Introducing Mr-Know-It-All-O-Matic

An AI-driven dissenter built with AWS PartyRock

What's PartyRock?

PartyRock is a space where you can build AI-generated apps in a playground powered by Amazon Bedrock. You can use it to experiment and create applications at the speed of light.

Any attempt to explain how this application works would probably take longer than simply opening it and start playing. So I won’t spend my and your time explaining something that basically doesn’t need an explanation. And, of course, there is the official guide for that.

PartyRock is not a tool for technicians or generative AI experts. Even those who have never written a single line of code can create and deploy a web application with AI capabilities in minutes. In this case, the expression “in minutes”, it’s not just a slogan, but it's real: I created my first online and working generative AI application literally in 10 minutes.

Mr-Know-It-All-O-Matic

While driving the car and thinking about an idea for a test application, I started reasoning on the hundreds of implementations already seen in the last months. What do have in common almost every generative AI application? They are repetitive, a little bit opinionated, pedant, and with a slightly tedious know-it-all approach.

So, what about taking these defects and transforming them into a strength?

Here we are.

I am proud to present to the world, the great and revolutionary Mr-Know-It-All-O-Matic.

Whatever is your job, whoever you talk to, your ideas will be questioned.
If you think that an idea that you will present in a slide is a little bit weak, probably you are right.
If you think that a friend or anyone else will be hard to convince about something, be sure that the discussion will be long and passionate.

Option one

You are the good. You are wise and every day you strive to be a better person. This tool will support you in thinking about the possible weaknesses of your argument and improve it.

Option two

You are a bad person, and your only goal in the life is to annoy people with irritating objections.
This tool will be an invaluable ally in your infinite disputes.

The choice is yours.

Some examples

"Swimming is a healthy activity"

Here is a condensed list of potential objections to the claim that swimming is a healthy activity:

• Can be dangerous if proper precautions are not taken (e.g. risk of drowning, especially for non-swimmers)
• Risk of injury if not done with proper form/technique
• Risk of illness from swimming in contaminated water
• Overexertion or strain on joints/muscles if swum excessively
• Requires access to a pool or body of water suitable for swimming
• Time commitment to travel to a pool and change clothes can be a barrier
• Chlorine and other pool chemicals can irritate eyes, skin and lungs
• Can be costly if pool membership or swimming lessons are required
• Weather constraints for outdoor swimming
• Social/body image concerns about wearing a swimsuit
• Not a practical form of exercise for some people with disabilities or medical conditions

"The fire is hot"

Here is a condensed list of potential objections to the rationale that "the fire is hot":

• Fires can have varying temperatures, so not all fires are necessarily hot. A small, dying fire may not be hot.
• "Hot" is subjective and depends on one's heat tolerance. What's hot to one person may not be considered hot by someone else.
• The sensation of heat depends on how close one is to the fire. A fire may not feel hot from a distance.
• Different parts of a fire may be hotter than others. The center may be hotter than the edges, for example.
• "Hot" is a relative term. Compared to an oven, a campfire may not be considered hot.
• Certain types of fires, like alcohol fires, burn cooler than wood fires. So those types of fires may not be classified as hot.
• The rationale assumes all fires produce high temperatures, though in reality fire temperature varies greatly.
• Simply saying "the fire is hot" is too vague. More specifics are needed to properly evaluate the claim.

"The addition of two whole numbers results in the total amount or sum of those values combined."

Here is a condensed list of potential objections to the rationale that the addition of two whole numbers results in the total amount or sum of those values combined:

• It assumes all numbers being added are whole numbers, but does not account for fractions or decimals.
• It does not specify that the numbers need to be positive - adding a positive and negative number does not result in their total amount.
• It assumes a simple addition of two numbers, but does not address more complex operations like adding three or more numbers.
• It does not define what a "whole number" is. Integers? Non-negative integers?
• It describes the basic principle of addition but does not provide any deeper mathematical foundation or proof.
• It does not specify the mathematical system - addition in abstract algebra has more nuance than simple whole number addition.
• The words "total amount" and "sum" are vague and informal mathematical terms. More precise language is needed in a formal proof.
• It does not address potential limits like overflow when adding very large numbers.