Sure, this economic shift may create a lot of opportunities for AI in the short term, especially as companies look to cut costs. But I’m not sure it’s a sign of a lasting new paradigm. It might just be a temporary boost, not a long-term structural shift.
However some category leaders could emerge from it. I am actually working with potentially one of them.
"This means: (...) Investing in people, not just markets or early product."
It's funny. Go listen to the VCs, and they *claim* they invest in people. They'd be quick to tell you that ideas are cheap (they are), and recognize that AI redefines the technical boundaries (it does, although, at least right now, not to an extent they tend to believe).
But then, watch a pitching contest with the very same VCs. Listen to what questions they ask. It will be all about financials. What's the cost of acquiring a customer? How much time does it take to close a deal on average? What's the size of the addressable market? And so it goes.
Which part of it is "investing in people" again?
The side effect of developing the playbooks and following them was that everybody was making the same motions. VCs followed the playbooks, founders followed "50 pitch decks that earned big funding rounds."
Great one!
Thank you Ruben ☺️
👏👏
🙏🙏
I love Julien’s perspective!
Thank you Hugo for your comment 🙏
I think the true test of the impact of AI will be how it fares in the recession. Is it the kind of automation that takes hold when layoffs occur?
Sure, this economic shift may create a lot of opportunities for AI in the short term, especially as companies look to cut costs. But I’m not sure it’s a sign of a lasting new paradigm. It might just be a temporary boost, not a long-term structural shift.
However some category leaders could emerge from it. I am actually working with potentially one of them.
Will see 😀
Great take, it reminds me of Ben Evans about AI eating the world: it’s all about changing the question
https://www.ben-evans.com/presentations (slides 48-53)
"This means: (...) Investing in people, not just markets or early product."
It's funny. Go listen to the VCs, and they *claim* they invest in people. They'd be quick to tell you that ideas are cheap (they are), and recognize that AI redefines the technical boundaries (it does, although, at least right now, not to an extent they tend to believe).
But then, watch a pitching contest with the very same VCs. Listen to what questions they ask. It will be all about financials. What's the cost of acquiring a customer? How much time does it take to close a deal on average? What's the size of the addressable market? And so it goes.
Which part of it is "investing in people" again?
The side effect of developing the playbooks and following them was that everybody was making the same motions. VCs followed the playbooks, founders followed "50 pitch decks that earned big funding rounds."
Just copying the motions.
And they're doing the same with AI, too: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pawelbrodzinski_ok-its-time-to-eat-my-own-words-i-mentioned-activity-7318278316182921216-lgXy
Just copying what others are doing. And as much as with previous instances of herd instinct, I don't expect that tactic to work stunningly well.
And most of all, I doubt their capabilities to really shift from financials/markets/trends/hypes to people.