Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Fabio Caipirinha's avatar

One of the most useful questions I’ve encountered this year.

Many people spend years optimizing tactics before they have identified the game they’re actually playing.

The theory of the game often matters more than the moves themselves.

Leslie Barry's avatar

This is exactly what we've been scaling over the past few years. It's easy to run one or two experiments, but it's really tricky to run hundreds or thousands of experiments at scale in complex organizations. It makes me really happy to see Reid and Mark Pincus talking about the same thing.

"When everyone can generate and build, the competitive advantage shifts; instead of “Can you build it?,” the question becomes “Do you know what to build, how to test it, and when to kill it?”

Having a strategy to rapidly test ideas, identify the promising ones, and ruthlessly eliminate the rest isn’t just valuable—it’s essential."

Mark Pincus put it well on Lenny Rachitsky‘s Podcast. His view is that AI’s real value for experimentation is being squandered.

“So the way we should be using AI is as a testing machine, a failure machine and a way to vibe code... but build the lowest possible cycled version of your product that you can get signal back on. How are you testing a 100 ideas a day instead of one in three months? I think AI is being used more to build one idea in three months than a hundred ideas in a day.”

https://substack.com/home/post/p-202514798

7 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?