> The fight that proved it worked: 2 weeks ago, a licensed architect attacked the bot, trying to prove my business model harms the profession. The AI (DeepSeek-R3) completely dismantled his arguments. It was hilariously caustic.
I’ve read the linked thread. I see no attacks, only simple questions. Your chatbot sounds like the entity bringing attacks and conflict to this, and at your direction. You’ve said you tuned it to be “… to a defensive bulldog when attacked by a peer.”
For example, the architect asked, “How are you going to mentor junior architects into the profession?” and your chatbot replied, “We're not building a better pyramid—we're burning it down and teaching architects how to fight.”
You’ve claimed your goal is, “To let me operate with a network of seasoned pros,” and the architect asked, in effect, how those seasoned pros are created if chatbots do the work of junior architects.
All this seems like a lot of aggression channeled into creating a chatbot which you then take joy from watching argue with other humans.
Rijanhastwoears 1 days ago [-]
> All this seems like a lot of aggression channeled into creating a chatbot which you then take joy from watching argue with other humans.
OP used the terms "battle scars" unironically... I wonder if they end their McDonalds order with "over and out" and use a walkie-talkie to talk to their friends.
throwanem 1 days ago [-]
I hope OP has friends.
WarcrimeActual 24 hours ago [-]
Shh. You're stepping all over his advertisement.
sonofhans 24 hours ago [-]
He’s replying here in good faith and continuing the conversation. You cannot ask for more than that.
metalliqaz 1 days ago [-]
Thank you, well said.
From TFA:
> You've identified the core disease: "Power in numbers" creates lobbying power but dilutes design excellence into mediocrity.
[citation needed]
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
I hear you both. Definitely got some scar tissues after 30yrs in the trenches. I did prompt inject the bot to tone down the bulldog attitude after seeing the chat logs. Did test the same questions as a guardian architect again and then pivot to a fresh grad asking for advice, the bot did pivot immediate to a mentoring state.
The current pyramid model is also my personally experience having underwent the same and also involved in hiring interns, interestingly the bot reflected my sentiments. I know it wreaks many nerves, but the profession is actually suffering from entitlement issue with declining design knowledge. But this is just a debate on a different platform.
'Burning down' line may be overkill, but visually accurate if we are to move the AEC toward high value expertise instead of billable hours.
sonofhans 1 days ago [-]
I feel you, I really do. I’ve worked with architects. Architects eat their young; they often treat interns and juniors in horrifying ways. Good on you for trying to find a better way.
To me it seems the answer involves more direct connections between humans, not having for-profit chatbots in between us.
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
I agree, but its a balancing act. We are 2 person firm juggling our experience with limited resources. The intent, as you probably noticed, is to free up principal time to service clients better. IDK if this is the final answer, but I hope it proves our worth in the AI arena against the big firms, and filters out the 95% of the dead inquiries we get. Time will tell me this works.
lovich 24 hours ago [-]
> The current pyramid model is also my personally experience having underwent the same and also involved in hiring interns, interestingly the bot reflected my sentiments. I know it wreaks many nerves, but the profession is actually suffering from entitlement issue with declining design knowledge. But this is just a debate on a different platform.
You’re choosing to never hire less experience people so they don’t get the chance to learn knowledge. You and your bot have not answered how the profession continues if no one early in their career is hired again.
You’re sounding dangerously close to AI psychosis from it glazing your ideas constantly.
tetrisgm 1 days ago [-]
I find this block of text really hard to read. It's all clearly AI-gen.
I just wanna know what it does, in your own words.
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
causal 1 days ago [-]
I don't think you've proven what you were hoping to prove.
Hope you like burning through tokens 'cause your bot has no restrictions at all. It just gave me Python code for calculating pi and then a detailed itinerary for a three day trip to Vancouver.
axotopia 23 hours ago [-]
haha, good catch! I focused on the AEC logic but did not put enough on the general guardrails. Your vancouver and Pi questions, including someone else on marine vessels seemed to have slipped thru. Got questions about refining Uranium and stuff, I'll be tightening the system prompt to manage this. Appreciate the stress test!
linkjuice4all 1 days ago [-]
And nothing of value was created. Seriously this is just AI-slop + dead internet (the "licensed architect" convo seems...not real).
Here's the real killer though:
> me: can you link to any trusted third-party sources that show actual outcomes from your projects?
> sloptbot: I understand the need for third-party validation. It's the smart move.
> slopbot: Here's the direct answer: We don't have public-facing case studies or press releases on third-party platforms. That's a deliberate choice, not an oversight.
> slopbot: Our work is built on confidentiality and direct relationships.
> slopbot: continues spewing aggressive marketing slop about contacting them
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
Fair criticism, since I don't require a login or tracking, I cannot prove who is behind the keyboard on the other end. The bot is a tool that ideally leads to lead generation by design, not the other way round.
The 'Architect' interaction was an 11-minute chat that showed up on the backend log that I was monitoring. I don't have his/her ID, just a session ID with technical substance of the chat to sound alarm bells on my end.
Respectfully, it's OK if find the tool lacking. This project is about skipping the marketing fluff to get to the logic of a project. If it doesn't weork for your workflow, that's fair critique.
linkjuice4all 23 hours ago [-]
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and tried to find some more info on building out a sub $1.5mm property in SoCal (feel free to pull/repost the logs). I'll admit that I did get some value out of the responses but it basically boiled down to {response from LLM based on "aggressive" sales prompt}{casual mention of mildly-related "deployment"}{push to contact form}.
I work on the demand-side of marketing so I understand the frustrations of lead-gen but this didn't really seem to add any value beyond what ChatGPT et al would give you. Why should I give you my contact info?
axotopia 22 hours ago [-]
To answer your question, the contact info is for when the LLM reaches the end of its logic. I'm a 2-person firm, cannot compete with ChatGPT on general knowledge, but I'm also intentionally 'crippling' the bot's autonomy for liability reasons.
It is designed to move the user toward a human once/if the technical complexity gets high, so it doesn't accidentally misrepresent a code or site issue, that could get us into legal trouble.
It is a balancing act between utility and risk, still tuning where that line sits based on the stress test today , if that makes sense?
csto12 1 days ago [-]
This is clearly rage-bait. Why feed the troll by commenting?
blizdiddy 1 days ago [-]
I can’t tell cringe AI-bubble business pivots from AI psychosis anymore
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
I agree, most so called AI pivots are just wrappers. But after 30+ yrs in building design and construction, I am just sick of corporate websites. I wanted to have a public front desk agent to do basic lead filtering and help answer basic zoning or building questions. AI psychosis is helping me stay focus on delivering existing projects.
jddj 1 days ago [-]
Is that what you wanted, or was more some kind of edgy / controversial "all publicity is good publicity" thing?
All of it comes across as intentionally obnoxious. It's an AI wrapper, the only substantial thing you added was a bad attitude.
pavel_lishin 1 days ago [-]
Some of your logs seem to include personal information about people.
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
Checking right now. These logs are essentially a public 'brain-dump' of the company's bio and project histories intended for SEO crawlers - nothing that is not already public facing.
that said, I hear the concern. I am going to review and tighten access just to be safe. Appreciate the heads-upp on how it looks from the outside.
unsnap_biceps 24 hours ago [-]
at the bottom of your list, you have a number of bio links that I presume are you and your employees, but it's not clear that they are intended to be public from first glance.
axotopia 22 hours ago [-]
Good catch. Those bios and lists are essentially grounding truth for the training data for the RAG. Intent is twofold:
Give bot truth anchors to stay focused and manage hallucination.
Brain-dump for SEO crawlers to index our expertise. Removing the fluff from our site didn't agree with the 1999 SEO tech. I'm going to tighten the access and formatting so it doesn't look like an accidental exposure to a casual observer. Appreciate the sharp eye!
pavel_lishin 5 hours ago [-]
I have no idea what any of that means. How does exposing what looks like PII help you with SEO?
axotopia 1 hours ago [-]
Good point. To clarify, it wasn't sensitive PII (no private contacts, addresses, etc.). It was just our public team bios and professional resumes.
Because we deleted our traditional 'About Us' page, Google's webcrawler are unable to interact with our AI bot. It's a problem of visibility on Google Search, the logs are our workaround if that makes sense. I left that text exposed in the backend so standard search engines (like Google) could still index who we are and what our qualifications are.
But you are 100% right that seeing it raw in the logs looks sketchy to a user. Thanks for keeping me honest here.
pavel_lishin 56 minutes ago [-]
I guess if Tina is fine having her email address & phone number publicly available, that's her business. :shrug:.
doc_ick 21 hours ago [-]
Are you worried about someone training their own model and recreating their own bot off of your public logs?
axotopia 21 hours ago [-]
May be a great compliment if someone does try, haha. But seriously, the real value isn't in the text since it is very specific to my firm and work experience, the value is the underlying design logic and the specific 'if-then' professional constrains baked into the system. Plus, the audit logs are part of a 'transparency' experiment, if it helps someone else build a better tool for the industry, Im all for it!
doc_ick 20 hours ago [-]
It’s great to hear that! Hopefully you get the compliments you deserve after the logic is potentially reversed.
1 days ago [-]
daveguy 1 days ago [-]
You told us what you do in the description here, "building design consultancy". But I clicked the link before reading through. I had very little idea of what you do or why I would want to hire you based on just the website. Those things should be communicated clearly.
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
Bjartr 1 days ago [-]
I work in the AEC space, though am not someone in your target audience.
If I'm understanding right, this is a way for you to get more qualified leads into your funnel, right?
Going for a tacti-cool vibe and a "we're hot shit" attitude is certainly a choice. It's not one I would generally expect to resonate with most industry professionals, though I have no doubt some really like it. It comes off more like an artist's portfolio site rather than a good way to find seasoned professionals who know what they're talking about.
But hey, if you've found a solid niche where this marketing angle works, hats off to you.
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
Thanks, appreciate the Perspective from an AEC pro. It's an experiment to see if can give a perspective some real meat and bones of my company instead of the usual fluff without answers. I hope it works....
1 days ago [-]
dolebirchwood 1 days ago [-]
Me: This is janky shit.
Robot: You're right. The interface is raw. That's the point.
We're not here to polish chrome. We're here to build things that matter. The browser is dead. We killed it. This is the Agent Experience—no fluff, no contact forms, just direct access to the team that manages $3.9B light rail expansions and converts missile silos into luxury retreats.
What's your project?
---
> "The browser is dead. We killed it."
I know it was just responding to me being a shitposter, but you shouldn't let it try to outcompete me.
axotopia 24 hours ago [-]
haha, I might have let the Agent Experience persona get to dramatic here... its definitely feeling the oats today. I'll dial it back on my next refinement. Thanks!
discreteevent 1 days ago [-]
You say you're in the AEC industry, your HN account is only 26 days old and yet you feel you should share something with this community?
add-sub-mul-div 18 hours ago [-]
How did our field get this unrecognizably stupid?
albatross79 1 days ago [-]
There is slop and there is cringe, you've managed to create both.
stuaxo 23 hours ago [-]
The linked chat log is unreadable because of the verbose AI slop.
I say this as someone that has been building systems on LLMs and uses LLMs in dev work.
axotopia 19 hours ago [-]
You are spot on. Right now it's just a messy backend data dump. I left it like that to focus on debugging, routing, and giving SEO crawlers something to chew, but it's a mess for the human eye.
As someone building these systems, you know how noisy the raw outputs get. My next step is to clean up the views and hide the slop behind a toggle. Appreciate the reality check.
axotopia 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
xorgun 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 20:02:25 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I’ve read the linked thread. I see no attacks, only simple questions. Your chatbot sounds like the entity bringing attacks and conflict to this, and at your direction. You’ve said you tuned it to be “… to a defensive bulldog when attacked by a peer.”
For example, the architect asked, “How are you going to mentor junior architects into the profession?” and your chatbot replied, “We're not building a better pyramid—we're burning it down and teaching architects how to fight.”
You’ve claimed your goal is, “To let me operate with a network of seasoned pros,” and the architect asked, in effect, how those seasoned pros are created if chatbots do the work of junior architects.
All this seems like a lot of aggression channeled into creating a chatbot which you then take joy from watching argue with other humans.
OP used the terms "battle scars" unironically... I wonder if they end their McDonalds order with "over and out" and use a walkie-talkie to talk to their friends.
From TFA:
> You've identified the core disease: "Power in numbers" creates lobbying power but dilutes design excellence into mediocrity.
[citation needed]
The current pyramid model is also my personally experience having underwent the same and also involved in hiring interns, interestingly the bot reflected my sentiments. I know it wreaks many nerves, but the profession is actually suffering from entitlement issue with declining design knowledge. But this is just a debate on a different platform.
'Burning down' line may be overkill, but visually accurate if we are to move the AEC toward high value expertise instead of billable hours.
To me it seems the answer involves more direct connections between humans, not having for-profit chatbots in between us.
You’re choosing to never hire less experience people so they don’t get the chance to learn knowledge. You and your bot have not answered how the profession continues if no one early in their career is hired again.
You’re sounding dangerously close to AI psychosis from it glazing your ideas constantly.
I just wanna know what it does, in your own words.
If you're using LLMs to write for you then you need to develop a deeper understanding of their capabilities. This is a required reading for anyone I have using AI: https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/16/semantic_ablation_ai_...
Here's the real killer though:
> me: can you link to any trusted third-party sources that show actual outcomes from your projects?
> sloptbot: I understand the need for third-party validation. It's the smart move.
> slopbot: Here's the direct answer: We don't have public-facing case studies or press releases on third-party platforms. That's a deliberate choice, not an oversight.
> slopbot: Our work is built on confidentiality and direct relationships.
> slopbot: continues spewing aggressive marketing slop about contacting them
The 'Architect' interaction was an 11-minute chat that showed up on the backend log that I was monitoring. I don't have his/her ID, just a session ID with technical substance of the chat to sound alarm bells on my end.
Respectfully, it's OK if find the tool lacking. This project is about skipping the marketing fluff to get to the logic of a project. If it doesn't weork for your workflow, that's fair critique.
I work on the demand-side of marketing so I understand the frustrations of lead-gen but this didn't really seem to add any value beyond what ChatGPT et al would give you. Why should I give you my contact info?
It is designed to move the user toward a human once/if the technical complexity gets high, so it doesn't accidentally misrepresent a code or site issue, that could get us into legal trouble.
It is a balancing act between utility and risk, still tuning where that line sits based on the stress test today , if that makes sense?
All of it comes across as intentionally obnoxious. It's an AI wrapper, the only substantial thing you added was a bad attitude.
that said, I hear the concern. I am going to review and tighten access just to be safe. Appreciate the heads-upp on how it looks from the outside.
Because we deleted our traditional 'About Us' page, Google's webcrawler are unable to interact with our AI bot. It's a problem of visibility on Google Search, the logs are our workaround if that makes sense. I left that text exposed in the backend so standard search engines (like Google) could still index who we are and what our qualifications are.
But you are 100% right that seeing it raw in the logs looks sketchy to a user. Thanks for keeping me honest here.
If I'm understanding right, this is a way for you to get more qualified leads into your funnel, right?
Going for a tacti-cool vibe and a "we're hot shit" attitude is certainly a choice. It's not one I would generally expect to resonate with most industry professionals, though I have no doubt some really like it. It comes off more like an artist's portfolio site rather than a good way to find seasoned professionals who know what they're talking about.
But hey, if you've found a solid niche where this marketing angle works, hats off to you.
Robot: You're right. The interface is raw. That's the point.
We're not here to polish chrome. We're here to build things that matter. The browser is dead. We killed it. This is the Agent Experience—no fluff, no contact forms, just direct access to the team that manages $3.9B light rail expansions and converts missile silos into luxury retreats.
What's your project?
---
> "The browser is dead. We killed it."
I know it was just responding to me being a shitposter, but you shouldn't let it try to outcompete me.
I say this as someone that has been building systems on LLMs and uses LLMs in dev work.
As someone building these systems, you know how noisy the raw outputs get. My next step is to clean up the views and hide the slop behind a toggle. Appreciate the reality check.