One of the best things students and colleges can do is not bail on learning and teaching the fundamentals of any given domain. AI will trick you into thinking you don’t need to go deep in a particular area, but that’s wrong.
The expert with AI is always going to be far more capable than the novice. Those that can steer AI agents properly, figure out how to evaluate their work, fix their mistakes, and incorporate their work into a workflow will always be the most potent users of these tools.
The experienced software developer that’s built and scaled complex systems using agents outrun someone just vibe coding. The designer that uses AI will build far better products and campaigns than anyone else. The banker or analyst that understands financial models will be able to pull off far more with agents.
Despite some of the rhetoric in the valley that this is less implement now, that couldn’t be further from the case. Don’t give up on going deep in your craft.
Running a company:
2020: can you survive a pandemic?
2021: still here? we’re going to give all of your competitors $100m series A rounds.
2022: wow, you made it? okay, all engineers cost $600,000/year now.
2023: nice job! okay, SVB failed and we’re going to take away your bank account.
2024: a survivor I see. but can you pivot from ai to crypto to defense tech back to ai-enabled defense tech in a 12 month period to stay relevant?
2025: unfortunately all of your competitors have raised $2b series B rounds. oh and only 500 engineers are relevant and they cost $100m/yr each.
2026: well, well, well. you’re still in business? let’s deploy the thunderclap of godlike LLMs from the heavens so all of your customers can rebuild your app in 2 hours. can you survive?
I made an app to turn web analytics into a Severance episode.
Every page on your site is a department.
/pricing is a department.
/blog is a department.
Your visitors are innies now.
When they visit your site, they arrive through the elevator.
When they navigate to another page, they walk to the next department.
When they bounce, they walk out.
It's called MACRODATA: https://t.co/mVKikEQpYy
The main problem with the “talk to customers” mantra in *top tier companies* is that the vast majority of your people who talk to customers are going into customer conversations for confirmation & performative heroics and not for learning & insight.
So, they will cherrypick customer feedback, not actually listen to everything the customer is saying, follow certain threads for confirmation and ignore others that might point to disconfirmation, and then present their “findings” in a sexy & neat package that’s irresistible to the CEO & execs.
There is no great solution to this problem, because most people, including >80% of highly intelligent people (in any company), are just wired to seek confirmation & validation. They are not wired with the desire to win in the market (even though everyone is sure they are).
Now, if you must have a mantra to motivate & guide the masses in your company, make your mantra to “understand customers” rather than “talk to customers”. Talking is easy, understanding is rare.
‘Understanding’ is a much higher bar than ‘talking’, and that is precisely the kind of high bar a top-tier company must meet.
And the best solution is leading from the top by yourself embodying what understanding customers truly means and holding an extremely high bar for insight that’s presented to you as the leader.
As you nod along and confirm to yourself ‘I am already doing this’, consider that perhaps you aren’t, because if you were truly doing this in proportion to your ambition for your team & company, many more of your recent features and products would’ve won than has been the case.
So perhaps the best place for you to start, as a leader, is to seriously consider how you yourself are falling short of the ideal that you wish for others on your team.
Literally crying in the Target parking lot right now. 🧵
I was struggling with unloading my toddler, my bags and wrangling an unruly cart (seriously — why do some lack power-steering?) A fire truck from Redondo Beach (E61) had just parked nearby and four firefighters got out.
I am rich and have no idea what to do with my life.
Where I talk about leaving Loom, giving up $60m, larping as Elon, breaking up with my girlfriend, insecurities, a brief stint at DOGE, and how I'm now in Hawaii self-studying physics.
https://t.co/cMgAsXq3St
High skilled immigration has been central to America leading the world in tech.
The biggest misunderstand about high skill immigration stems from people thinking that the market opportunities in tech, and tech-adjacent fields, are zero sum. This essentially imagines innovation is finite and we’re all fighting over the same job or opportunity pool.
This may be true of a few very legacy, slow growth industries, but it’s categorically not true for any important industry in the past 50 years or the next 100. Biotech, AI, advanced manufacturing, software, EVs, new energy sources, and dozens of other fields of the future are our high growth industries. And there’s no inherently fixed volume of companies or talent that the market needs.
Tesla being started or not started in America is the difference between 100,000’s of jobs here - and leading in EVs globally - and not. Apple being started here is the difference between potentially millions of jobs being here - and leading consumer electronics globally - and not. You could go through this list all day long.
Tech is not zero sum. More startups, pursuing more ideas, ultimately create more innovation and ultimately more jobs and prosperity. And that means you need the right talent to both work at these companies, and start the next ones. High skilled immigration has directly made America dominant technically and thus economically, and create far more jobs in America for others than are supposedly displaced.
Even briefly imagining the alternative scenario, it’s obvious how disastrous this would be. The demand from tech companies for this top talent will remain, yet America won’t benefit directly from their hiring. That talent will go to another company that competes with the US and makes our dominance harder to maintain. You’re just increasing the odds you have more competition in the future.
And even in the “best case” scenario (for our competitiveness) where a larger company like Google hires the same people internationally that would have otherwise moved here, when that person leaves Google to start their next company, it will be in their country of origin, not America.
This is how you lose the tech war within one or two generations. There’s simply no good game theory in anything that reduces our talent access.
Yes, we absolutely have and need to continue to educate and train incredible talent that grows up in the US, but equally having access to the world’s smartest talent has always been a huge advantage for America.
In his 2nd term when so much abuse was flung at Manmohan Singh, he gently and famously said history will judge him more kindly than journalism. This vindication will come earlier and more completely than even he would’ve imagined.