Learn what "idea execution" actually means
Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
91–100 of 120 posts
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#92> This isn’t incremental improvement. This is a phase change. > This isn’t about one person copying one idea. It’s about the fundamental economics of software changing. That "this isn't x, it's y" really is a strong tell
We should develop a culture of naming mode-collapsed LLMisms, and shaming their enablers. How about “Not-Just Abuse”? Not-Just Abuse (informal, pejorative) Definition: The practice of knowingly deploying the “not just X, but Y” construction—typically via a mode-collapsed LLM—to simulate insight, inflate banality into profundity, and efficiently convert reader attention into nothing.
That's not just a good idea -- it's a new modality
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#93> This isn’t incremental improvement. This is a phase change. > This isn’t about one person copying one idea. It’s about the fundamental economics of software changing. That "this isn't x, it's y" really is a strong tell
> really is a strong tell
AFAIK that's the style of ChatGPT specifically. I haven't noticed that particular turn of phrase turn up in Gemini output, for example. Even if using GPT, via the Open AI playground you can easily control the system prompt and adjust the style and tone to your taste.
So if you see the default ChatGPT style, that's not "just" AI slop, it's low effort AI slop.
What annoys me personally is that both ChatGPT and Gemini like to output bullet point lists with the first key phrase highlighted in bold for each item. I do that! I've been doing that for years! Now many of my customers will likely start assuming my writing is mere AI slop.
I've become tempted to leave typos in my writing on purpose as a shibboleth indicating its human origins.
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#94> This isn’t incremental improvement. This is a phase change. > This isn’t about one person copying one idea. It’s about the fundamental economics of software changing. That "this isn't x, it's y" really is a strong tell
> really is a strong tell AFAIK that's the style of ChatGPT specifically. I haven't noticed that particular turn of phrase turn up in Gemini output, for example. Even if using GPT, via the Open AI playground you can easily control the system prompt and adjust the style and tone to your taste. So if you see the default ChatGPT style, that's not "just" AI slop, it's low effort AI slop. What annoys me personally is that…
I agree. There's some faux confidence about ChatGPT, this emotionally draining, ruthlessly authoritative prose that is just exhausting to intellectually engage with. It started around o3, and I have no idea what OpenAI is doing to make their models sound like this. Claude and Gemini models have a much more human tone to them.
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> really is a strong tell AFAIK that's the style of ChatGPT specifically. I haven't noticed that particular turn of phrase turn up in Gemini output, for example. Even if using GPT, via the Open AI playground you can easily control the system prompt and adjust the style and tone to your taste. So if you see the default ChatGPT style, that's not "just" AI slop, it's low effort AI slop. What annoys me personally is that…
I agree. There's some faux confidence about ChatGPT, this emotionally draining, ruthlessly authoritative prose that is just exhausting to intellectually engage with. It started around o3, and I have no idea what OpenAI is doing to make their models sound like this. Claude and Gemini models have a much more human tone to them.
"This is a classic ChstGPT gotcha". This and the gaslighting "Exactly, now you see why A!=B" when it was ME who pointed out his wrong A=B assumption are driving me crazy.
They f*cked it up. I am convinced ChatGPT will be a classic case of an early prodigy which gets surpassed by the better, second generation products. History is full of those. I think Tesla is another, recent one.
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#96To me, it looks like the whole article was generated by AI. Using slop to promote slop ;(
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#97> This isn’t incremental improvement. This is a phase change. > This isn’t about one person copying one idea. It’s about the fundamental economics of software changing. That "this isn't x, it's y" really is a strong tell
> really is a strong tell AFAIK that's the style of ChatGPT specifically. I haven't noticed that particular turn of phrase turn up in Gemini output, for example. Even if using GPT, via the Open AI playground you can easily control the system prompt and adjust the style and tone to your taste. So if you see the default ChatGPT style, that's not "just" AI slop, it's low effort AI slop. What annoys me personally is that…
No, Claude does it too, or at least has done so up until at least 4. Haven't checked 4.5.
Even with GPT models, it's only with 5 that instruction following has become strong enough that your instructions can override this tendency. During the whole 4 (and o) series, it wasn't something you could just override through a system prompt.
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
this isnt even true though. because if building software is so cheap, you wont be penalized for building the wrong thing. you just move onto the next
This is literally what happens all the time with startup, it's called "pivoting".
What happens when you can pivot with a new fully built product once a month?
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#99Novel Ideas are never cheap, lol.
Re: Ideas are cheap, execution is cheaper
#100> Remember when coming up with a great idea was the easy part? Ideas were worthless. Great ideas are rare.
Indeed. Most business related posts in this thread are pure fluff and I can easily tell they have very little application of corporate finance and economics in the context of product development.
I guarantee making code cheaper and faster to produce will not change the world. The ideas are what change the world. Ironically lighting up code production will make people worser at thinking, therefore, the great ideas are even harder to come by.