I used Claude extensively during an internal hackweek at my company to prototype a new data analysis application. Probably would have never attempted the project without AI. Now it’s in production with more than 20k weekly users. Almost never use Claude to dev on it now, but it definitely helped me get off the ground.
Couldn’t agree more. Many designers I’ve worked with have been good at making things aesthetically pleasing, but have utterly failed to understand the nuances of the software. This is obviously not all designers, and there are good ones, but more often than not I find them struggling as they are not technical experts nor business experts. This is for b2b software.
If yes, and you’ve solved them, people should be very interested in using what you’ve built. If people are using what you’ve built and are willing to pay for it, VCs will be interested.
If you haven’t solved them, but can validate they are real problems people care about, and have a path towards solving them, this should make a compelling VC pitch.
If they are real engineering problems but no one seems to care much about them, then it’s just a hobby.
No offense, but why should I believe you? The guy is famous because he has a track record of success doing similar projects. Of course that doesn’t guarantee success, but I’d wager it makes it statistically more likely than a random person. Starting a successful company is not all about good engineering.
Have you built a prototype and tried to pitch any VCs? Or are you just asking rhetorical questions?
This isn’t a bug. It’s the driving force of our capitalist society. We are not trying to weed them out. We are trying to encourage them. It’s pretty simple, when they get rich, so do all their investors.
Isn’t this true for any project ever attempted? The only reason this project exists is because millions have already been wasted on trying to do this in house
Or, the non politicized take is that they think the software could improve the data landscape of the NHS, which, if we are bring honest, has a lot of room for improvement.
I think you would need a lot more context to say if 0.019% is too high. If this platform is driving real operational improvements and is the core software backbone, then it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.
Is there any proof that Palantir has ever leaked client data? From a security perspective they are one of the few companies that hold IL6, which means they can handle highly classified/top secret information.
They work with many international governments and companies, and I would imagine any sort of unapproved leak would be disastrous for their brand.
Why can’t people just acknowledge AI is good at some things and bad at others. Why does every post say AI is either groundbreaking or terrible. Get a grip people. It’s a tool.
How does it not make sense? Companies all over the world trust their proprietary data with Palantir platforms. There’s no way they would do this if they thought Palantir was actually sharing data without their approval. If they were found out to have done this, companies would cease to trust Palantir and stop working with them
This is like saying a Swiss bank would share your secrets because shady people use Swiss banks. No. Confidentiality is literally built into their business model. Getting caught sharing customer data is one of the fastest ways for their business to crumble.
The first half is true. They bring in their FDEs to clean and organize your data.
But the difference in what they leave behind is what separates them from classic consultancies and pure tech companies.
They don't leave behind "insights." They leave behind a suite of operational (ie have write capabilities not just dashboards) applications that are "custom" built to actually solve those insights. I put custom in quotes because while the applications are usually bespoke to your company, they are built in Palantir's app-building product Workshop, which significantly lowers the cost of building these custom apps.
So in the end, your company's processes are improved because your employees are using the apps that the FDE's built.
This is distinct from traditional consultancies because those will only leave behind the insights. Also distinct from most SaaS because those have a one-size-fits all approach, so you wind up having to change your company to fit the design of the application, where as Palantir builds its applications to fit your company.
This is missing the point. If you’re a 2 man team it’s much more important to have code that has a couple bugs in it but allows you to quickly find your product market fit. As opposed to perfect code with no bugs that is useless.
No one is disagreeing that tests are good in a vacuum / mature product. But if your focus is building a mvp, and you’re trading off the test time with other things, it’s not always worth it.
Screw “leadership” but consider for a second that you’re the leadership.
This has been my experience exactly. V1 was custom built for a single client and they loved it. As we tried to expand to multiple clients the v1 was too narrowly scoped (both in UX and code architecture) so we did a full rewrite attempting to generalize the app across more workflows. V2 definitely expanded our client pool, but all our large v1 customers absolutely hated it.
We never did a full v3 rewrite, but it took about 4 years and many v3 redesigns of various features to get our legacy customers on board.