page. Turns out I do the same. Hope this helps you improve the layout / font sizes and such "information hierarchy" so the correct information is conveyed at a glance.
IMHO $2.50/hour is great value, and stands on its own. I know how much my time is worth, so perhaps the page doesn't really have to shout that to convince me.
Again, please feel free to ignore this as it is quite possible that it is just me with the attention span of a goldfish with CTE while clicking around new websites.
> Again, please feel free to ignore this as it is quite possible that it is just me with the attention span of a goldfish with CTE while clicking around new websites.
Most of our clients have issues with attention span, so your feedback is gold :-) Again, thank you!
I understand if the window were taller, I'd have seen the actual price cards. I think it's just that when you click "Pricing", you expect the next obvious number you see to be the price.
Also, we do more than just body doubling. Some clients need to follow a morning ritual before starting their work (think meditation, a quick house cleanup, etc.). Sometimes, we perform sanity checks on their to-do lists (people often create tasks that are too vague or vastly underestimate the time needed to complete them). We ask them to apply the 2-minute rule, and so on. It all depends on the client's needs.
But at that low price, surely you have a bunch of customers being watched by each employee, and then talking to only one at a time — isn’t it distracting to see your “double” chatting away with the sound off?
Fun fact: I’d estimate that 50% of users don’t even look at their Productivity Partner while they work. WorkMode runs in another tab, and users rarely switch back to it. They don’t need to see us - they just need to know we’re watching. I’m in that group.
I went to the Glass Office co-working space to study for exams this summer and it worked out really well. I also met some nice people there.
A standalone Quest 3 is enough to get you started.
However, I doubt it would work for hedonistic procrastinators. When body doubling, hedonistic procrastinators rely on social pressure to be productive. Using AI likely won't work unless the person perceives the AI as a human.
My questions to copilot.ms.com today are more like the following, still works like a charm...
"I have cpp code: <enter><code snippet><enter> and i get error <piece of compilation output>. Is this wrong smart ponitor?"
[elaborate answer with nice examples]
"Works. <Next question>"
Do you put effort into being polite when ChatGPT makes a mistake and you correct it? Do you try to soften the blow to avoid hurting its "feelings"? Do you feel bad if you respond impolitely? I don't.
For me personally, I was awful at working when my parents were hovering over me.
In the past, I used to work with a professor on a project and we'd spend significant amounts of time on zoom calls working (this was during COVID). The professor wouldn't even be helping me the entire time, but as soon as I was blocked, I'd start talking and the ideas would bounce back and forth and I'd find a solution significantly quicker.
The key is, I don't want to have to initiate the contact. Hand holding the AI myself defeats the purpose. The ideal AI assistant is one that behaves as if it's a person that's sitting next to me.
Imagine you're a junior that gets on a teams call to get help via pair programming with your boss. For anything more than just a quick fix, pair programming on calls tends to turn into the junior working on something, hitting a roadblock, and the boss stepping in to provide input.
Here's the really important part that I've realized: very rarely will the input that the boss provides be something that is leaps and bounds outside of the ability of the junior. A lot of it will just be asking questions or talking the problem through until it turns the gears enough for the junior to continue on their own. THAT right there. That's the gear turning AI agent I'm looking for.
If someone could develop a tool that "knows" the right time to jump in and talk with you, then I think we'd see huge jumps in productivity for people.
I'm leaning toward saying that the main issue for me is that I need to keep my focus on things that are active engagement rather than more passive engagement like taking notes versus just reading a passage.
On an unrelated note, I believe people need to start quantifying their outrageous ai productivity claims or shut up.
I'm someone that becomes about 5x more productive when I have a person watching or just checking in on me (even if they're just hovering there).
Having AI to basically be that "parent" to kick me into gear would be so helpful. 90% of the time my problems are because I need someone to help keep the gears turning for me, but there isn't always someone available. This has the potential to be a person that's always available.