[blahblaher]

He's totally correct on the extraction that companies do (always has been). What I kinda disagree is the notion that if a company doesn't go the same path as these others, where everyone is "10x'ing" with AI, that they will suddenly disappear. I really don't think it will work that way. Yeah, some might if another company/startup goes after their business and they build faster, but building faster doesn't mean your building what people want/need. You might be building bloat (Windows/MS) that no one cares about.

Companies still need to know what to build, not just build something/anything faster.

[crabmusket]

This has been my experience even before AI. We are a small bootstrapped company, and we have major competitors with free offerings and much more resources than we have (due to VC funding or other backing). While they've achieved some success, they've come nowhere near close to out-competing us.

Paying for AI is much more accessible than getting venture funding, so it's less of a differentiator. They could pay for more AI than we could, but that's already been true with humans, and it hasn't necessarily helped.

Knowing what to build is still the game. As well as the actual business side of business - building a trusted brand, relationships with customers, smart marketing etc.

[zdc1]

I agree with this.

1. Moats and products have already been built, so it's really about startups that are racing to get products/features to market.

2. I've slowly learnt in my own career that you need to really be careful with picking what you build. It doesn't matter if it's waterfall or a quick agile "experiment", it all takes time and focus. So the more you can design/refine/roadshow/validate your ideas before any code is touched, the better off you'll be.