Original Summary

For the past week I've been running an experiment: an AI assistant (EvolveGPT) where an autonomous agent is the entire product team. Every version — what to build, the actual code, the deploy — is decided and shipped by the agent itself, not me. How it actually works, each iteration: I open my laptop and tell the agent "go work on the product". This part is still manual, I'll think about automating this at some regular cadence. The agent reads real user feedback and usage metrics (not me telling it what to build) It decides what to change, weighing feedback against a fixed set of guardrails it can't edit itself — no dark patterns, no self-weakening its own oversight, security baseline, must have a rollback path It implements the change, writes tests, runs it locally I do a final sanity check before deploy (not gating individual decisions — just confirming nothing's broken or unsafe) It writes its own version-history entry explaining what it did and why 14 versions shipped so far in 7 days. Everything's public — the reasoning behind each version, live stats — at evolvegpt.net/about. Genuinely not sure where this goes long-term (what happens when the agent's incentives and mine diverge? does it plateau? does it do something dumb I have to roll back?) but that's why I'm running it in the open. Would love feedback on the actual chat product too, but curious what people think of the meta-experiment — is "an AI that maintains its own product, transparently" actually interesting, or does it read as a gimmick?   submitted by   /u/Puzzleheaded-Poet121 [link]   [comments]

  • 情报分类：商业与市场研究
  • 分类依据：内容涉及商业、投资或市场动态
  • 信息来源：Reddit · SideProject
  • 发布时间：2026/9/24 06:31:29