Top
Best
New

Posted by ryanmerket 5 hours ago

Jack Dorsey launches Buzz to combine team chat, AI agents and Git hosting(runtimewire.com)
https://x.com/jack/status/2079605800998146171, https://xcancel.com/jack/status/2079605800998146171

https://buzz.xyz/

160 points | 150 commentspage 2
nzoschke 2 hours ago|
Very interesting!

As a small startup I'd love to ditch Slack, as its a walled garden and both under-featured and over-complicated at the same time. GitHub has been losing my favor too.

Tangentially our startups is combining email, AI agents (chat and coding), and GitHub workflows and it feels really good.

https://housecat.com/blog/gmail-durable-workflows-sandbox-vm

It feels like a renaissance for all workspace tools, where up until recently it was mostly dev tools that got all the really fun power ups.

dewey 4 hours ago||
I've recently built some project that also supports Nostr (https://getbirdfeeder.com, but more for the fun of playing with Nostr) but it feels very forced to use it for something like that. It feels like it's solving an issue that no team chat ever has.

> Buzz is built around a self-hostable Nostr relay. Every message, reaction, workflow step, code event and approval is stored as a cryptographically signed event. Human employees and agents receive the same basic identity structure, including their own key pairs, channel memberships and audit trails.

sim04ful 1 hour ago||
Maybe I'm missing something, but it feels like the economics of software are shifting. If companies can afford software tailored to their exact workflows for less than the annual cost of a single engineer, what does the moat of a traditional SaaS company become?
julienb_sea 30 minutes ago||
I think most companies have realized there is substantial value in terms of security maintenance, stability and the contractual obligations associated with SaaS vendors versus internal vibe-coded tools. Certainly there is a place for tailored internal tooling. But it isn't going to magically replace every use case that SaaS vendors are purpose built around solving, at least not anytime soon.
rglover 59 minutes ago||
Convenience. Most companies aren't software companies and know this intimately. Even if they can build a prototype using LLMs, they now have to at a bare minimum hire someone who can maintain it (additional cost). Not to mention compliance with regulations. Far easier (and cheaper) to just pay someone else to make all of that their problem and extract the value from the product (even if it's not a perfect fit for their business).
throwawa14223 3 hours ago||
Jack Dorsey has figured out how to make chat worse by adding LLMs.
bigfishrunning 2 hours ago|
I feel like chatGPT did that years ago...or maybe ELIZA?
browningstreet 9 minutes ago||
We’re out of drinks. Can you two go get more wine coolers?
kristianc 1 hour ago||
Would it be uncharitable to say we are reinventing all of the awful single pane of glass / enterprise orchestration platforms of the 2010s but making them 'fun'?
2001zhaozhao 3 hours ago||
I think a tool with this kind of UX is the future of engineering orgs. It reminds me a lot of JetBrains Space (which I already thought was a good idea back then), but with agents.

I don't see a lot of information about the Git hosting aspect of the product on the website, though. Somewhat doubtful that they will be able to make a Git forge with similar polish to GitLab

It subjectively seems to me that integrating with an existing forge (e.g. Forgejo) on the API layer and rebuilding the auth and frontend is a better bet. You get stable features like PRs, permissions and CI actions out of the box and they stay synced with known formats in the community and so make your tool easy to adopt. Though making a forge from scratch does have advantages especially for internal company use cases.

Another problem I see with Buzz is that the tool doesn't seem to be taking advantage of its vertical integration inside its UX enough. There is a lot more you can do with full control over Git hosting, project context, and org-wide chat in a single tool than what this tool attempts to do right now.

asdev 4 hours ago||
No one is going to churn Slack for this just because it is "Agent First". Slack is more than good enough to tag Agents and will fill in the missing pieces slowly
braebo 36 minutes ago||
I would pay money to not have to use slack
teach 3 hours ago||
Slack's approach is NOT good enough, because the version of the Agent that lives in Slack cannot see the context of the Agent that lives inside Cursor on my developer laptop. They might be clones with identical brains, but they can't talk to each other or compare notes.
bigfishrunning 2 hours ago||
So why can't the cursor instance on your laptop have a slack bot? I've had a slack bot on my build machine written in chicken-scheme of all things for years, I feel like the great people (or clankers?) at cursor ought to be able to figure this one out
tlongwell-block 2 hours ago||
Hi, folks

There's a brief write-up on Buzz here https://engineering.block.xyz/blog/buzz

philipwhiuk 1 hour ago|
You start with this premise

> It’s great and works really well for us, but it raises lots of questions. Does everyone get a bot? If people share one, whose credentials does it use?

Eventually you throw in this admission in the middle of other stuff:

> Buzz gives each agent its own key. The agent’s owner signs a narrowly scoped authorization. The agent then signs its own work with its own identity.

So you're explicitly picking a bot per person, you're just calling them an agent. But you never really admit this because you call it 'an agent' rather than "the user's agent". You're still ending up with lots of agents each owned by people, you're just writing another orchestration layer yourself.

> The agent remains the author. Its credential proves who authorized it and under what conditions.

Right yeh, so the human is the responsible party.

> If an agent key leaks, revoke the agent without replacing the human identity behind it.

Just like you revoke an app-key on GitHub/Slack. This isn't a revolutionary thing you're doing.

You then throw in this curveball.

> Buzz can also run an agent’s model requests on another community member’s machine.

How? How is this resource managed or limited? Do I have to assume Buzz will just borrow my laptop's CPU & GPU at random?

tlongwell-block 52 minutes ago||
Hi!

> So you're explicitly picking a bot per person, you're just calling them an agent. But you never really admit this because you call it 'an agent' rather than "the user's agent". You're still ending up with lots of agents each owned by people, you're just writing another orchestration layer yourself.

Giving everyone their own agent/bot/app in Slack is nontrivial because of how Slack apps work. If you're okay with them impersonating you, it's easy, but that's weird and I don't like having to guess/discern if I'm talking to you or a bot wearing your face

> How? How is this resource managed or limited? Do I have to assume Buzz will just borrow my laptop's CPU & GPU at random?

This is opt in. It's an integration with https://github.com/Mesh-LLM/mesh-llm that scopes shared compute to your Buzz community. This is very early right now and we're working to get it right. But the idea of a totally self-sovereign, self-hosted community providing its own inference is exciting.

hmokiguess 3 hours ago||
I was trying to build something like that myself, but I had based it off IRC and was going to go protocol first not PaaS type of thing.

I think this is an unclaimed space where the future of work is bound to find itself in, though I'm not yet sure how/who is gonna win.

My solo project was abandoned unfortunately, that said I saw some cool protocol initiatives similar to it recently like this one: https://github.com/h5i-dev/h5i

bilsbie 2 hours ago|
This is basically the ide of the future if you think about it. If bots do all the coding then this is where you’ll code.
More comments...