This was extremely helpful. It definitely made me stop and think.
I’ve been spending the last year researching this shift and building something on the side. The more I study it, the more convinced I am that AI is fundamentally changing the game buyers and vendors are playing.
Instead of buyers evaluating every vendor directly, AI is increasingly becoming part of that evaluation. It’s comparing vendors, mapping capabilities to requirements, answering follow up questions, and helping buyers narrow the field before sales ever gets involved.
That shift made me write down my own answers to your questions.
What game are buyers playing?
Reducing uncertainty and selecting the best vendor for their specific requirements.
What game are vendors playing?
Earning the right to a discovery call by ensuring they’re accurately understood and recommended before a salesperson ever enters the conversation.
My theory of the game:
Commercial outcomes don’t just happen.
They’re created by evaluations.
Evaluations are shaped by perception.
Perception is shaped by evidence.
As AI becomes a bigger part of that evaluation, I think the companies that intentionally improve how they’re understood, evaluated, and recommended will build stronger pipelines, better understand their competitive position, identify product and messaging gaps earlier, and ultimately create more revenue.
Really appreciate you sharing this. It pushed my thinking.
I write about Deep System design,Engineering, tech, how to build things in tech at a deeper level, AI/ML inference, Benchmarks, LLMs and How to Quants, please checkout some of my posts ( more than 370000 reads) -
My horribly flawed game involves giving you my Substack link after showing the civilizational pivot briefs I have architected in full spec there, based on my provisional patents:
Volumetric, fluidic exaflops compute with the footprint of less than a lounge chair, TRL 3/4.
Component plasma harmonic biologic energy storage viable in 1U rack holding 1.2MWh, TRL 3/4.
I live simply off-grid in Canada’s boreal forest. Everyone thinks that I’m again AI or Tech. because of how & where I live. Ironically, I’m more afraid & disappointed in people than tech. Not meant to offend. This is simply my opinion & based on my personal experiences.
Excellent - would be curious to hear your framework on how to know when to kill an idea. How much of it is gut vs. figuring out what the game you want to play is and whether the idea will be able to win it or not?
"What's your theory of the game?" only creates an edge when the theory contains something the market believes is wrong. A theory that agrees with consensus is just consensus with a frame around it. Every founder can describe their arena. The ones who win can name the specific belief their competitors hold that they think is mistaken, and they're willing to bet the company on being right about that one thing.
The generate-and-kill discipline is what separates a genuine mispricing from contrarianism for its own sake. Being wrong about the market isn't a theory. It's a mood. The test is speed: can you find out whether your theory holds before the capital runs out? Pincus's framework works because the kill is as fast as the build, which means the cost of being wrong stays low enough that you can afford to be wrong nine times and right once. Most founders can't kill their own ideas fast enough, which is why they find out they were wrong expensively instead of cheaply.
This was extremely helpful. It definitely made me stop and think.
I’ve been spending the last year researching this shift and building something on the side. The more I study it, the more convinced I am that AI is fundamentally changing the game buyers and vendors are playing.
Instead of buyers evaluating every vendor directly, AI is increasingly becoming part of that evaluation. It’s comparing vendors, mapping capabilities to requirements, answering follow up questions, and helping buyers narrow the field before sales ever gets involved.
That shift made me write down my own answers to your questions.
What game are buyers playing?
Reducing uncertainty and selecting the best vendor for their specific requirements.
What game are vendors playing?
Earning the right to a discovery call by ensuring they’re accurately understood and recommended before a salesperson ever enters the conversation.
My theory of the game:
Commercial outcomes don’t just happen.
They’re created by evaluations.
Evaluations are shaped by perception.
Perception is shaped by evidence.
As AI becomes a bigger part of that evaluation, I think the companies that intentionally improve how they’re understood, evaluated, and recommended will build stronger pipelines, better understand their competitive position, identify product and messaging gaps earlier, and ultimately create more revenue.
Really appreciate you sharing this. It pushed my thinking.
It sounds like a very interesting and pragmatic book.. thanks for recommending this book @Reid Hoffman !!!
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.
Nice one. Great to connect with you.
I write about Deep System design,Engineering, tech, how to build things in tech at a deeper level, AI/ML inference, Benchmarks, LLMs and How to Quants, please checkout some of my posts ( more than 370000 reads) -
https://howtosystemdesigneverything.substack.com/
https://aiinferenceandoptimizations.substack.com/
[Important AI Inference Pulse #4] KV Cache: The One Piece of Memory That Can Eat an Entire Expensive Chip — Just By Remembering- How It Actually Works
https://aiinferenceandoptimizations.substack.com/p/important-ai-inference-pulse-4-kv?r=14q3sp
[Bookmark : Most Important] Top System Design and Engineering Post Mortem Weekly Round Up : https://howtosystemdesigneverything.substack.com/p/bookmark-most-important-top-system?r=14q3sp&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
My horribly flawed game involves giving you my Substack link after showing the civilizational pivot briefs I have architected in full spec there, based on my provisional patents:
Volumetric, fluidic exaflops compute with the footprint of less than a lounge chair, TRL 3/4.
Component plasma harmonic biologic energy storage viable in 1U rack holding 1.2MWh, TRL 3/4.
Component exciton-polariton harmonic biologic memory with 5.12 × 10¹⁷ addressable sites TRL 3/4.
Triad available for immediate commercialization, or individually.
https://substack.com/@charlesclarklawrence
As if I need more ideas…
Every successful investigation starts with a theory but every great investigator is willing to abandon it when the evidence points elsewhere.
That's the difference between seeking truth and defending beliefs.
I just wrote about this as well; slightly different but complementary. Three archetypal patterns of how companies operate -- solitaire, chess and go. Which are you playing? Each delivers a step change in scope, impact and growth. https://thepossibilityplaybook.substack.com/p/if-ai-is-a-game-which-one-are-you
Thanks Reid. I can not agree more about it. https://substack.com/@e2growth/note/c-287489638?r=57e2rn&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-actionhttps://substack.com/@e2growth/note/c-287489638?r=57e2rn&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Perpetual Meaning @glotmath
Reid Hoffman says the best founders can articulate their theory of the game. Test it. Refine it.
I want to push back a little.
Most founders I work with in clinical AI cannot articulate their theory. Not because they do not have one. Because the good ones live inside it.
The theory is in the hands. In what they build on Tuesday and rip out on Friday. In which meeting they walk out of.
Asking a founder to articulate their theory of the game often produces a pitch deck. Neat. Legible. Slightly false.
The useful question is smaller. What did you kill this week and why.
That answer is the theory. Everything else is narration.
I live simply off-grid in Canada’s boreal forest. Everyone thinks that I’m again AI or Tech. because of how & where I live. Ironically, I’m more afraid & disappointed in people than tech. Not meant to offend. This is simply my opinion & based on my personal experiences.
Please stop saying “Idea Generator”. Are you trying to say genius or inventor?
Excellent insights and reasoning.
Loved the emphasis on the command of the game with zero reliance on luck. Thankyou!!
Excellent - would be curious to hear your framework on how to know when to kill an idea. How much of it is gut vs. figuring out what the game you want to play is and whether the idea will be able to win it or not?
"What's your theory of the game?" only creates an edge when the theory contains something the market believes is wrong. A theory that agrees with consensus is just consensus with a frame around it. Every founder can describe their arena. The ones who win can name the specific belief their competitors hold that they think is mistaken, and they're willing to bet the company on being right about that one thing.
The generate-and-kill discipline is what separates a genuine mispricing from contrarianism for its own sake. Being wrong about the market isn't a theory. It's a mood. The test is speed: can you find out whether your theory holds before the capital runs out? Pincus's framework works because the kill is as fast as the build, which means the cost of being wrong stays low enough that you can afford to be wrong nine times and right once. Most founders can't kill their own ideas fast enough, which is why they find out they were wrong expensively instead of cheaply.