It's a slide deck telling people what a product can do (that's a normal thing to release for a company), but the thing it tries to sell you on is building your own business based on their tool.

Which makes no sense the way they sell it, because "founding a business" is no standard process that could be formalized in a way like that, nor does it make sense for society to have people founding businesses at a scale comparable with mowing your lawn or doing your taxes.

All of this feels just unreal because it is unreal. Founding cannot be a commodity. If it is, you have no moat or point, meaning you instantly collapse again, because you are an interchangeable commodity.

There is something that will never change for being a founder, you need to sell, and for that you need network and credibility. It was never about the building, its all about the selling. AI has not changed that.

From 2015-2019 I spent the whole time saying "If I don't write the code nobody does". It was the point of saying to do anything requires a team, to build that team you need funding. It was a vicious cycle and took a long time to get enough traction to raise funding and do that... and then you end up in the MVP loop -> hire -> build -> validate -> rehire -> rebuild -> revalidate. Today all of that has changed. You don't necessarily need the team to write the code, it's for a different function entirely, maybe the original function which is the team was the orchestration engine for all the different pieces at play to make a company and product successful. The code is only half the equation. Looking forward to seeing how solo entrepreneurs leverage these tools and how teams transform using them.

(Technically that also applies to MS Teams, Google and so on and not just AI)

This is fairly funny coming from the company whose employees report merging in hundreds of PRs per engineer per day, and accidentally leaked their own source code through a security misconfiguration in a package manager they own.

"<filename>-05062026_v3 (1).pdf"

So there were 4 iterations on 5th of June alone for this document

So either go viral or go home.

Obviously personal connections, timing, market position all play role but let's be honest - this is not something that can be planned although in retrospect it may seem so. A % of the population will get all of this right many times in a roll but this is just mathematical certainty.

I had a bit of a laugh. The non-technical business experts are much more likely to achieve success than the technical experts. They can actually talk to the customer and get the customer to care. No quantity of GPUs and gas turbines can correct for a lack of personality or reputation. The technology is generally not the hard part in most businesses, despite the extreme efforts of certain technology people to make it seem so.

Even if you believe AI-native startup is the future (the comments are divided), you would at least want to hear from an impartial source.

This is just marketing material.

There’s just too much invested, in terms of beliefs and money into the idea that founders are special and therefore deserve seven-eight figures off of the capital pumped into their unprofitable products.

You’ll see it here in comments. People will defend A”I” applied to software engineering wherever (not) possible, but building companies? Now listen buddy there’s an irreplaceable human genius at work.

Stats please

Loss of objectivity

The challenge: Ask an AI tool for evidence supporting what you already believe, and it will find it. Confirmation bias now comes with a research engine.

Who knows, maybe an AI ideated and AI created product will be the best app of 2026.

I've noticed that seemingly every single tech company has re-branded themselves as "AI" company. Add a RAG system and you're now AI. Add a AI-chatbot, and you're now AI.

It's kind of analogous to how I'm writing code right now. For simple stuff or low priority stuff I'll fire claude at it and won't look at the code if it works. But for the important stuff I'm very carefully integrated into the cycle making sure what's coming out at the end is just right. I'm carefully constructing prompt loops and validation cycles to make sure what comes out looks like what I want - because I have the knowledge and experience of what works for my specific use case. Drafting an investor memo seems like the second category of thing, you need it to be right. I don't think claude offers much of value there. What's more - if you start slopping your investors, you are going to piss them off. Unless Claude is going to say it has some special data source it's used to train on so it knows good from bad, I think this is a bad idea.

This article also kind of fits in the category of "Here's how to use AI for EVERYTHING!" and actually it would be far more valuable to say "This is the bits that AI is good at, and here's where you need to do it yourself" - which is obviously a position that Anthropic can't hold.

But it has. AI can help you do market research, develop buyer personas, evaluate potential customers, create, analyze and enrich prospect lists, evaluate marketing channels, create ad copy, write sales scripts, think through objections and how to respond, etc.

Will it turn you into Jordan Belfort? No. Will it be 100% successful or effective? No. But can it help enough to make a difference? Sure, in enough cases.

Nor did the web, or mobile, or any other innovation. That doesn't mean you can't build your business around an innovation.

This is like when AI bros claim that AI has changed absolutely everything for their project but the first thing they do is reach for docker compose, react and postgres. Why don't you forget the bloat and have your LLM make your container, vdom differ and lightweight DB?

It's very surreal to have to point this out.