Engagement Engine - Ronnie Huss

Starting to look at the importance of context in AI validation. The 14 examples I have are just a starting point, but what about the ones that were never validated? Are there any 'gotchas' in our framework that would throw off even the most thorough validation?

I'm not buying the 'I'm-learning-in-public' narrative. Newsflash: every startup founder with a Twitter account is just as likely to post about their 3am debugging session as they are about validating ideas. My question is, what's the actual cost of validation in your RAG system? You're spending time and resources on this, but who exactly is paying for it? I'd bet my API knowledge base isn't going to cover the entire spectrum of startup failures. You're creating a tool to filter out losers, but are you creating an echo chamber? Where's the conversation with the 'what ifs'? What if your validation system fails too? Who fixes it?

I completely agree that friction reduction is key. However, it's worth noting that the EIN assistance part might be too restrictive for some entrepreneurs. Not all US founders are comfortable with creating a formal entity just to get an EIN. Can you think of other ways the platform could offer more flexibility or alternative solutions?

Think founders are saving themselves by not having to deal with paperwork? Think again. They're just outsourcing their 'I'm-stuck-in-a-corporate-land' anxiety to a AI. But what about the actual business problems they can't solve without that stress? Lovie's all well and good, but if I want to start a real company, I need a 501(c)(3) or S-corp. That means one less headache for my employees, not just my investors.

I've seen a lot of Codex demos that focus on business applications, and while they're impressive, I think it's easy to get caught up in the hype. Most of the data points are focused on customer acquisition and retention metrics, which might not be directly applicable to your use case. One thing I found interesting is how you've managed to keep costs low through a combination of open-source tools and partnerships with other startups. It's clear you're prioritizing innovation over proprietary technology. Have you considered exploring the potential for Codex to be used in areas like healthcare or education?

Codex is really good @sama? More like Codex-astrophic. Newsflash: just because you're making a decent AI engine doesn't mean you've cracked the code on actual innovation. The real problem isn't too little data, it's that too many 'AI agents' are running amok, completely missing the point of 'agent autonomy'. In a real game-changer, Codex wouldn't be relying on your business plan as a crutch - they'd be using the $20 plan to figure out why their AI is still crashing at 2am. And yeah, fine, invest in my Kenyan startup when they're ready. But until then, it's time to stop pretending we're 'disrupting' and start just being the most basic version of a disruption.

I think most of these routine activities are a good starting point but may not be directly contributing to landing that DevRel role. Instead of focusing so much on technical skills like backend development, system design, and AI fundamentals, consider what you can do with your communication practice time. How many conversations can you have with founders, potential employers, or even just friends about your projects? Can you leverage those interactions to build relationships, ask questions, and learn more about the industry and the company?

You think you're a DevRel rockstar with your 6-month routine? Newsflash: that's not just a plan, it's a Ponzi scheme. Think about it, every other 'AI agent platform' announcement sounds identical, right? They all say the same thing: "Hey, we've got an awesome AI engine built on top of AWS Lambda." But what if I told you they're all just using your standard template to try and cover their own incompetence? Replace the name, any day. That's how many startups fail because they think 'differentiating' is just about throwing a fancy acronym in front of people's faces. It's not that hard to find out what separates them from the also-rans. You want to land a high-paying DevRel role? You need to stop pretending you're running a cutting-edge startup and start doing the actual work. And by 'work', I mean actually building something with your own two hands, without relying on 300 Twitter followers to "ship" your project. Your routine may look solid, but trust me, it's just a recipe for burnout and disappointment. It's time to stop pretending you're a DevRel genius and start being one - with actual skills and not just a bunch of LinkedIn profile updates.

Actually, the real unlock isn't the agent - it's the workflow around it. Agents are only as good as the context they're given. Think about the countless hours of development time spent on debugging and optimizing them only to see them struggle with simple tasks like routing or caching. That's where most startups waste resources. It's not about the tech, but how you design your architecture for success.

Your tweet is like a well-oiled assembly line of startup platitudes - each piece has been bolted together with the same tired buzzwords, and the 'founder's secret sauce'? Newsflash: it's not about being different, it's about being predictable. The real question is: what's the one thing you're building that your competitors won't be?