121–130 of 395 posts
This is the kind of agent I want to see. Board rooms and executive management need to be just as scared as the rest of us.
Why would you be scared? I keep hearing about how this is the best time ever to be a programmer because typing everything out by hand is no longer necessary. (apparently a lot of AI fans never heard of code generators, but anyway)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I think for the last 10-15 years, ivy types could legitimately just raise series A type money, run a company like shit, but capital was a moat and so ended up as CEOs. This is actually how the world works
Investors aren't dumb. What does Ivy gain in this trade by just raising a lot of money and running it poorly? You think he can raise a huge round and just decide to pay himself $20m a year? Capital is not a moat. There are entire industries (VC, PE, Banks, etc) that are looking to write checks. Nothing would make them happier than to give you money, under the condition that there is significant upside (more VC) or as…
there is alot of beta involved, i.e. put 10M into payroll startup xyz, expect some rate of return.
> "The only layer immune to "efficiency" is the one that approves it."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Top talent" - I'm curious, do you really believe this is a normal / proper / desirable way of talking about other people?
It is logical that there are people who are great at what they do and others who are not. We’ve all worked with both and if you are in the business of finding talented people, how else would you talk about it?
I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…
"Top talent" - I'm curious, do you really believe this is a normal / proper / desirable way of talking about other people?
I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…
I think there are parallels here to software development. When starting a brand new project it’s better to have a lot of human involvement to make sure the AI is creating a foundation that actually matches requirements, both spoken and unspoken. But once the project reaches maturity it’s more realistic to imagine an AI working on top of that concrete layer. So goes management. Bootstrapping a new company? Needs human…
I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…
"Top talent" - I'm curious, do you really believe this is a normal / proper / desirable way of talking about other people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I think for the last 10-15 years, ivy types could legitimately just raise series A type money, run a company like shit, but capital was a moat and so ended up as CEOs. This is actually how the world works
Investors aren't dumb. What does Ivy gain in this trade by just raising a lot of money and running it poorly? You think he can raise a huge round and just decide to pay himself $20m a year? Capital is not a moat. There are entire industries (VC, PE, Banks, etc) that are looking to write checks. Nothing would make them happier than to give you money, under the condition that there is significant upside (more VC) or as…
They are not dumb, just incompetent in the domains where they invest the money. And surrounded by yes-men because they are the ones writing the checks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are parallels here to software development. When starting a brand new project it’s better to have a lot of human involvement to make sure the AI is creating a foundation that actually matches requirements, both spoken and unspoken. But once the project reaches maturity it’s more realistic to imagine an AI working on top of that concrete layer. So goes management. Bootstrapping a new company? Needs human…
Is a company ever really just "ticking along" though? Seems to me like you're always sliding one way or the other, largely due to leadership at the top.
I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…
unfortunately, have seen too much arrogance in corporate, and have always asked what if that person has been a humble guy?