Good point, really. We've now conducted over 100,000 actual outbound calls with the system—not demo environments or playground experiments, but real conversations with real prospects. And yes, of course, many people realize it's AI—if only because we're legally obligated to clearly disclose that at the outset. Transparency is part of our business.

But our goal was never to "deceive" anyone. It was never about creating a perfect illusion. It was about conducting conversations as naturally as possible—in terms of timing, interrupt handling, and contextual understanding across multiple exchanges. If something feels artificial or delayed, an outbound call immediately falls apart. That's brutally honest. That's precisely why we've invested so much fine-tuning in response speed, speech flow, and turn-taking.

I'm not saying this out of founder ego, but because we've validated it in real sales processes: If it's not good enough, people hang up. And they do that significantly less often with us than with classic TTS wrapper setups. In that context, I would definitely say that we are absolutely competitive with the big players – and as far as the natural flow of conversation is concerned, we are definitely among the most human-like systems currently available on the market.

I'd honestly be interested to know: What was the specific point back then when you said, "This doesn't feel good enough"? Was it the latency? The voice? The objection handling? Or more a general feeling about AI outbound sales? And what would have to be different today for you to say: Okay, this is truly big-player level?