3 ms·

What really helped the "natural stupidity" is that paradoxically it actually worked better. The really big winners were those which were undervalued because no

What really helped the "natural stupidity" is that paradoxically it actually worked better. The really big winners were those which were undervalued because nobody expected them to grow as much as it would. Back in the 90s: "A mail order rental service growing bigger than Blockbuster? Get real." Being rational would filter the successful outliers along with the vast field of bad ideas. Usually going unfiltered is a losing proposition like playing the lottery. However, if the wins are outsized enough it perversely "pays to be stupid" assuming you have enough capital to win once and of course that similar market conditions emerge again. That said useful applications of AI which may be implemented relatively easily are clear big winners as investments but that is pretty tautological and unhelpful for actually figuring out if say, an "AI love letter writing service" would be a terrible idea or not.

im3w1l 3y ago
To me the lesson isn't to completely give up on trying and fund literally anything, rather it's that while some ideas seem worse, are worse... they are not that much worse. They are not that much worse that there isn't a price at which they are worth investing in.
ilyt 3y ago
That's less of "stupid" and more of "lucky to hit the niche at the right moment". For every company that hit the niche and made billions over it there is few that were too early, and few that were not lucky enough to get the opportunity that made the winner win.