I’m building a company, but the only differentiation i have from competitors is price. Is that enough for customers?

Scale AI

Highest quality in the industry. But no public pricing and every project requires a sales call. Onboarding takes weeks not days. In June 2025 Meta bought a 49% stake and hired Scale’s CEO as Meta’s Chief AI Officer. Several major customers quietly reduced engagements over data exposure concerns. Worth thinking about if you’re building anything competitive with Meta.

Best for: well-funded teams with enterprise security requirements and long timelines.

Appen

Over 1 million contractors across 170 countries. Sounds impressive until you realize it was built for massive long-term projects. Small teams consistently report it being slow and inflexible for novel tasks. Low contractor pay rates also raise real questions about annotation quality.

Best for: high volume, low complexity, multilingual tasks.

CloudFactory

Trained dedicated teams and ethical sourcing. More consistent than the giants. Still not self-serve though and onboarding takes time. Project management quality varies depending on which team you get.

Best for: structured projects with clear requirements and no time pressure.

LabelBox

Best annotation software on the market. The catch is it’s a platform not a workforce. You still need to find and manage your own annotators. Powerful if you have an internal team. Not useful if you don’t.
Best for: teams building long-term internal annotation infrastructure.

The problem!!
Every major platform is optimized for enterprise scale. None of them are built for teams that need 500-2000 examples labeled fast, with domain expertise, and full transparency into who’s doing the work.

What are you currently using for annotation work?

Scale AI and similar services charge a lot for annotation. MTurk is cheap but the quality is horrible for anything requiring real domain understanding.

For small teams that need a few thousand labeled examples to calibrate their evals or fine tune a model, there seems to be no good middle ground.

How is everyone handling this? Are you doing it manually or has anyone found something that actually works?

Scale AI and similar services charge a lot for annotation. MTurk is cheap but the quality is horrible for anything requiring real domain understanding.

For small teams that need a few thousand labeled examples to calibrate their evals or fine tune a model, there seems to be no good middle ground.

How is everyone handling this? Are you doing it manually or has anyone found something that actually works?

We shipped an AI feature a few months ago and every time I want to understand if it’s actually performing well for users I have to go through engineering. There’s no way for me as a PM to just pull up a dashboard and see whether the AI outputs are good or bad without someone writing code for me.

wondering if this is a common problem or if other teams have figured out a better way. How are you handling AI quality monitoring as a PM?

Most teams know they need evals but have no idea where to start. Here’s the actual process.

Step 1: Pull 50 real conversations your AI had with users this week from your logs.

Step 2: For each one ask yourself one question,did this response actually help the user or not? Mark it yes or no and write one sentence explaining why.

Step 3: You now have ground truth. This is what
everything else measures against. Without it your evals are basically just guessing.

Step 4: When you make a change to your AI, run those same 50 inputs through it again and compare. More good responses than before means the change worked. Fewer means you roll it back.
That’s the whole loop. You can do this in a spreadsheet.

Once you’ve done this manually a few times and you understand what good actually looks like for your specific product, then you graduate to LLM as a judge. You give the judge your criteria from step 2 and it scores new outputs automatically at scale. But if you skip the manual step first your judge has no baseline to work from and the scores mean nothing.

Start manual. Scale later.

If you’re stuck on any part of this drop a comment or DM me.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Most teams know they need evals but have no idea where to start. Here’s the actual process.

Step 1: Pull 50 real conversations your AI had with users this week from your logs.

Step 2: For each one ask yourself one question,did this response actually help the user or not? Mark it yes or no and write one sentence explaining why.

Step 3: You now have ground truth. This is what
everything else measures against. Without it your evals are basically just guessing.

Step 4: When you make a change to your AI, run those same 50 inputs through it again and compare. More good responses than before means the change worked. Fewer means you roll it back.
That’s the whole loop. You can do this in a spreadsheet.

Once you’ve done this manually a few times and you understand what good actually looks like for your specific product, then you graduate to LLM as a judge. You give the judge your criteria from step 2 and it scores new outputs automatically at scale. But if you skip the manual step first your judge has no baseline to work from and the scores mean nothing.

Start manual. Scale later.

If you’re stuck on any part of this drop a comment or DM me.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I’ve built a SAAS, but i want to understand the new user experience. I’m willing to provide feedback to anyone as well!

A. Describe one significant feature of industrialization in Europe in the period 1750 to 1800.

B. Describe one significant change in industrialization in the period 1800 to 1900.

C. Explain one way that industrialization affected European politics in the period 1800 to 1900.

4. A: One significant feature of industrialization in the period of 1750 to 1800 was urbanization. This was seen in the fall of the putting out system, where laborers competed works in their own homes, to instead laborers working in factories that were located in cities. 
   4 B: One significant change in industrialization in the period 1800 to 1900 was the shift from iron to steel. In the early 19th century, iron was primarily used for infrastructure because of its abundance in countries like Britain. However, as Steel production increased, it replaced iron as the main infrastructure material.
5. C. Industrialization set the stage for European mass politics in the period 1800 to 1900. Industrialization caused people to be crowded in squalid conditions, causing an increase in class consciousness. This led to reform movements like the Chartists, who sought to increase suffrage for lower class populations.

Thank you so much!

Evaluate the most significant difference between the status of women in the period 1815 to 1914 and the status of women in the period after 1914.

Throughout the years of the past women’s rights have been changing and increasing. Previous views of women were influenced by previous movements. For example , the enlightenment promoted traditional gender roles, where men were in public, while women were at home taking care of the family. Additionally, leaders like Napolean limited women’s rights prior to 1815, making them subordinate to their husband. However, as many nations became involved in total war due to World War I in 1915 and WWII in 1939, women started playing a completely different role in society, shifting out of their traditional gender roles as just a stay at home member to important parts of the work force. Although women were still limited many rights, because of their increased access to reproduction rights and increased suffrage, the most significant difference between the status of women in the period 1815 to 1914 and the status of women in the period after 1914 was a significant increase in autonomy. A less significant difference is women gaining more political power

One way women were able to increase their autonomy was by being able to gain reproductive rights to their own body. One major scientific invention in the period after 1914 was the birth control pill. This pill allowed women to control wether or not they would have to give birth. This supports my argument because it shows how women were able to gain status and freedom by allowing them to choose if they would have to endure pregnancy. Pregnancy is a significant change that could negatively impact a women’s ability to engage in other endeavors of humanity. By allowing women to control it, the birth control pill helped women gain status by allowing them to put their energy into these other endeavours. Another invention that helped women gain reproductive rights was abortion. Abortion is a procedure where an existing fetus is eliminated in the womb. This process further built upon women’s autonomy. Previously, once a women was pregnant, they would be forced to carry a child. This would make them dependent dependant on a man and society to provide for herself. This is because being pregnant would make it harder or even impossible for her to earn the money she needs to support herself and survive.

Another way women were able to increase their autonomy was through gaining suffrage. Women played a critical role in World War 1 for Britain, working for factories and in the home, and keeping domestic productions running while the men were at war. This helped Britain to realize the importance of granting women the right to vote after World War I (which ended in the period after 1914). However, this is a less significant difference in status from the period 1815- to 1914 than autonomy because women were limited voting rights for a largely extended amount of time even after World War 2, where women again played a large role in keeping domestic production ready. In Sweden, women could not vote until decades after WWII. This demonstrates why suffrage was a less significant difference, because rather than women voting being legalized due to their perceived intelligence, in countries like Sweden, giving women voting rights was influenced by the policies of other Western Nations, like Britain and France.

I think this would get a 4/7

1. Evaluate whether Romanticism maintained a connection to the Enlightenment or challenged the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment promoted ideas like rationalism and scientific experiments. It also supported a secular attitude, rather than a Christian one. The Romanticism movement, however, placed more of an emphasis on the beauty of nature and religion.. Additionally, they saw emotion and irrationalism as more powerful than the logic and rationalism that was promoted through the Enlightenment. Because of Romaticism’s shift of the pure rational science to the irrational emotion and its shift from deism to religion, Romanticsm strongly challenged the Enlightenment

My first argument is that the romanticism promoted irrational feelings over the cold  rationalism promoted by the Enlightenment. Romantics believed in an emotional world rather than a purely rational one. Document 1 says that people should stop worrying about the old books of science and instead focus on their emotions that truly interact with the world. This supports my argument as The enlightenment showed a strong focus on science, as their philosophers believed it would bring progress, but Romantics are clearly seeing this emphasis on science as old and troubling. Romantics also preferred irrational, emotional domains like poetry rather than the rational science. Document 2 says that poets and writers understood the nature much stronger than the enlightened scientists tried so hard to understand. This supports my document because it showed Romantics believed that enlightenment methods to understanding nature were ineffective, and that romantic methods gave the human a much better understanding, directly challenging the Enlightenment.

My second argument is that the romantics shifted from ideas from Enlightenment secularism to true religion. One piece of outside context that supports my argument is that enlightenment thinkers believed in Deism. Deism is an ideology where rather than god being an ongoing part of the world, he is seen as a watchmaker, who created laws for the universe, and then left them. This enlightenment view is starkly different from Romantism views, where Romatics believe in a powerful loving god, which challenges the enlightenment idea of simply a watchmaker. Romantics also saw poetry as religious and the center of everything. Document 5 says that poetry was divine, and instead of being adjacent to science, it engulfs it includes it. This supports my argument because it showed tat enlightenment thinkers put poetry, of which they believed was religiously divine, as a larger, more important aspect of humanity rather than science, essentially belittling an Enlightenment ideal. In fact, Romantic thinkers believed that it was only worth to understand scientific ideas if God wanted to. Document 3 says that the work of scientists like Isaac Newton was not nearly important as the writings of poets like Shakepeare, and that Romantics would only read them if God wanted them to.. This ideological difference shows a clear challenge of Enlightenment idea of secularism from the Romantics, where Romantics would strictly follow God’s need, even if it went against their ideals of irrationalism..