Not what you intended I’m sure but these questions resonate even more for me in non-commercial arenas like community organising and politics. There are so many players who struggle to have policy influence or reach their organisation’s goals because of this lack of clarity
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.”
Your words remind me of Catan and how it’s a microcosm of your ‘theory of the game’ in action: start with a hypothesis about the board, and the dice, when the table, and the trades constantly test whether that theory is actually right. The best players are optimizing for points, adapting fast, and collaborating with incentives. This game feels very close to entrepreneurship in an AI era, where the edge is less about having more ideas and more about knowing the guardrails and the ideas the current system is rewarding. Sometimes we are ahead of the times….
Speaking of games, Reid...come join us at at the bridge table some time in Mountain View. If it's good enough for Gates and Buffet, (and Arthur Van Hoff, who I see nearly weekly); you might appreciate the challenge.
Fun fact: to date no computer has beaten two humans playing bridge as a pair.
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.
Not what you intended I’m sure but these questions resonate even more for me in non-commercial arenas like community organising and politics. There are so many players who struggle to have policy influence or reach their organisation’s goals because of this lack of clarity
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
Create the conditions where the only outcome is the one you want. No game at all.
I do not play games. I define the game itself. Easier that way.
As always, your perspectives are fresh, timely - and brilliant. In addition, to articulately stated. Look forward to reading this new book.
Your words remind me of Catan and how it’s a microcosm of your ‘theory of the game’ in action: start with a hypothesis about the board, and the dice, when the table, and the trades constantly test whether that theory is actually right. The best players are optimizing for points, adapting fast, and collaborating with incentives. This game feels very close to entrepreneurship in an AI era, where the edge is less about having more ideas and more about knowing the guardrails and the ideas the current system is rewarding. Sometimes we are ahead of the times….
Speaking of games, Reid...come join us at at the bridge table some time in Mountain View. If it's good enough for Gates and Buffet, (and Arthur Van Hoff, who I see nearly weekly); you might appreciate the challenge.
Fun fact: to date no computer has beaten two humans playing bridge as a pair.
insightful! thank you for sharing!
Looks like a great book—preordered!