11–20 of 20 posts
I already think valuation is a very gameable metric, so I guess you could trivially get this done if you meet a VC who will just buy you a billion dollar valuation on the belief that this is a real thing. I know some enthusiastic kids in the world I could maybe throw a thousand bucks at to buy a GPU in exchange for a millionth of their company, and technically wouldn't that make them a one-person unicorn already?
I still have the same question about this that I have every time someone proposes it: If there is some hurdle that AI solves that means someone can create a highly profitable business alone, why should someone pay that business to solve whatever problem it solves instead of also getting the AI to solve it? Like if implementation becomes less and less of a barrier, that implementation is also less of a moat, and thus…
I still have the same question about this that I have every time someone proposes it: If there is some hurdle that AI solves that means someone can create a highly profitable business alone, why should someone pay that business to solve whatever problem it solves instead of also getting the AI to solve it? Like if implementation becomes less and less of a barrier, that implementation is also less of a moat, and thus…
well because presumably even in that brave new world, solving the problem with AI is still not trivial, even if it requires just one person. If a potential customer wants to solve it themselves instead of buying, they would have to find the right person, invest in his time and tokens, and end up with a custom solution they'd have to support.
> If that load can be carried by software instead of by the founder’s inbox and memory, then the ceiling on how many external relationships one person can command rises by an order of magnitude. And that’s the variable Coase’s boundary actually turns on for a would-be solo operator. The market got cheap years ago. What was missing was a coordinator who didn’t run out of attention. I literally cannot believe you can g…
You can have billions of valuation even without having any real product. It’s just make believe sometimes. Remember Nikola and Milton? There’s a solo founder for you. 30 freaking Bs.
> If that load can be carried by software instead of by the founder’s inbox and memory, then the ceiling on how many external relationships one person can command rises by an order of magnitude. And that’s the variable Coase’s boundary actually turns on for a would-be solo operator. The market got cheap years ago. What was missing was a coordinator who didn’t run out of attention. I literally cannot believe you can g…
> get to a billion dollar valuation without at least a small sales team Craigslist came close! and that was before AI.
I still have the same question about this that I have every time someone proposes it: If there is some hurdle that AI solves that means someone can create a highly profitable business alone, why should someone pay that business to solve whatever problem it solves instead of also getting the AI to solve it? Like if implementation becomes less and less of a barrier, that implementation is also less of a moat, and thus…
There is a big difference between capturing value and creating value. 20 developers can build and maintain a facebook or reddit clone, so why aren't they kicking the asses of the big companies with the much higher costs?
Like, yes the main point of leverage obviously isn't software quality, but also, if AI can't cause one person to be able to solve those other problems at some scale that's currently not possible with no other human help, those problems become problems someone else could also throw the AI at. If running a business relies on having some point of market leverage over anyone who pays your business for something, the reduction of the cost of independently gaining that leverage necessarily means the reduction of the value of your business
I guess another possible means to a single-person company with a billion dollar valuation is hyperinflation
I still have the same question about this that I have every time someone proposes it: If there is some hurdle that AI solves that means someone can create a highly profitable business alone, why should someone pay that business to solve whatever problem it solves instead of also getting the AI to solve it? Like if implementation becomes less and less of a barrier, that implementation is also less of a moat, and thus…
> why should someone pay that business to solve whatever problem it solves instead of also getting the AI to solve it? well because presumably even in that brave new world, solving the problem with AI is still not trivial, even if it requires just one person. If a potential customer wants to solve it themselves instead of buying, they would have to find the right person, invest in his time and tokens, and end up with…
Also worth noting that you don't gotta do much to support software (or any solution) that only one person uses