nadis

I know many folks who work in medicine and have to use Epic and my outside (caveat! limited!) impression is of the technological dark age it feels like hospitals / medical workers are in is astonishing to me as someone in tech. It's not just Epic, but it is in large part Epic.

There's also so much bureaucracy and red tape which to an extent makes sense (this is an area you'd expect to be cautious of new technology or solutions) but also tradition / provider lock-in seems to be really holding the space back.

OpenEvidence seems to be maybe the one more modern solution that's breaking through for now.

If you click on the image there's a view with the colors intensified and I believe it's the red portion but it is pretty abstract-looking, at least at this time.

> "It’s okay to fall in love with the company you’re building, but don’t deny yourself the ability to get closure and move on just because the company itself hasn’t yet experienced an exit or ending."

This note at the end feels like something many founders might grapple with at one point or another, especially if it's not a rocketship or clearly going to become one.

Neat experiment! I wish I'd read that my comment was going to be public before immediately typing (whoops, but a minor whoops). Maybe update the UI to have that shown earlier?

But also clearly user error on my end to just type away and not read first, so that's on me.

I haven’t tried them yet. Someone I know also founded The Insights Company, which seems to be in a similar space.

For now, I still think it’s valuable to be as close to the research as possible. When I’m in the conversation, I can notice a pause, a reaction, or a facial expression and ask a follow-up right then. I’m wary of handing that part of discovery to AI, especially when it still struggles to understand and tease out what people actually mean. I’d rather keep building that skill myself for now. I also think the effort of sourcing discovery conversations can be beneficial in terms of learning about / finding your best channels.

That said, if the alternative is not talking to customers at all, I’d imagine one of these tools is probably better than nothing.

Thanks for the kind words and feedback! Cool that you're building in this space as well.

This is super neat, and not something I'd thought of attempting yet. Thanks for sharing the results, and the thoughtful and well-caveated take on the future of frameworks.

Lest we forget, the PG essay: https://paulgraham.com/name.html

> Invention, not automation, will be the greatest contribution of superintelligence. Early AI could answer questions and do routine work. Soon it will increasingly help discover new knowledge -- ranging from discovering new drugs to cure a family member's disease to finding new ways to improve your business. While the number of questions a person can ask in a day is limited, the number of valuable things superintelligence can invent to help achieve your goals is unlimited.

Sort of a half-baked tangent of a thought but is it really possible for an AI superintelligence to "invent"?

I'd agree with you then! I don't think that case was clearly laid out (or at least I didn't understand your argument to be as such). I'd also say that humans are historically quite bad at communicating intent (even if it comes more naturally and is communicated in natural-language), so I think tools that support human <> agent interaction and iteration are important.

> "Claude now lists over 950 MCP servers in the connectors directory, used by millions of people every day. This year we shipped support for new protocol extensions alongside features that make MCP easier to build on and deploy"

Where are all these MCP servers? I feel like if I explore the directory, I see the same subset over and over.

Separately, would love to see more love from Anthropic for MCPB. I think this is an exciting and underutilized variation and have been enjoying building MCPB servers.

This piece is more thoughtful than the title initially led me to believe. However, I feel like it's sort of like advocating for us all being able to read/write binary (using a bit of an extreme to prove a point). While there might certainly be benefits to understanding less abstract layers, I don't think it's necessary or even necessarily helpful. That said, I don't think the answer is "turn your brain off completely" but I think that there should be tools that facilitate thoughtful ways of vibe coding with natural language, which is basically another abstraction layer from writing the code and tests yourself.

> "The models are finally ready. Costs of inference are getting optimized with open models, and even on-device models. And, when I first experienced OpenClaw earlier this year, I had the epiphany that it isn’t the models that matter, but the harnesses, loops, and context which will lead to so many new opportunities ahead. Just as we’re learning in enterprise, we can finally invent new products that allow users to do things more naturally, using simple language to express their needs."

This part resonated a lot, personally.