It could, but I bet it won't. The UI is not the limiting factor - the SaaS providers are. Automation like this should be easy with regular APIs and code (or no-code tools). It isn't, because service providers don't want you to do it. A skilled dev can get their way with Selenium or some other way of browser automation - this is tolerated, because approximately no one actually does it.
If anyone could easily get an LLM to automate this, you can bet service providers will scramble to find ways to defeat it (justifying it with some bullshit reason like "security", so it's not blatantly obvious they're artificially constraining their product, to prevent you walking around their most profitable toll booths). In general, it doesn't matter what new technology is promising in the abstract - if anything, it's just marketing noise. The technology will deliver only the things its wielders can make money on, and will not deliver things that don't have a good business case. It's the standard tech industry bait-and-switch.
Want proof that this is more than just cynical rambling? Take a look at IFTTT, Zapier, et al. See what you can actually do with them. Notice that it's entirely limited by what the integrated services expose to those automation services. See how carefully those integrations are crafted, so that you can't exactly do much with them. If you want anything non-trivial, you'd better be a business, because individuals aren't supposed to empower themselves with technology. And if you're a business, well, anything is possible if you're willing to pay enough.
The few of us who know how to operate advanced automation tools, and whose frustration outweighs the cost of micromanaging brittle DIY hacks, can beat SaaS tools into submission. Sometimes. But only as long as it stays below the noise floor of vendors' financial metrics.
I had that exact conversation with Chamberlain about MyQ garage door openers. They make it difficult to integrate with and their stated reasons are all about security.
But they'll constantly try to get you to work with their (presumably paying) partners that have far more privileges than you as the lowly product owner.
There isn't a great business case for the latter, so it languishes.
Hostility to automation is a consequence of the “free to use” double-sided market trap that have been flourishing since Web 2.0.
If you are paying for a service, which adequately charges you at least how much it costs to run + margin, the service should not care whether you are giving them your eyeballs, and you are entitled to request features like automation friendliness and APIs and e2e encryption because you can vote with your wallet by changing suppliers.
If advertisers are the ones paying, and specifically paying for your eyeballs, then naturally your interests are at odds.
(There are edge cases where the service may in fact charge you, but 1) their billing structure does not let them cover operational costs, 2) they are afraid to alienate users by raising prices or otherwise hostage to current billing structure, and 3) they are incapable of optimizing performance to turn profit with current billing structure; in those cases crippled API and automation-hostile GUI may serve as a throttle.)
TeMPOraL|2 years ago
If anyone could easily get an LLM to automate this, you can bet service providers will scramble to find ways to defeat it (justifying it with some bullshit reason like "security", so it's not blatantly obvious they're artificially constraining their product, to prevent you walking around their most profitable toll booths). In general, it doesn't matter what new technology is promising in the abstract - if anything, it's just marketing noise. The technology will deliver only the things its wielders can make money on, and will not deliver things that don't have a good business case. It's the standard tech industry bait-and-switch.
Want proof that this is more than just cynical rambling? Take a look at IFTTT, Zapier, et al. See what you can actually do with them. Notice that it's entirely limited by what the integrated services expose to those automation services. See how carefully those integrations are crafted, so that you can't exactly do much with them. If you want anything non-trivial, you'd better be a business, because individuals aren't supposed to empower themselves with technology. And if you're a business, well, anything is possible if you're willing to pay enough.
The few of us who know how to operate advanced automation tools, and whose frustration outweighs the cost of micromanaging brittle DIY hacks, can beat SaaS tools into submission. Sometimes. But only as long as it stays below the noise floor of vendors' financial metrics.
_ea1k|2 years ago
I had that exact conversation with Chamberlain about MyQ garage door openers. They make it difficult to integrate with and their stated reasons are all about security.
But they'll constantly try to get you to work with their (presumably paying) partners that have far more privileges than you as the lowly product owner.
There isn't a great business case for the latter, so it languishes.
strogonoff|2 years ago
If you are paying for a service, which adequately charges you at least how much it costs to run + margin, the service should not care whether you are giving them your eyeballs, and you are entitled to request features like automation friendliness and APIs and e2e encryption because you can vote with your wallet by changing suppliers.
If advertisers are the ones paying, and specifically paying for your eyeballs, then naturally your interests are at odds.
(There are edge cases where the service may in fact charge you, but 1) their billing structure does not let them cover operational costs, 2) they are afraid to alienate users by raising prices or otherwise hostage to current billing structure, and 3) they are incapable of optimizing performance to turn profit with current billing structure; in those cases crippled API and automation-hostile GUI may serve as a throttle.)
codelion|2 years ago