I believe it is rooted into the American Dream (that for most Americans does not exist anymore + Silicon Valley mindset where you want to fail fast or be a billionaire at 30 and start again. With the help of drugs and whatever the impact it will have on the body later on.
You see the same in sports, but only a few in soccer, baseball, football will make it. And look at them in their 50s, 60s...
first, thanks! And yeah, I've thought about that analogy a lot. That there a lot of people who almost make it in sports, and what do they get out of it? On one hand, a lot, probably. But on the other hand, it's mostly things like "character" and "life experiences." And how much does that apply to engineers building b2b saas software?
Great writing. The sense I have is that the Silicon Valley startup hustle has always been this way. In earlier years, with every revolution and every push, there were some that profited, and the bulk failed. There are tradeoffs and toxic false equivalences pushed by the founders - 996, the falsehood of work-life integration, the American-centric view where you can hire remote workers who are invisible, disposable, and work gets done. The former two lead to burnouts and crashes in America, and somehow these are very well covered in the media. Badges of failure at a Si valley startup are somehow looked at favourably within the broader ecosystem, and perhaps sets up reasonable outcomes for some of those who pulled the short straws. Spend a minute thinking about the broader employee base - the tech employees in developing nations, the immigrant techies sustained by visas - these are the classes of people I'm more concerned about from an AI crash.
A couple of things stood out - it is only the slop-generating AI landscape that can afford to warrant high investments and thereby push the economy and market indices up. If these are all the tools the greatest economy on earth can build, it doesn't augur a very good future. American priorities haven't kept their own future generations in mind, leave alone the rest of the world. The other thing - we all enjoy The Big Short for various things - beautiful dialogue, strong performances, humour, intrigue, thrill - but the sober reality of it all was that every single person who profited from a market crash lost a portion of their soul with their victories.
Yeah, I would said there's certainly a good bit of that, in various ways. One thing I don't have a great sense of (though I have my guesses) is how much of what's happening is people cynically trying to make money, or people who really think they're building stuff to make the world better (or at least, improve something for somebody). Obviously, there are some people who are entirely in it for the money, and some people who are idealists, but how much of, say, YC is people who are building stuff because they care about it vs trying to make money first, and looking for anything to sell second.
I'm not sure the effect is all that different - to your point, when push comes to shove, most companies on that spectrum will make the same decisions, and those decisions are ultimately whatever benefits founders, investors, or shareholders. But there is something less..upsetting, I guess?...about it if most of what is being made is being made with best intentions. But, I'm not quite sure I'm that optimistic. Or at least, I think there are a lot of companies that have to really convince you that you have the problem they're solving before they can sell you the solution to it.
The thing that blows my mind most about AI startups is how 41% of all the VC-money went to less than 10 companies)) But US GDP for 2024 is 29 trillion according to Google! So you've got the entire market at roughly 30 trillion, and then these ten companies pulling in 30 billion but somehow worth 20 trillion... sorry what? To justify 10 trillion in revenue you'd need 500 billion in net profit, 1 trillion EBITDA, all that stuff. Maybe not right now but in like 5 to 7 years, even so) Where exactly is this market meant to keep growing 30% year on year?)
Yeah, on one hand, those numbers are crazy, and you have to imagine these things remaking entire parts of the internet (if not the entire economy) for the math to add up. On the other hand...that maybe doesn't seem impossible? Or at least, I can understand why you'd take that bet.
"The one piece of actual advice in the book concerns the lockbox fantasy. This is the idea, that when faced with a choice between pursuing a normal job or some crazy dream, you can always take the job for a while, putting the dream in a lockbox, save up some money, and then return to the dream later. Po bronson writes, that out of all the people he talked to, nobody had ever been able to take this route. The people who’d promised themselves to return to the dream later never did. " https://positivesharing.com/2003/04/book-review-what-should-i-do-with-my-life/
The sort of odd thing is, in this case, these probably are people following their dream, in a sense. (I'm not sure 22-year olds dream of building software for IT teams to solve security problems or whatever.) But I guess the question is, is it your dream if it doesn't work out? How will you feel if you spend five years building software for IT teams to solve security problems, if all you get nothing at the end?
My hypothesis is that the dream is anchored on the (expected?) payoff on the other side of the grind, not the grind itself. But for many - including many of my international students - the dream starts with the opportunity to pursue the (potential?) payoff. And so at least some of these people grinding are following their dream, albeit with crude estimates on the probability of the (unlikely?) payoff at the end of it all.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. And I think people probably overestimate the probabilities generally, and especially now, when it seems everyone is getting rich and everything only goes up.
Between some who had a payout vs someone who did not, I wonder what expectation they hold when the same choice appears the next time. I have been a founder and worked at startups. Out of all of them only one had a mediocre exit but when I did my time-experience accounting, I always felt that it was not worth it. But I still believe it is a numbers game and more tries you have better chances are there at the payout. But the point stands, I wouldn’t put other things on hold for it.
One one thing about that is, nobody *else* ever seems willing to say that. I know lots of people who say "man, that wasn't worth it." But when people talk to other people about it, they're almost universal response is, "but you learned so much, and there are intangibles, wasn't the experience valuable?" There's this insistence that it was a lot of effort, you must've gotten something very valuable out of it.
I'm not sure who's right, though. Is it the other people, who aren't biased by having been through it? Or is it you, who is the only person who knows what it was like to go through it? I honestly don't know.
I'm sort of confused about the part where the "deranged pace of the moment" is somehow a product of "ongoing singularity" and is "required by the moment". Is there some kind of american cultural taboo around saying out loud that capitalism works the way that it does, and that a non-unionized workforce in an unfavorable labor market will see their working conditions worsen?
First, probably? Those sorts of things aren't often high on the list that of things that people think about. Though, second, I don't think most employees think that way either. Most tech people - especially at startups - don't see there being that much of divide between "labor" and "management" in the traditional sense; it's much more like, we're all working on this thing together. Which, in cases when it goes well, can work out great for everyone. But when it does go to zero (or approximately zero), those divides become more stark.
This a great take. Thanks for the read!
Love this!
I love your content.
I believe it is rooted into the American Dream (that for most Americans does not exist anymore + Silicon Valley mindset where you want to fail fast or be a billionaire at 30 and start again. With the help of drugs and whatever the impact it will have on the body later on.
You see the same in sports, but only a few in soccer, baseball, football will make it. And look at them in their 50s, 60s...
first, thanks! And yeah, I've thought about that analogy a lot. That there a lot of people who almost make it in sports, and what do they get out of it? On one hand, a lot, probably. But on the other hand, it's mostly things like "character" and "life experiences." And how much does that apply to engineers building b2b saas software?
Great writing. The sense I have is that the Silicon Valley startup hustle has always been this way. In earlier years, with every revolution and every push, there were some that profited, and the bulk failed. There are tradeoffs and toxic false equivalences pushed by the founders - 996, the falsehood of work-life integration, the American-centric view where you can hire remote workers who are invisible, disposable, and work gets done. The former two lead to burnouts and crashes in America, and somehow these are very well covered in the media. Badges of failure at a Si valley startup are somehow looked at favourably within the broader ecosystem, and perhaps sets up reasonable outcomes for some of those who pulled the short straws. Spend a minute thinking about the broader employee base - the tech employees in developing nations, the immigrant techies sustained by visas - these are the classes of people I'm more concerned about from an AI crash.
A couple of things stood out - it is only the slop-generating AI landscape that can afford to warrant high investments and thereby push the economy and market indices up. If these are all the tools the greatest economy on earth can build, it doesn't augur a very good future. American priorities haven't kept their own future generations in mind, leave alone the rest of the world. The other thing - we all enjoy The Big Short for various things - beautiful dialogue, strong performances, humour, intrigue, thrill - but the sober reality of it all was that every single person who profited from a market crash lost a portion of their soul with their victories.
Yeah, I would said there's certainly a good bit of that, in various ways. One thing I don't have a great sense of (though I have my guesses) is how much of what's happening is people cynically trying to make money, or people who really think they're building stuff to make the world better (or at least, improve something for somebody). Obviously, there are some people who are entirely in it for the money, and some people who are idealists, but how much of, say, YC is people who are building stuff because they care about it vs trying to make money first, and looking for anything to sell second.
I'm not sure the effect is all that different - to your point, when push comes to shove, most companies on that spectrum will make the same decisions, and those decisions are ultimately whatever benefits founders, investors, or shareholders. But there is something less..upsetting, I guess?...about it if most of what is being made is being made with best intentions. But, I'm not quite sure I'm that optimistic. Or at least, I think there are a lot of companies that have to really convince you that you have the problem they're solving before they can sell you the solution to it.
another banger as always, loved reading this one
The thing that blows my mind most about AI startups is how 41% of all the VC-money went to less than 10 companies)) But US GDP for 2024 is 29 trillion according to Google! So you've got the entire market at roughly 30 trillion, and then these ten companies pulling in 30 billion but somehow worth 20 trillion... sorry what? To justify 10 trillion in revenue you'd need 500 billion in net profit, 1 trillion EBITDA, all that stuff. Maybe not right now but in like 5 to 7 years, even so) Where exactly is this market meant to keep growing 30% year on year?)
Yeah, on one hand, those numbers are crazy, and you have to imagine these things remaking entire parts of the internet (if not the entire economy) for the math to add up. On the other hand...that maybe doesn't seem impossible? Or at least, I can understand why you'd take that bet.
Absolutely loved the writing!
"The one piece of actual advice in the book concerns the lockbox fantasy. This is the idea, that when faced with a choice between pursuing a normal job or some crazy dream, you can always take the job for a while, putting the dream in a lockbox, save up some money, and then return to the dream later. Po bronson writes, that out of all the people he talked to, nobody had ever been able to take this route. The people who’d promised themselves to return to the dream later never did. " https://positivesharing.com/2003/04/book-review-what-should-i-do-with-my-life/
The sort of odd thing is, in this case, these probably are people following their dream, in a sense. (I'm not sure 22-year olds dream of building software for IT teams to solve security problems or whatever.) But I guess the question is, is it your dream if it doesn't work out? How will you feel if you spend five years building software for IT teams to solve security problems, if all you get nothing at the end?
My hypothesis is that the dream is anchored on the (expected?) payoff on the other side of the grind, not the grind itself. But for many - including many of my international students - the dream starts with the opportunity to pursue the (potential?) payoff. And so at least some of these people grinding are following their dream, albeit with crude estimates on the probability of the (unlikely?) payoff at the end of it all.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. And I think people probably overestimate the probabilities generally, and especially now, when it seems everyone is getting rich and everything only goes up.
Between some who had a payout vs someone who did not, I wonder what expectation they hold when the same choice appears the next time. I have been a founder and worked at startups. Out of all of them only one had a mediocre exit but when I did my time-experience accounting, I always felt that it was not worth it. But I still believe it is a numbers game and more tries you have better chances are there at the payout. But the point stands, I wouldn’t put other things on hold for it.
One one thing about that is, nobody *else* ever seems willing to say that. I know lots of people who say "man, that wasn't worth it." But when people talk to other people about it, they're almost universal response is, "but you learned so much, and there are intangibles, wasn't the experience valuable?" There's this insistence that it was a lot of effort, you must've gotten something very valuable out of it.
I'm not sure who's right, though. Is it the other people, who aren't biased by having been through it? Or is it you, who is the only person who knows what it was like to go through it? I honestly don't know.
I'm sort of confused about the part where the "deranged pace of the moment" is somehow a product of "ongoing singularity" and is "required by the moment". Is there some kind of american cultural taboo around saying out loud that capitalism works the way that it does, and that a non-unionized workforce in an unfavorable labor market will see their working conditions worsen?
First, probably? Those sorts of things aren't often high on the list that of things that people think about. Though, second, I don't think most employees think that way either. Most tech people - especially at startups - don't see there being that much of divide between "labor" and "management" in the traditional sense; it's much more like, we're all working on this thing together. Which, in cases when it goes well, can work out great for everyone. But when it does go to zero (or approximately zero), those divides become more stark.