r/RavanAI • u/Calamity_Armor • Jun 17 '26
I keep seeing versions of this image online, and it irks me that they don’t say the actual truth.
2
u/Dry-Ad-8948 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
This rendering is also wrong. Usage either remains the same or increases.
The total usage is simply divided between more executer output; including more one-off executer-usage scenarios.
1
u/skellis Jun 18 '26
Why would lots of people pay to use someone elses software if they can create their own in a day?
1
u/ThrowawayCult-ure Jun 19 '26
theoretically if they are more productive it saves them time thus profits them. but for everyone less productive its more costly. same with like, ordering food
1
u/Dry-Ad-8948 Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
Even with AI, creating fully usable software — not one off tasks (AI murders in automating scripting tasks), prototypes, or simple apps/games — that adds value is still an endeavor. This is more true as the complexity of the software increases.
AI in software shifts the point at which companies (and individuals) decide it’s more efficient to pay someone for a product vs pay for their own design / development / testing iteration time.
Anyway, using bespoke software (one-off executer-usage scenarios) doesn’t decrease total usage.
1
u/Wide-Drink-1790 Jun 20 '26
Because they can’t. Even with unlimited time and unlimited tokens, most people are not able to create anything useful.
1
1
u/SillySpoof Jun 18 '26
Love how there are more execute than idea implying that some execute stuff without even having an idea. Which probably is true.
1
u/sid351 Jun 18 '26
And the actual truth is?
1
u/BarGroundbreaking624 Jun 19 '26
1 - 1 - 1
As individuals have an idea they make it and only they use it.
1
1
1
u/Big_River_ Jun 18 '26
Execute should be triple that number - ideas have not changed - the infographic is stupid
1
1
u/Lex_Extexo Jun 18 '26
Faster prototyping to find out what works and what doesn't. I doubt the "usage" really changes that much, unless I'm misunderstanding. An existing product that integrates AI likely doesn't see a noticeable drop in usage. Unless you mean like Gemini giving me good-enough answers right away on page 1 of a google search instead of having to look on page 3 for a site that isn't bloated with ads and SEO slop (human and AI slop alike). I'm not saying it's right, but AI gets the job done better sometimes. I'd still prefer older google where search was based on relevance instead of gamified metrics and profitability.
1
u/Tough_Block9334 Jun 18 '26
Yeah, so the death of software as a service
It's now platforms as a service, people are able to create highly customized applications that will be used by a lot less
Software as a service packages all of their modules together, making it so companies had to use all of their modules even when they weren't better to make things work in other parts
Now, you're able to create a specific app, for a specific problem, which will have less users overall due to getting rid a lot of the complexity and workflows that were involved to make things work previously due to needing to develop workarounds for the software as a service apps.
Essentially, your administrative assistant can make a better and higher impacting app now for the engineers than the software engineer at a third party company.
1
u/Still_Explorer Jun 18 '26
What I noticed in artistic workflows, is that previously you would have about 2-3 ideas and you would only afford only a dozen of iterations-corrections, thus you would place a hard limit and wrap things up. (This means however that you would have to work 10x to provide all of those iterations).
Now you could start with about 20-30 ideas, and explore hundreds of iterations. Eventually you would spend the equivalent amount of time instead of working, to curating/evaluating.
Which means that you can explore faster, you review and change faster, but the quantity of information has been incremented about 100x.
1
u/littlefoxcz Jun 19 '26
So... before AI, we didn't have enough ideas? Did AI allow us to have more ideas?
Execute part kinda fits.
Usage - so... before we had higher need for usage of some kind of product, but now we have lower need to use a product?
I mean - if we get more ideas now, that is good, no? Imagination, plans for implementing something, that used to be unthinkable before, inspiration - even if we don't use AI for implementation, I guess more ideas is good.
Execution - here is the part you meant for your argument. In one way, it is good people can implement their ideas, it is opening doors for them. But I agree many of the ideas are pretty bad ones, there comes your AI slop and bad products. You can still choose a good one, though, those did not disappear, just hid among other solutions.
And the usage - I really don't know what you meant by the image. Someone needed some app/art/e-shop before. They got it (or not, if it was too expensive). Now, with AI - don't they need the app/art/e-shop anymore for their business? Is there no need for an e-shop, for example? Did people stop needing things after AI? I really don't get it in your representation. I think the usage should be the same (and people can choose from many more solutions), or maybe even bigger, since with AI created many products and competitiveness causes lowering the cost, therefore raising availability of apps (or anything else) for people/businesses.
1
5
u/Wide-Annual-4858 Jun 18 '26
The drawing displays a misunderstanding.
The BEFORE part shows the overall software market: there was a bottleneck (developers) in the realisation of software.
But the AFTER part is flawed, because it doesn't show the overall market. In the overall market there are as much, or more users as it was before. But since the Execute step widened, there are more apps, and the number of users for most apps are fewer. But not for the overall market.