Dragonfly GP
@HadickM on why personal agents like "Instinct" have no moat:
"I think these products have no lock-in whatsoever."
"Those users are mostly power users here in Silicon Valley, and are mostly the types of people who are willing to experiment. They're also the types of people who are willing to go use a new chat agent, a new model, with the drop of a hat."
"Noah went on a different podcast last week. He talked about, 'Oh, we're doing a billion dollars of volume very quickly.' Well, a billion dollars of volume is actually quite small in terms of the ability to make money."
"The second Muse dropped, you could tell that Muse, because they had better access to compute, was operating more quickly."
"My expectation is that, over time, people will just move from agent to agent, and they will move from whatever and however things are working the best."
"I actually think agents inside your financial applications will be much more important than agents like these in the ability to capture value."
@dragonfly
On this topic, playing around with Muse this weekend and asking it and Instinct to do the same tasks, and Instinct is noticeably (sometimes SIGNIFICANTLY) slower and runs into more problems for the same or similar tasks - clearly compute constrained relatively, which is unsurprising. With more competition incoming, it's pretty clear that these types of consumer first agents are going to require other lock in that isn't just "great experience and some context" and the willingness to burn capital to monetize elsewhere will be needed.