3 ms·
> At Pig, we built computer-use agents for automating legacy Windows applications (healthcare, lending, manufacturing, etc). How do you justify this vs fixing
by allmathl 1y ago
> At Pig, we built computer-use agents for automating legacy Windows applications (healthcare, lending, manufacturing, etc).
How do you justify this vs fixing the software to enable scripting? That seems both cheaper and easier to achieve and with far higher yields. Assume market rate servicing of course.
Plus; how do you force an "agent" to correct its behavior?
- nawgz 1y agoSorry, am I missing something? They obviously do not control source for these applications, but are able to gain access to whatever benefit the software originally had - reporting, tracking, API, whatever - by automating data entry tasks with AI. Legacy software is frequently useful but difficult to install and access.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- allmathl 1y ago[flagged]
- primax 1y agoI think if you got some experience in the industries this serves then you'd reconsider your opinion
- allmathl 1y agoi don't see how improving the source could detriment anyone. The rest is just relationship details. The decent part about relationship details is imprisonment.
- Centigonal 1y agoAs nawgz said, the applications they are automating are often closed-source binary blobs. They can't enable scripting without some kind of RPA or AI agent.
- commentJail 1y ago[dead]
- edunteman 1y agoCorrect. In the RPA world, if there's an API available, or even a sqlite server you can tap into, you absolutely should go directly to the source. Emulating human mouse and keyboard is an absolute last resort for getting data across the application boundary, for when those direct apis are unavailable.