Why problem statements aren't enough(letters.unchartedpathbreakthroughs.com) |
Why problem statements aren't enough(letters.unchartedpathbreakthroughs.com) |
But mainly it is a ad to hire her as your coach.
>Who has the missing context?
>If the work succeeds, what changes beyond “the project shipped”?
As a total rando trying to develop a (possible) nothing-burger I call expert embarrassment, I'd derive 2+2 corresponding what-ifs:
What if
1. nobody in the org does?
2. the project ships yet nothing changes?
https://dfccyyqjngn5p3.archive.ph/uWeuT/2f4f3d465f8a85a41e89...
3. What if we don't market our solution?
4. but it still blows up in our face?
Here's a real world instance, related much better than I ever could
https://www.cringely.com/2026/05/28/the-permission-slip/
)
That anthropomorphized misunderstanding of what "hallucinations" actually are (and how he supposedly could "solve" it) is pretty embarrassing.
Someone else wrote more eloquently than I'm able to about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48725262
Seems to be the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent" and cringely's approach seems to be..
:)
It seemed to me at first read to have been the former, but now that you put a spotlight on it, it doesn't seem so clear
Will sleep on it, but I don't think anthropomorphizing is the issue here, it's more about success probabilities/cost