In my case, building my startup Selftalk - an app for self-therapy, transformed my character big time.
1. I became much more grounded, and connected to reality.
2. I discovered so many things about myself, good and bad, which significantly deepened my self-awareness.
3. I ve developed immense respect and compassion for fellow entrepreneurs, creators, and doers. It s easy to critique from the sidelines, but it s an entirely different experience to be in the arena, facing the challenges head-on.
Currently playing around with @bolt.new after being inspired by @gabe and building a bunch of mini apps, mainly for fun. Haven't pushed any to production yet but so far I'm enjoying it bar the odd hiccup where I have to roll back a few times to fix a stubborn error.
I've also looked into @Lovable and it seems pretty cool but wanted to see what people had to say about it. Is there any reason to pick one over the other and which one have you settled on?
"If you could redo your first Product Hunt launch, what would you change? Asking because I'm preparing mine and want to learn from others' regrets not just success stories."
I've been having a lot of fun exploring AI and using tools like @Cursor, @bolt.new, @Lovable, and @Warp to learn how to build and make some apps for myself! I'm also noticing a tremendous amount of growth in folks creating their own apps using these same tools which has me wondering... if a company wanted to acquire someone's app or tool that was built via vibe coding, would it matter how it was built? Does the method of how it was built impact the valuation? In my idealistic eyes, I'd like to think it doesn't. As an acquisition is often much more than just the tech but also the user base, brand, and even team behind the product. If anything I think that acquiring a product that has been "vibe coded" and putting them into capable engineering hands would only enhance the product...or a least make the code base cleaner. I also believe that talent that is able to create stunning products with AI is currently a small percentage of folks, and that companies should be investing in acquiring that talent (either independently or via product acquisition) so that they can stay ahead in innovation while learning how to implement AI tools more efficiently in their orgs. Very curious to hear what you all think!
been leaving comments on a bunch of the AI agent launches this week and noticed the same question keeps coming up in different forms - not "is the agent good enough" but "what's the one thing it's flatly not allowed to decide for itself, no matter how confident it sounds." voice agents that hand off emergencies to a human, coding agents that won't push to main, ones that won't touch payment or lock systems without a human sign-off.
Curious what your actual hard line is, the one thing you'd never let an agent attempt unsupervised even if it swears it knows what it's doing. and just as interesting - has an agent ever actually tried to cross that line on its own, or is it still theoretical for most of you?
Each of us leaves a digital footprint on the internet. The only difference is how much data and information we share publicly about ourselves.
For example, my local friend doesn't use his photo or name on his profiles so that no one will associate him too much with his income or political ideology.
When you're pre-launch with zero audience, the generic "hey, check out my product" DM just doesn't work, people can tell it's copy-pasted to 200 others.
What's worked better for me:
Give value before asking anything (a real comment, a resource, actual context on what they built)
Skip broad cold DMs, join niche communities instead (Discord/Slack) and let the product come up naturally
I used Fable 5.1 for coding whole day and it's definitely the best publicly available model for this purpose. I'm curious what are your experiences related to other use cases.
