upvote
Yes, and that's because the workflow of those people generally requires managing a crazy, dynamic schedule including travel, meetings, comms, etc. Those folks need real humans with long-term memories and incentives to establish trust for managing these high-stakes engagements. Their human assistants might find these things useful, but there's zero chance Bill Gates is having an AI schedule his travel plans or draft his text messages.

OTOH, this isn't an issue for "ordinary people". They go to work, school, children's sports events, etc. If they had an assistant for free, most of them would probably find it difficult to generate enough volume to establish the muscle memory of using them. In my own professional life, this occurred with junior lawyers and legal assistants--the juniors just never found them useful because they didn't need them even though they were available. Even the partners ended up consolidating around sharing a few of them for the same reason.

Down in this thread someone mentions it being an advanced Alexa, which seems apt. Yes, a party novelty but not useful enough to be top of mind in the every day work flow.

reply
Side rant: A disproportionate amount of AI assistant marketing involves scenarios that look middle class, but actually require customers wealthy enough risk money on errors. Like buying the wrong thing, or even buying the right thing at the wrong price.
reply
I am ordinary people. I have adhd. I have been dying for assistance in scheduling and planning. Am not employed enough to afford hiring a human yet. Am hopeful these will reach maturity for me to he able to host one on my own device. Or find a private provider with good security model and careful data handling.
reply
Not +1, but +100 to your comment (fellow ADHD'er here). Even a virtual friend who'd help me stay on track would be excellent, and if I had a physical human assistant... that would legitimately make many aspects of my life much better. (Simple example: I could ask them to nag me to exercise.)
reply
Going to the shop and buying groceries is not hard work. But I don't do that since delivery became available. I'm lazy and delivery is free. Same for ordinary people needs. It's not a big deal to manage my life, but if I can avoid doing that for free, that's probably what I'll do. For $200? Not sure. For $20? Absolutely. So the question is already about price.
reply
Off-Topic: Are you sure delivery is free? When comparing prices online vs my local supermarket of the same brand, online prices trend higher. Locally the store also has more products on sale than available online. Only recently online shopping has become slightly cheaper because they now have “bulk” deals for 5-20% discount.
reply
Its not going to be big. There is no obvious use for them unlike email or the Iphone.
reply
I'm not sure how solvable it is. It only takes one screw up to ruin the reputation, and a screw up is basically guaranteed.

The tech has existed for a while but nobody sane wants to be the one who takes responsibility for shipping a version of this thing that's supposed to be actually solid.

Issues I saw with OpenClaw:

- reliability (mostly due to context mgmt), esp. memory, consistency. Probably solvable eventually

- costs, partly solvable with context mgmt, but the way people were using it was "run in the background and do work for me constantly" so it's basically maxing out your Claude sub (or paying hundreds a day), the economics don't work

- you basically had to use Claude to get decent results, hence the costs (this is better now and will improve with time)

- the "my AI agent runs in a sandboxed docker container but I gave it my Gmail password" situation... (The solution is don't do that, lol)

See also simonw's "lethal trifecta":

>private data, untrusted content, and external communication

https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/

The trifecta (prompt injection) is sorta-kinda solved by the latest models from what I understood. (But maybe Pliny the liberator has a different opinion!)

reply
Disclosure: I wrote the linked post.

The "gave it my Gmail password" problem has a better answer than "don't do that." Security kicks itself out of the room when it only says no. Reserve the no for the worst days. The rest of the time, ship a better way.

That's why I built the platform to make credential leaks hard. It takes more than a single prompt. The credential vault is encrypted. Typed secret wrappers prevent accidental logging and serialization. Per-channel process isolation means a compromise in one adapter does not hand an attacker live sessions in the others.

"Don't do that" fails even for users trying their hardest. Good engineering makes mistakes hard and the right answer easy. Architecture carries the weight so the user does not have to.

On the trifecta being "sorta-kinda solved" by newer models, no. Model mitigations are a layer, not a substitute. Prompt injection has the shape of a confused-deputy problem and the answer to confused deputies has always been capabilities and isolation, not asking the already confused deputy to try harder.

You want the injection to fail EVEN when the model does not catch it.

reply
My 2 cents is that so far LLMs have had a bad track record in replacing people in jobs where simple software logic and flowcharts wouldn't do the job.
reply
$180 a month is huge for "ordinary people".

So I guess that leaves the in-between people who don't care about spending $180 every month but don't have any personal staff yet or even access to concierge services.

reply
Those human assistants can be held accountable.
reply
I deleted your calendar, I'm sorry.
reply
deleted
reply
The problem is that if you're wealthy enough to hire someone to do your errands, those errands likely aren't very mundane - the exception is a socialite giving their friend a low-effort job, but executive assistants are paid well because their jobs are cognitively demanding.

OTOH a lower-middle-class Joe like me really does have a lot of mundane social/professional errands, which existing software has handled just fine for decades. I suppose on the margins AI might free up 5 minutes here or there around calendar invites / etc, but at the cost of rolling snake eyes and wasting 30 minutes cleaning up mistakes. Even if it never made mistakes, I just don't see the "personal assistant" use case really taking off. And it's not how people use LLMs recreationally.

Really not trying to say that LLM personal assistants are "useless" for most people. But I don't think they'll be "big," for the same reason that Siri and Alexa were overhyped. It's not from lack of capability; the vision is more ho-hum than tech folks seem to realize.

reply
> which existing software has handled just fine for decades

Existing software is what dumped most of those errands on you in the first place.

reply
[dead]
reply