Unfortunately, most consumers, recruiters and sometimes hiring managers are in a position of information assymetry vis a vis the people selling them something. That is, consumers rely on the self-reporting of vendors which purport to be experts.
Unfortunately, most consumers, recruiters and sometimes hiring managers are in a position of information assymetry vis a vis the people selling them something. That is, consumers rely on the self-reporting of vendors which purport to be experts.
In contrast, product information invites people crafting lies for an advantage.
Consumers rely on advertised claims being truthful.
It is not a matter of people badly predicting their own needs in most cases,though there are some that do have problems with this. It is a matter of people being misled by false information and trying to course correct after that information comes to light.
In a world where lies of omission and ambiguity towards borderline malice isn't considered an outright lie, but the sales reps do make those outright lies, and fake reviewers are not punished; there are real problems especially when the presumption is they aren't doing this (when in many markets this is exactly the standard behavior, and even academic studies show these things happen regularly).
Presumptions are just assumptions. Someone will take advantage of the grey unenforced area to push a product that may not be as professionally tested as they claim (or even finished). I've certainly run into a lot of these bait and switch types in my long professional career. The general term to describe this is snake-oil, and with the concentration of the market over time (increasing marketshare less participants), this only gets worse.
Starving for talent my ass. His portfolio companies have infinite appetite for talent at zero cost, the minute one person wants one point of the upside they’re right back to starving for free talent.
Silicon Valley is the ultimate thought experiment in how wealth inequality plays out when resources are effectively inexhaustible. You don’t have to speculate about a post-scarcity world, this is a post-scarcity world. Ballers in SV ship a billion in revenue on a Tuesday. And yet somehow it’s Andreessen who ends up with all the chips at the end of the night.
These talking heads don’t have a plan, they don’t know what their next big payday will be, they don’t code, they don’t design, they don’t sell anything other than their own personal brand, they don’t add value.
They’re just patient and connected like zen spiders sitting on a web: they’ll learn first about a new big thing, they’ll be there immediately, their friends will wire up the deal in their favor, and they’ll do a TED talk a few years later about how making themselves absurdly wealthy with no real effort is somehow the future of humanity.
They openly advertise their glee at the (ridiculous) idea that soon some autoregressive language model will do all the work and the owners of NIDIA cards can just pocket it all.
In the 90s there was this meme of a yuppy couple doing a business from their couch via “The Information Superhighway”: outsource everything, all you need is a laptop, a glass of Chardonnay, and a lot of cheek.
pmarca should spend less time yakking about AI on Lex stream and more time learning AI on geohotz stream.
It would be different if it’s someone e.g. very high up at a F500 selling something, even with a huge information asymmetry, because it’s still possible to bank on their credibility. (Assuming they offer sufficiently many guarantees signed by sufficiently many people.)
I could think of reasons both in favor and against, but I'm curious about your rationale.
When there’s little to no credibility to offer, such as when a newly hired intern is selling it, then of course it’s no different.