So all your competitors can do exactly as good of a job as you. What's to differentiate your offerings from literally anything?

Do you think customers are _eager_ to do business with a CEO less entity?

I just did the exact same thing for my company. I didn’t do the sql lite approach for gdrive though just a direct search.

The one part that is still difficult is the data modeling and table level descriptions etc. Maybe you make an update to a table - remove a column, etc. The 3rd party systems all have their schemas defined but the data warehouse is a bit more loose. So solving that really helps. Did you just use dbt schema to describe tables and columns then sync that to your bot? How did you keep it updated? And end of the day - worth building or buying? Also how did you track costs? I let users choose their model - but have learned it can get expensive fast. As I can see there are a lot of providers trying to solve this one thing. That said the data warehouse aspect is the loosely defined area and I can see dbt or one of those players try to build something.

Nice to see you getting out now and then Rorschach.

> The bot took two and a half weeks to build; the data infrastructure under it took two years.

This is the key lesson that everyone needs to step back and pay attention to here. The data is still king. If you have a clean relational database that contains all of your enterprise's information, pointing a modern LLM (i.e., late 2025+) at it without any further guidance often yields very good outcomes. Outcomes that genuinely shocked me no fewer than 6 months ago.

I am finding that 100 tables exposed as 1 tool performs significantly better than 100 tables exposed as 10~100 tools. Any time you find yourself tempted to patch things with more system prompt tokens or additional tools, you should push yourself to solve things in the other ways. More targeted & detailed error feedback from existing tools often goes a lot further than additional lines of aggressively worded prose.

I think one big fat SQL database is probably getting close to the best possible way to organize everything for an agent to consume. I am not going to die on any specific vendor's hill, but SQL in general is such a competent solution to the problem of incrementally revealing the domain knowledge to the agent. You can even incrementalize the schema description process itself by way of the system tables. Intentionally not providing a schema description tool/document/prompt seems to perform better with the latest models than the other way around.

Is the result good? Is it useful?

And why does your comment say you're a 30-person company but the title says 60?

If I order now, do I get a second set for free?

Developing and serving GenAI models is highly unprofitable, so, no, we're not going to have that in the AI world.

Either those model developers & providers package them in as many services as possible so that they can be somewhat profitable, or they die, and we don't have model developers & providers anymore.

The thing that AI is best at is summarizing vast quantities of information. That means the most natural thing for an AI to do is be "the one tool to rule them all".

The more information it has access to, the more useful the answer can be. But that also means that it can answer all the questions.

I am interested as well what future would look like. So far what I am seeing is:

(1) specialized AI agent -> (2) we should add 1790 agents to be competitive -> (3) pivot to agentic workforce platform

now we have lots and lots of agentic workforce platforms and sandbox providers to run them. All have similar capabilities: create agent for HR, create agent for Sales,...

Hope to see something interesting to pop-up, at least it was happening in SaaS-era where people were inventing new ways of solving old problems: DocuSign, Salesforce, Zoho,...

I see two vectors here

- The bot giving out PII by accident. You ignore it and report it.

- You trying to fool the bot into giving you PII you're not supposed to have. But you've created an audit trail of your 100 failed prompt injections. The company fires you.

This isn't public facing, open to anyone. This is more like a shared printer in the office.

Hi. thanks for sharing. One thing I'd like to know is how often do you validate the answers? If a human gives an answer like the one the AI is giving for example, you'd probably expect a margin of error of like 1% of making a mistake. The AI though, is it 1% or less - and who's validating it? Are you trusting it more or less than a human?

I'm tired of endless LLM spam submissions from people who only use their accounts here to advertise and self promote.

In the strongest interpretation of that it would offer only data which the user is allowed to access. Why do you assume that them implementing a feature to prevent PII being accessed that they then turn around and return data which the user is not supposed to access?

I think context windows are too small for an agent to actually do this properly yet. I have much smaller databases and with 1b context frontier models they still need reminders or nudging or come up with completely wrong stuff in response to basic queries.

Having the c-levels relying on this for off-the-cuff info seems ... dangerous?

I run a SaaS business on the side of my job and have been for 15 years. There’s a million questions I’ve never had the time to dig into although the data was there. Retention cohorts, free to paid tier conversions, subscription upgrades/downgrades and so much more. Just this week, I decided to just let an agent have access through psql and go nuts, writing all analysis to markdown files. Reading through it, there’s a few things it misunderstood and as a result, some of the analysis was flawed, but all in all I’m honestly mindblown. It would have taken me months to write queries and even just coming up with frameworks of how to think about these metrics.

> And why does your comment say you're a 30-person company but the title says 60?

AI hallucination? :)

Agreed. When I watch the llm start to explore the db - it really does impress me.

Can you expand on this:

You can even incrementalize the schema description process itself by way of the system tables. Intentionally not providing a schema description tool/document/prompt seems to perform better with the latest models than the other way around.

>> The thing that AI is best at is summarizing vast quantities of information

by definition a summary is the best at nothing though, and the mentality that the best way to rule is from a single summarized interpretation is both flawed and scary. It's not answering all questions; it's attempting to provide a single summation dramatically influenced by training. Go ahead and incorporate this into your balanced and multi-perspective decision-making process, but "one tool to rule them all" is not the same thing and definitely not what we're getting.

Well, the product here has nothing to do with serving GenAI models. It's now application territory.

And I prefer unix philosophy vs. the Copilot product approach.

i have found flagging and ignoring is better than complaining... the bots dislike those that point our the uselessness of llm.

LLM submissions are no different from tech submission of yesterday. But most people used to build tools that does one thing well instead whatever the current meta is.

Not until it's context window and attention is infinite.

It's best at summarizing/processing modest amount of information quickly. But given more, its usefulness drastically decreases. This demand toolings that divide the amount of information and flow.

The article mentions that there’s an identification process and that at least some data has access control. What were you expecting?

If it's PII data the best thing for them to do is not even allow the AI to have access to it. They're admitting to that so I doubt they've gone through the effort to forward the user's auth token to the downstream database.

And with security it's always best to assume the worst case (unless you're certain that something is safe) because that would lead you to add more safeguards rather than less.

I think both product and engineering is lacking. The only thing that works great today is the LLM model themselves.

Everything is dependent on "agents", but there are either barely any scaffold around them or it is full speghetti, at least it's hard to find one that's well constructed.

For instance, humans zoom around in cars, these cars don't spontaneously combust (most of the time), have seatbelts and airbags, and don't need engine oil replacement every 1 mile. Humans are amazing, the cars are also relatively solidly engineered (at least the ones we drive around today).

The agent product that we have today are decidedly NOT that. Maybe for a single week openclaw was it - and then it decided to add a trawler and a fishhook to the car along with 1000 other addition because why not? And that has been true for almost every one of the LLM/AI product I have seen.

this has exceedingly obvious limits. The primary limit is the context pollution that happens when you give it too much context.

Elon and the rest of AI crew who claim LLMs can just forever grow is not realistic or held out by real world testing.

It can do "everything" but by everything, it'll still be fine tuned and harnessed and agentified which isn't really the idea that the model can do everything.

I think the winners here, such as it is, will be the companies that have an actual specialized service that actually does something, where any "agentic" functionality is on top of that.

If you tell GPT5.x that there is a database it can query by calling ExecuteSql(query), but you don't bother explaining anything about the schema, it will try to figure things out ad-hoc. This has advantages for token budget because it will tend to only lookup the metadata for tables that seem relevant to the user's query.

If you have a gigantic data warehouse with 1000+ tables, there's no way you could fit all of that info into a system prompt without completely jacking something up in the blackbox. So, why bother trying?

Consider that the user's specific request serves as an additional constraint that can be used to your advantage to dramatically reduce the search space. Building a single prompt / schema description that will magically work for all potential user requests is a cursed mission by comparison.

"If all you have is an LLM, every problem looks like summarizing information."

Emphasis on looks like ;-)

> the mentality that the best way to rule is from a single summarized interpretation is both flawed and scary.

Very much agree. This reminded me of Project Cybersyn [1], an attempt by socialist Chile to build a central heavily-computerized room that would summarize their entire economy to a few men literally pushing the buttons. Complete with 70s aesthetics and Star Trek TOS feel.

[1] https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/project-cybersyn-chiles-r...

“Not until it is context window”???

To be fair to them, the architecture description said that each datasource had a unique agent, so the orchestrator AI didn't have direct data access, and that they specifically only allow access to data the user has permissions for.

Unclear if each datasource agent is ALSO AI based though, in which case it has just pushed the same concern down the line one hop.

You're wiring up a number of critical systems... and prompt injection here could be really bad. I worry about such systems with a single point of contact

Reading through it, I didn't see any mention of write access. It looks like the agent is strictly read-only with access controls.