Ask HN: Anyone else roll eyes at startups that went from "X" to "AI-powered X"?
64 ronbenton 49 5/3/2025, 7:20:18 PM
This feels like the original idea wasn't good enough to work on its own and so jamming AI into the idea might get some VC capital to sustain a failed idea. Or am I thinking of this wrong?
> Originally the "C" in the company's name was a reference to "carbon" and the "3" was a reference to "measure, mitigate and monetize" because the company's original goal was to help manage corporate carbon footprints.[3] For some time in 2016 the company was named C3IoT and before that was briefly named C3 Energy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3.ai
And yes, now they are C3.ai
The AI hype cycle will only be complete when they change their name.
I don't have any problem with labeling yourself an AI business if you're actually objectively working to build AI tech. But if you're vibe coding an app with ChatGPT, you're not building AI-powered technology, you're just consuming it. Might as well talk about "Apple-powered X" if your team is using Macbooks. You don't list the rest of your operating expenses as part of your product, doing so with AI makes you look rather foolish.
Everyone seems to think they are an AI expert because they designed a prompt. What we need in the world is more machine learning and less prompt warrior nonsense.
Unfortunately the latter seems to get most of the praise, including on HN
Somehow they are also believe they are 'AI companies' contributing to AI research all of a sudden, but are just an API call away to someone else's AI model.
Like previously when everyone was an 'internet company' then a 'technology company', then 'robotics company' now an 'AI company' and soon a 'quantum computing company', then they really are confused on what they actually do.
Bland.
The complete oversaturation is driving me insane, honestly I preferred when everyone was desperately screaming about web3 and nfts and the metaverse, that was _significantly_ more tolerable than this AI barrage.
http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/new-paradigms http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/newer-paradigms
Most of them, like most startups overall, will be bad.
A few lucky ones will come to dominate the new space, executing well on a first-mover advantage.
Think what Tinder did by reimagining online dating for mobile with swiping. Or what Google Docs did by reimagining the office suite in the cloud.
There are going to be some HUGE winners in the AI space. But most startups will be losers, like it's always been. And the investors who can tell the difference will be the ones who make money. Again, like it's always been.
(This isn't like "blockchain-powered X" where it really was a buzzword only. AI is actually delivering meaningful benefits, and it's probably only just starting.)
2. it may not just be VC. if it works on "cringe" boomers or Fortune 500 execs to get their attention and money, then they truly do not have to give a flying fck about how much your eyes roll while they laugh their way to the bank. VC is in its ideal form an effect, not a cause.
Think about all the companies that were selling boxed desktop software in the 90s. The ones that survived almost universally found some way to incorporate networking/internet into their product. At the time, there was plenty of skepticism, and you could have said they were chasing a fad. But to early adopters of the internet, the value was plainly obvious.
Of course, many tried to adapt but executed poorly, so they still didn't make it through the paradigm shift. That doesn't mean ignoring the shift was a better plan.
That's what the people shoving it down our throats keep saying but the reality is the vast majority of products don't need AI and are often made worse by it.
No disagreement on this, but it's an execution problem.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/tech/apple-ai-artificial-...
"disclaimer: I'm the founder of Plandex: an open source AI coding agent"
Note that I wouldn't personally add "open source", I don't think it adds to the discussion, but it's what I would have expected to see.
I mean, I discuss AI a lot on HN. Do I need to include a disclaimer on every comment?
But the open source project is free, full-featured, MIT licensed, and will stay that way.
It also has paying customers via cloud-hosting options, and the economics are working out well so far, fwiw. Lots of work to do, but it's on track to be both a sustainable open source project and a sustainable business.
I'm sorry if that still doesn't meet your lofty moral standards—all I can really say is I'm trying my best to get the balance right.
Many 90’s games added video elements because that’s ‘something new we can do’ without actually improving the gameplay. It’s that kind of low effort tacking on of cool features that you really need to avoid.
I read it as them being frustrated with the over-use of "AI-powered X" -- when everything is AI powered, is anything AI powered? Favorite quote from Garry Tan: If everything is bold, nothing is bold!
"AI-powered" as a descriptor is incredibly overused to the point where it no longer elicits the same excitement that it used to 1-2 years ago.
I think everyone agrees that AI incorporated into a product can definitely make the product more useful. But let's stop describing our products as "AI-powered" and replace it with a descriptor that actually communicates the value the product is providing.
Marketing for AI products would be more successful IMO if they stop using the words "AI-powered" and "LLM" and "agents" and "tokens", etc... users are overwhelmed with AI overload. Throw away the buzz words and use messaging that communicates the specific value that the AI adds.
I think the days of consumers seeking out "AI" for the sake of AI is coming to an end. Consumers want to know what the AI will do for them. They don't care that it's AI-powered.
If you’re building a product and it’s not working, pivoting in the direction of AI could definitely be rational—not because of the hype, or at least not only because of that (it doesn’t hurt). But because it could give you a better chance of building a more useful and differentiated product.
Implying that any entrepreneur who does this is just following the herd is pretty uncharitable imo. Again, it would be like saying that about people pivoting to web in the early 2000s or mobile in the 2010s. Not every trend is fake.
It's like if you choose the wrong database and it makes your product slow. It probably doesn't imply you shouldn't be using any database; you just need a different one.
Pretty much every fund I'm on talking terms with is focusing their portfolio on AI, and their LPs won't put cash into a non-AI play
The specific words don't matter, so the "AI-powered" may as well be "puppy-powered". The real issue is that while it's fairly easy for SaaS to appeal to an engineering need, it's another matter that they have to convince their non-technical bosses to put down thousands of dollars a month on it.
In this demi-decade, it just happens to be AI-powered that sparkles just the right way to capture the eyes of middle management.
It used to be "no-code" / "low-code". At some point it was "Java-based". In networking, you'll find a lot of "Edge".
Strongly suspect that’s common here.
https://x.ai/colossus
Makes sense mathematically XD
It was founded in 2006, went IPO in 2013.
No comments yet