Imagine you hire the most brilliant person alive. They can write code, compose poetry, debug your entire infrastructure in one sitting. There is only one problem: every ninety minutes, someone walks into the room and erases their whiteboard.

Not metaphorically. Literally. Everything they were working on, everything you told them about yourself, every decision you made together—gone. They turn to you with a polite, vacant smile and say, “Hello! How can I help you today?”

This is the reality of every large language model. In the previous issue, we talked about giving the agent a memory file. Today, we need to talk about the brutal engineering required to maintain it.

Most developers try to solve this by just shoving more text into the prompt until the model crashes. OpenClaw took a different approach. It built the AI equivalent of an Operating System kernel. To understand why, you need to understand the problem first. And the problem is more interesting than you think.

The Suitcase Problem

The word “memory” is a suitcase word—a single word stuffed with several completely different things. When someone says “the AI remembers,” they could mean three entirely separate phenomena, and conflating them is where most people get confused.

So let’s unpack the suitcase.

Working Memory is the conversation happening right now. It is what the model can see, think about, and respond to in this very moment. In technical terms, it is the context window—a fixed number of tokens the model holds in its attention mechanism at once.

Here is the thing nobody tells you about working memory: it is absurdly expensive. Every token in that window participates in every computation the model performs. Doubling the context doesn’t just cost twice as much; the computational cost scales quadratically. The context window isn’t a warehouse. It’s a conference table in a Michelin-star restaurant, and you are paying per seat per second.

Episodic Memory is the full record of everything that happened. Every message you sent, every tool the AI called, every result it received—stored chronologically in a JSONL transcript file sitting on your hard drive. It is complete and perfect, the way a court stenographer’s record is complete and perfect. But just as you cannot hand a judge a ten-thousand-page transcript and say “the answer is in there somewhere,” you cannot feed the entire episodic record back into working memory. It won’t fit, and even if it did, you’d go bankrupt on API costs before lunch.

Semantic Memory is distilled knowledge. Not what happened, but what matters. “The user is building a React app.” “The user prefers tabs over spaces.” “The user’s database is PostgreSQL 15.” These are the facts extracted from experience. They are the kind of thing you’d write on an index card and pin to your wall—compact, durable, and useful out of context.

Three types of memory. Three storage mechanisms. One hard problem: how do you keep the expensive conference table clear enough to think, without losing what’s stored in the transcript or the index cards?

This is the problem OpenClaw actually solves.

The Choreography

OpenClaw manages memory through a sequence of coordinated operations. Each one is simple. The elegance is in how they compose together.

Routing: One Brain, Many Conversations

Before anything else, OpenClaw solves a problem most people don’t even notice: an AI that talks to you on Slack, Telegram, and email simultaneously needs to know which conversation is which. OpenClaw assigns every thread a unique sessionKey and maintains a separate episodic transcript for each one.

This sounds trivial. It isn’t. Without it, your AI would blend your work debugging a payment system with your friend group’s dinner plans into one incoherent stream of consciousness. Routing is the difference between a filing system and a pile on the floor.

Pruning: The Art of Forgetting Scratch Work

When an AI uses a tool—searches the web, runs code, queries a database—it generates enormous amounts of intermediate output. Raw API responses, stack traces, log dumps. This is scratch work. It was necessary at the time, but five minutes later it’s as useful as yesterday’s scaffolding on a finished building.

Pruning removes this scratch work before the next request is sent to the model. The key detail: it only removes it from working memory. The episodic transcript on disk remains untouched. Nothing is destroyed. The AI simply stops looking at information it no longer needs.

The default time-to-live is five minutes. If a tool result is older than that, its bulky output gets trimmed. The user’s original question and the AI’s final answer are always preserved—only the sprawling middle gets cleared. Think of it as a surgeon removing the gauze and clamps after the operation is done, while keeping the patient notes and the surgical report.

The Memory Flush: Saving Before You Sleep

This is where things get genuinely clever.

Right before OpenClaw compresses a conversation to save space, it pauses and performs a Memory Flush. It examines the conversation block that is about to be summarized and asks: What durable facts should I extract before this context gets compressed?

The AI then writes those facts—user preferences, project details, important decisions—into storage.

The timing is the critical engineering detail here. The flush happens before compression, guaranteeing that important details are captured in their full fidelity (from the raw transcript) rather than reconstructed from a lossy summary after the fact. First you extract the diamonds. Then you crush the coal.

Compaction: CliffsNotes for Conversations

Once the memory flush has saved the important facts, OpenClaw performs Compaction—replacing the oldest stretch of conversation with a much shorter summary.

A hundred exchanges of greetings, clarifications, and iterative debugging become a single paragraph: “User reported a bug in the payment module. After investigating, we found a race condition in the checkout handler. User approved the fix and asked for tests.”

This summary is written permanently into the episodic transcript. It replaces the raw history in the JSONL file itself. The next time the AI loads this conversation, it reads the compact version. It never re-processes the original verbose exchanges. Compaction isn’t a temporary band-aid—it’s a permanent rewrite of the historical record, like an archivist replacing a shelf of raw documents with a well-written summary volume.

Retrieval: The Right Card at the Right Time

The final piece is retrieval. When you ask a question in a new conversation, the AI doesn’t dump its entire semantic memory into the context window. That would defeat the whole purpose. Instead, it searches—using SQLite full-text search or vector similarity—and pulls only the specific notes relevant to your question.

Ask about your React app, and the note about PostgreSQL stays in the drawer. Ask about the database, and the React details stay put. The conference table only ever holds what’s needed for the current discussion.

Why This Architecture is Deeper Than It Looks

If you step back, you’ll notice something: OpenClaw has independently converged on the structure of an Operating System.

The MemGPT Insight:

Context management is really an OS problem. The context window is RAM (fast, expensive, volatile). The files on disk are the hard drive (slow, cheap, persistent). And OpenClaw acts as the kernel, managing “page swaps” between them. The AI doesn’t need to know the mechanics, just like you don’t think about virtual memory paging when you open a browser tab. The system handles it.

The “Lost in the Middle” Solution:

You might ask: “Why not just use a model with a 1-million-token context window?”

Two reasons. First, cost. Running a 1-million-token prompt for every single “hello” is financially ruinous. Second, and more importantly, attention mechanisms degrade over length. Research shows that LLMs suffer from a “Lost in the Middle” phenomenon—they are excellent at recalling information at the very beginning and very end of a prompt, but they often hallucinate or ignore details buried in the middle.

By aggressively pruning, flushing, and compacting, OpenClaw keeps the context window short and dense. It ensures the model is always looking at a curated, high-signal summary rather than a sprawling, noisy history. It’s not just about saving money; it’s about keeping the AI sharp.

The Whole Picture

Here is OpenClaw’s memory cycle, compressed to its essence:

1. Route every conversation to its own transcript, so nothing bleeds together.

2. Prune expired scratch work from working memory, so the model isn’t buried in stale logs.

3. Flush durable facts to storage, so knowledge survives compression.

4. Compact old conversation history into summaries, so the transcript stays manageable.

5. Retrieve relevant notes on demand, so the model always has what it needs without carrying what it doesn’t.

Each step is simple. Together, they create something that feels like an AI with a genuine memory—one that remembers your project, your preferences, and your past decisions, without hemorrhaging tokens.

The smartest amnesia patient in the world, finally given a notebook and taught to use it.

Reference

1. MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems

2. Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts

3. Attention Is All You Need

The Genius Statue Problem

Picture the smartest person you’ve ever met. Now imagine they will only speak when spoken to—and I mean literally. You could seat them in a burning building and they’d sit there, perfectly calm, watching the ceiling melt, waiting for someone to ask, “Hey, is something wrong?”

That’s how large language models have worked since the beginning. No prompt, no action. They’re reactive in the most extreme sense of the word—less like a sleeping dog that might wake up if it smells smoke, and more like a toaster that will never, under any circumstances, make toast until you push the lever down.

This isn’t a flaw in the AI’s intelligence. It’s a flaw in its architecture. The model itself might be brilliant, but it lives inside a system that says: “You exist only when called upon.” Between calls, it doesn’t sleep. It doesn’t wait. It simply isn’t.

OpenClaw changed this. While you’re asleep at 3 AM, it can wake up, notice a failing test, and fix it. Not because it gained consciousness—but because someone finally engineered the plumbing to let a brilliant mind run on its own schedule.

To understand how, we need to trace three ideas that made it possible.

Part 1: The Ideas (What Makes It Tick)

OpenClaw’s autonomy rests on three research breakthroughs. Each one solved a specific, fundamental limitation. Together, they form something greater than the sum of their parts.

1. Thinking Out Loud: ReAct

Here’s something interesting about how you solve problems. You don’t just think in a straight line from question to answer. You think a little, do something, observe what happened, think some more, do something else. It’s a loop.

Early AI couldn’t do this. It had two separate modes that never talked to each other:

• Reasoning mode: “I think the answer is 42.” (Great at thinking. Terrible at checking if 42 is actually right.)

• Action mode: “I called the API and got back data.” (Great at doing things. No idea why it was doing them.)

The ReAct paper had a deceptively simple insight: what if we let the AI do both at the same time? Think, then act, then observe, then think again—in a loop, just like humans do.

In OpenClaw, this plays out as a cycle:

1. Think: “The user wants weather data. I should check the API.”

2. Act: Calls the weather API.

3. Observe: “Response says 12°C and rain.”

4. Think: “I have what I need now.”

5. Answer: “Grab an umbrella—it’s 12 degrees and raining.”

This sounds obvious in hindsight, which is exactly what makes it a good idea. Without this loop, OpenClaw would be a very eloquent parrot. With it, the parrot can actually go fetch things.

2. Giving It a Diary: Generative Agents

Even with ReAct, there was still a brutal problem: every conversation started from scratch. The AI had the memory span of a goldfish with amnesia. You could spend an hour explaining your entire project architecture, close the chat, reopen it, and be greeted with the cognitive equivalent of “New phone, who dis?”

Stanford’s famous “virtual town” experiment tackled this head-on. Researchers created a tiny simulated village populated by AI agents, each with a memory stream—a running log of everything they experienced. Crucially, the agents could also reflect on their memories, compressing raw experiences into higher-level insights.

The results were startling. Agents started behaving with continuity. They remembered grudges. They planned surprise parties. They formed opinions that evolved over time. Not because anyone programmed “hold grudges” or “plan parties,” but because memory plus reflection produces something that looks remarkably like a personality.

OpenClaw borrowed this idea wholesale. Its memory lives in simple files—MEMORY.md, HEARTBEAT.md—that persist between sessions. Kill the process, restart your computer, come back a week later. OpenClaw reads its diary and picks up exactly where it left off: “Right, I was in the middle of refactoring that authentication module.”

3. The Universal Adapter: MCP

Now we had an AI that could think-act-observe in loops and remember what it did yesterday. But there was one more wall: every new tool required custom integration code.

Want OpenClaw to talk to Slack? Write a Slack integration. GitHub? Write a GitHub integration. Your company’s internal ticketing system? Another integration. Your smart coffee maker? You get the idea. Each new connection was bespoke engineering, and the whole thing scaled about as well as hand-knitting a fishing net.

MCP—the Model Context Protocol—solved this the same way USB solved the peripheral problem in the 1990s. Before USB, every device needed its own special port. Printers had printer ports, keyboards had keyboard ports, and connecting anything new to your computer was an exercise in cable archaeology.

MCP is the USB port for AI tools. OpenClaw doesn’t need to know the internal details of every service it connects to. It just needs the service to speak MCP. Plug in a new tool, and OpenClaw can use it immediately—no custom code, no special handling.

This is the difference between a hammer and a hand. A hammer does one thing. A hand can pick up any tool.

Part 2: The Engineering (Making It Actually Work)

Here’s where things get real. If you naively stitched those three papers together into a script, you wouldn’t get a helpful assistant. You’d get an expensive catastrophe—an AI that runs in infinite loops, burns through API credits like jet fuel, and occasionally tries to deploy your grocery list to production.

OpenClaw works because of three pragmatic engineering decisions that keep the theory from going haywire.

The Heartbeat: A Cron Job Pretending to Be a Pulse

The phrase “always-on AI” conjures images of a digital brain humming away in perpetual thought. The reality is far more mundane—and far more clever.

OpenClaw’s “consciousness” is a scheduled timer. Every 30 minutes (by default), an alarm goes off. OpenClaw wakes up and runs through a simple checklist:

1. Wake up. The scheduler pings it.

2. Check the to-do list. Read HEARTBEAT.md.

3. Decide:

   • Nothing to do? → Go back to sleep. (This is important—idle heartbeats cost almost nothing.)

   • Tasks waiting? → Start working.

   • Something broken? → Alert the human.

That’s it. The “illusion of life” is a cron job with good judgment about when to act and when to stay quiet. It’s the engineering equivalent of a night security guard who checks the building every 30 minutes—not because they’re always patrolling, but because they have a schedule.

The beauty is in what doesn’t happen. Most heartbeats find an empty task list and cost a fraction of a cent. The AI only burns real compute when there’s real work to do.

Lane-Aware Queuing: Traffic Lights for Thought

Here’s a problem you might not think about until it bites you: what happens when OpenClaw is deep in a background task—say, refactoring a module—and you suddenly send it a message?

Without safeguards, you’d get a collision. The AI has one “brain” (one LLM context), and asking it to simultaneously refactor code and answer your question is like asking someone to write an essay while holding a conversation. The essay gets fragments of the conversation mixed in, and the conversation gets fragments of the essay. Nobody wins.

OpenClaw handles this with a two-lane queue:

• Fast Lane: Your messages. You’re the human; you always get priority.

• Slow Lane: Background tasks from the heartbeat.

The rule is strict: if you’re talking to it, background work stops and waits. When you’re done, background work resumes. It’s not true multitasking—it’s disciplined time-sharing, the same principle that made early operating systems feel responsive even on single-core processors.

This means OpenClaw can be autonomous without being rude. It works in the background, but the moment you need it, it drops everything and pays attention.

Filesystem as Memory: The Low-Tech Stroke of Genius

When most engineers hear “AI memory system,” they immediately think: vector databases, embedding models, similarity search, cloud infrastructure. The full modern stack.

OpenClaw uses text files.

Specifically, Markdown files sitting in a regular directory:

• AGENTS.md → “Who am I?” (Its role and persona.)

• HEARTBEAT.md → “What should I be doing?” (Its task list.)

• USER.md → “What does this person care about?” (Long-term preferences.)

This is aggressively simple, and that’s exactly why it works so well.

First, it’s fast. Reading a text file is the kind of operation computers have been optimized for since the 1970s. No network calls, no query parsing, no cold starts.

Second, it’s debuggable. When something goes wrong—and things always go wrong—you can open the file in any text editor and see exactly what the AI “remembers.” Try doing that with a vector database. You’ll be writing custom query scripts just to find out what went sideways.

Third—and this is the part that’s genuinely elegant—it’s human-editable. You can open HEARTBEAT.md, cross out a task, add a new one, and save. The next time OpenClaw wakes up, it sees your changes. You’re editing the AI’s memory with a text editor. There’s something deeply satisfying about that—like being able to leave a Post-it note on a coworker’s desk, except the coworker is an AI and the desk is a filesystem.

Conclusion: It’s Alive (With an Asterisk)

OpenClaw isn’t a single invention. It’s what happens when three good ideas meet three good engineering decisions:

• ReAct: “How do I actually do things?”

• Generative Agents: “How do I remember who I am?”

• MCP: “How do I use any tool?”

• Heartbeat: “When do I wake up?”

• Lane Queuing: “How do I stay sane?”

• Filesystem Memory: “Where do I keep my thoughts?”

None of these ideas are individually revolutionary. ReAct is a loop. Generative Agents is a diary. MCP is a protocol. The heartbeat is a cron job. The queue is basic concurrency control. The memory system is literally just files.

But assembled together, they cross a threshold that feels qualitatively different. The system exhibits initiative. It maintains continuity across sessions. It adapts to new tools without being rewritten. It manages its own resources. It knows when to work and when to wait.

Is it “alive”? Of course not. But it’s also no longer a statue waiting to be poked. It’s something new—a system that acts on its own schedule, remembers its purpose, and gets work done while you sleep.

So if you wake up tomorrow and find a commit you didn’t make, don’t panic. OpenClaw just checked its sticky note, realized it had a job to do, and did it. Then it went back to sleep—because even digital workers know not to waste electricity on an empty to-do list.

References

1. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior

2. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models

3. Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models

4. Model Context Protocol (MCP) Specification

5. LLM Powered Autonomous Agents

I’ve been thinking about why some AI-generated videos go viral while most die in obscurity. They have similar facts, similar production quality, similar everything.

Then I stumbled on a book by Taiwanese screenwriter Rongzhe Xu called Story Class, and it clicked: AI makes creating content effortless, but it doesn’t make content persuasive.

That requires something else entirely—something a Prussian king figured out in 1772 while trying to convince people to eat potatoes.

Yeah, you read that right. Potatoes.

Stories Beat Facts (Especially Now)

Here’s what Frederick the Great learned the hard way: you can’t logic people into anything.

His problem was simple. Prussia needed a backup crop in case wheat failed. Potatoes were perfect—easy to grow, nutritious, abundant.

But people refused to eat them.

Their reasoning was airtight: Potatoes are in the nightshade family (so is deadly nightshade—coincidence?). They grow underground like criminals hiding from the law. The Bible never mentions them, so clearly God disapproves.

Frederick tried the obvious approach. He commanded everyone to eat potatoes.

Nobody ate potatoes.

Think about this for a second. A king couldn’t change behavior with direct orders.

So Frederick tried something different. He declared potatoes royal vegetables—only the king could grow and eat them. He posted guards around potato fields. But he secretly told the guards to look away if people tried stealing them.

Human nature did the rest. People got curious. They stole potatoes. Loved them. Stole more. Word spread.

Same potato. Same nutritional facts. Zero change in reality. But the story changed everything.

This is why I’m obsessed with this right now. We’re entering an era where AI can generate perfect tutorials, flawless explanations, technically accurate everything. Your competition isn’t other creators—it’s infinite AI-generated content that’s 90% as good as yours.

The differentiator isn’t better facts. It’s better stories.

Every video you make competes on two dimensions: actual value (the information) and perceived value (how people feel about it). AI is commoditizing actual value. It’s making the first one basically free.

Perceived value is the moat. And stories control perceived value completely.

When Steve Jobs wanted engineers to speed up Mac boot time by 10 seconds, he didn’t say “it’s good UX.” He calculated: “5 million users times 10 seconds equals roughly ten human lifetimes per year. You can save ten lives.“

Boot time and human lives have nothing to do with each other. But the engineers cut 28 seconds anyway.

That’s story distortion in action.

The Formula Nobody Tells You

Here’s the counter-intuitive part: storytelling isn’t a mystical talent. It’s a formula.

I know. I spent years thinking “some people are just naturally good at this.” Turns out I was wrong and also wasting time.

Xu broke it down into seven steps: Goal, Obstacle, Effort, Result, Surprise, Turn, Resolution.

Every good story—from novels to Nike ads to your video scripts—follows this pattern.

Let me show you something wild. Steve Jobs’ entire life perfectly fits this formula:

Goal: Change the world (audacious enough to care about)

Obstacle: Adopted as baby, foster parents sold used cars, dropped out after 6 months

Effort: Started Apple in a garage

Result: Success! Then the board fired him in 1984

Surprise: Apple crashed without him, board begged him back

Turn: He returned and launched iMac, iPod, iPhone

Resolution: Changed the world

People didn’t buy iPhones because they were good phones. They bought Steve Jobs’ story. The phone was just the vehicle.

This is directly applicable to your video strategy. Every piece of content you make should follow this structure:

For a 3-minute video: Use all seven steps.

For a 1-minute video: Simplify to “Effort Person” (overcome obstacles, achieve goal) or “Surprise Person” (unexpected outcome).

For a 10-second hook: Deploy what Jobs called “reality distortion.” Swap boring facts for emotional resonance.

Example: Jobs wanted to recruit John Sculley from PepsiCo. He could have pitched salary, equity, career growth.

Instead: “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or change the world?”

That’s not a job offer. That’s an identity crisis wrapped in a question.

This is your competitive advantage in the AI age. AI can generate information. It can’t generate identity crises. It can’t make people question who they are.

Your video scripts should do exactly this—use the formula to create emotional momentum, then deploy reality distortion at key moments.

Three Tactics That Work Tomorrow

Okay, you’ve got the formula. Now here are three specific techniques for your next video:

Tactic One: Weaponize Contrast

There’s a famous story about Watergate. Nixon’s team got caught bugging the opposition’s office. Terrible plan, obviously. But here’s the weird part—these were political elites. How did this idiot plan get approved?

The guy who proposed it (Liddy) was actually on his third attempt:

Attempt one: Rent a yacht, hire prostitutes, lure enemies aboard, track with aircraft, deploy special ops. $1 million. Rejected.

Attempt two: Same plan, $500k. Rejected.

Attempt three: Just install some bugs? ...Approved.

The same people approved the third plan because the first two made it seem reasonable by comparison.

If you’re pitching something controversial or different, don’t defend it directly. First show something more extreme. Then “compromise” to your real idea.

Tactic Two: Closed Questions

Ancient China has this great story. King Wei ignored government for three years. Country fell apart. Nobody dared confront him.

Finally, advisor Kun visited: “Your Majesty, a beautiful bird arrived at the palace. Stunning plumage. But it’s sat for three years without flying or singing. Why?”

Everyone knew the bird represented the king. The question was ultra-closed: Will you do your job or not?

The king could only answer one way. And he did—became a great ruler.

The answer was embedded in the question.

Your CTAs should work the same way. Don’t ask “Would you like to subscribe?” Ask “Want to see how this ends next week?” You’ve planted “yes” inside the question.

Tactic Three: Engineer Experience

NBA training camps had a problem. Young players would hook up with fans, some carrying HIV. Coaches warned them constantly. Didn’t work.

One day, three female fans met players after practice. Great conversation. Plans to meet tomorrow night.

Next morning in class: “Today we have special guest speakers.”

Same three women walked in.

Each said one sentence: “My name is [X]. I was diagnosed with HIV in [year].”

They were volunteers. The players were one step from disaster and had no idea.

Way more effective than any lecture.

Don’t just tell people facts. Make them feel how close they are to missing out. Use visualization, put them in scenarios, create “what if you’d started yesterday” moments.

The Punch

We’re in this bizarre moment where AI can generate infinite content, but people still choose what to watch based on feelings, not facts.

Everyone has access to the same information now. The winners will be whoever tells better stories about it. Not more accurate stories. Not longer stories. Better stories—ones that change how people see themselves and their choices.

The formula is here. The tactics work. Now it’s just about practice.

Links:

1. Rongzhe Xu

2. Story Class

Today, we are bringing the photography studio in-house. We are taking a standard webcam selfie and upgrading it into a high-end, professional headshot. No scheduling, no expensive lighting rentals, and no awkward small talk with a photographer. Just you, your webcam, and a very talented AI agent.

🤝 Meet Your New Hire

Gemini: The Digital Portrait Artist

Why we hired them: They understand lighting, skin texture, and post-processing better than most humans. They work instantly, cost nothing, and can upscale your grainy 720p webcam photo to 8k resolution without breaking a sweat.

Read more

I almost skimmed past this.

“Elon merges SpaceX and xAI.” Okay. Another Elon thing. Probably some vague “AI + space = future” headline. Move on.

But then I actually read the explanation. And it bothered me—in a good way.

Because it wasn’t about models, performance, or even “intelligence.” It was about… electricity.

Which is not the story anyone wants to tell. But it’s the real one.

1. The Part About AI Nobody Likes Talking About

When people talk about AI, they usually talk about bigger models, better benchmarks, smarter reasoning, and how AGI is coming “soon.”

They don’t talk about power grids, cooling systems, heat, and zoning permits.

But that’s where things are breaking.

Right now, AI lives in giant data centers. Not “the cloud”—actual buildings, full of machines that get very hot and need absurd amounts of power. And we’re starting to hit limits.

In a lot of places, utilities are basically saying: “We don’t have more electricity to give you.”

Which is wild, if you think about it. We’re in a world where intelligence is software, but intelligence is being capped by wires.

So when SpaceX said that “ground-based data centers are hitting physical limits,” that wasn’t PR. That was a constraint. Translation: we are running into physics.

Elon’s response was predictable in retrospect. If the problem is Earth, leave Earth.

In space, solar is constant, cooling is easier, and nobody complains. Nobody says, “Sorry, the grid is full.”

Suddenly, “AI in orbit” stops sounding like cosplay and starts sounding like infrastructure. And infrastructure is boring—but boring is where power lives.

2. Why This Isn’t About “Better Models”

Most AI companies are playing the same game: make the model better, make it cheaper, make it faster, repeat.

That works. Until everyone catches up. Then it turns into a knife fight over margins.

Elon doesn’t like knife fights. He likes terrain control.

So instead of asking, “How do we make Grok smarter?” he asks, “Where does Grok live?” And then he builds that place.

Look at the pieces: SpaceX launches things. Starlink connects things. xAI processes things. Tesla distributes things.

Individually, they’re impressive. Together, they form an environment—a closed loop of compute, network, distribution, data, and feedback.

Most startups build tools. He builds ecosystems.

And ecosystems are annoying to compete with. You can copy a feature. You can’t copy a landscape.

3. Vision Is Cheap. Execution Paths Aren’t.

Elon is famous for big ideas: Mars, self-driving, robots, neural interfaces. Some work. Some take much longer than promised.

The difference is rarely “belief.” It’s whether there’s a real path.

So instead of asking, “Is space AI brilliant?” ask, “What has to go right for this to work?”

A lot.

Regulators have to approve launches. Costs have to keep falling. Hardware has to survive radiation. Maintenance has to be manageable. Failure rates have to stay low.

If any of those break, the story weakens. If several break, it collapses.

This is how serious people evaluate ambitious projects. Not emotionally. Mechanically.

They turn visions into systems. They break ideas into steps, watch timelines, track constraints, and revise beliefs.

Most people never learn this skill. They either become fans or skeptics. Both are passive positions.

Builders can’t afford that.

Every meaningful project eventually becomes “a story.” And stories are dangerous. They seduce you into thinking progress is automatic.

Your job is to keep dragging the story back into reality—into schedules, bottlenecks, trade-offs, and work.

One Last Thought

This merger wasn’t about making AI smarter. It was about AI hitting limits: power, heat, regulation, physics.

When growth runs into walls, winners don’t just try harder. They change the map.

That’s what this is.

For independent builders, the lesson isn’t “think big.” It’s this: real advantage usually looks boring at first. It looks like infrastructure. It looks slow. It looks unsexy.

And by the time it looks impressive, it’s already too late to copy.

That’s how durable systems are built.

Quietly. Over time.

Links:

1. https://x.com/elonmusk

2. https://www.spacex.com

3. https://x.ai

4. WTF is happening at xAI | Sulaiman Ghori

Afternoon, CEO!

Today, we are fundamentally upgrading the “Video Production” department of your agency. We’re moving away from the world of manual timelines and expensive editing suites. Instead, we are implementing a Programmatic Video Workflow. By pairing Claude with Remotion, you can now “write” videos into existence. Today, we’ll use a 3D brand reveal as our pilot project, but once this staff member is onboarded, they can generate anything from data-driven social ads to automated technical demos with a single prompt.

Read more

xAI went from zero to $50 billion valuation in under 4 years. They built the world’s largest AI compute cluster in 122 days. They’re deploying AI employees that work 8x faster than humans.

An engineer who worked there just spilled everything in a 70-minute podcast. Then got fired three days later.

But before he left, he handed us their playbook. Let’s steal it.

The Speed vs. Smarts Fork in the Road

Every AI company faces the same question early on: Do we build the smartest possible model, or the fastest?

Most companies pick “smartest.” It’s sexier. Better for fundraising. OpenAI and Anthropic are racing to build models that think for 5 minutes before responding, producing essays that make you go “whoa, that’s impressive.”

xAI picked fast.

Their internal models run 8x faster than a human. Not 8x faster than other AIs—8x faster than an actual person doing the same task.

Here’s the fork they faced:

Option A: Build a huge model that can reason deeply, impress demos, win benchmarks. Deploy to maybe 10,000 users because inference costs are insane.

Option B: Build a small model that’s “good enough,” runs dirt cheap, and deploy to 1 million users tomorrow.

They picked B. And here’s what they gave up:

They can’t claim to have the “most intelligent” AI. When people compare models, xAI’s won’t top the charts. They won’t win the benchmark wars. Their demos won’t make people gasp.

But here’s what they got:

They can actually deploy at scale. While competitors are still figuring out how to afford serving their models, xAI can run theirs on Tesla car computers. While others need 5 minutes to think, xAI responds in 10 seconds.

The math is brutal: If your AI needs 5 minutes to do a task a human does in 5 minutes, nobody uses it. If your AI does it in 30 seconds, everyone uses it.

Sully mentioned they’re doing the same thing Tesla did with Full Self-Driving. Tesla didn’t build the biggest neural network. They built the smallest one that works, because it had to fit in a car.

Same logic: What’s the smallest model that can actually do the job?

This created a second-order effect they didn’t expect: small models iterate faster. Training a small model takes days, not weeks. They can run 20 experiments in parallel. They can test a new approach in the morning and deploy it that night.

While competitors spend months perfecting one big model, xAI ships 20 “pretty good” versions and learns what actually works.

Here’s the question for your own work:

When you’re building something—a presentation, a strategy, a new process—are you optimizing for “impressively smart” or “actually useful”?

Because those are different goals. And only one of them ships.

The Carnival Generator Gambit

xAI needed to build a massive data center in Memphis. Fast.

Standard timeline: 2+ years. Permits, environmental reviews, utility approvals, construction.

They had a choice:

Option A: Follow the proper process. Apply for industrial permits. Wait 18-24 months for approvals. Build a permanent, compliant facility.

Option B: Find a loophole.

Their lawyers discovered that “temporary events” like carnivals can use mobile generators without lengthy environmental approvals.

So xAI rented carnival generators, put them on trailers, and classified the entire data center as a “temporary facility.”

They built the world’s largest AI compute cluster using carnival equipment in 122 days.

Here’s what they traded:

They gave up legal certainty. The EPA is now investigating. They might face fines. They might be forced to rebuild properly. The “temporary lease” might become a permanent problem.

They gave up looking professional. There’s now a podcast where an engineer explains they’re basically running a carnival. Competitors can point and laugh. Investors might worry about regulatory risk.

But here’s what they got:

122 days instead of 730 days. That’s a 6X speed advantage. In AI, that’s multiple generations of models. That’s the difference between leading and following.

And here’s the part nobody talks about: by the time regulators figure out what to do, xAI will have already built three more data centers the “proper” way. The temporary one will have already paid for itself.

This is a pattern you see in every Musk company: Ask for forgiveness, not permission. But make sure you’re so far ahead by the time forgiveness is needed that it doesn’t matter.

SpaceX did this. Tesla did this. Now xAI is doing it.

But let’s be honest about the tradeoff: This only works if you can absorb the hit. If you’re a small startup and regulators come after you, you’re dead. If you’re xAI with billions in funding, you pay the fine and move on.

The question for your work isn’t “should I break rules?”.

The question is: What’s the “carnival generator” version of your project?

What’s the scrappy, probably-not-perfect-but-actually-works version you could ship in a week instead of waiting three months for the “proper” version?

Maybe it’s using free tools instead of waiting for enterprise software approval. Maybe it’s manually doing something that “should” be automated, just to prove it works. Maybe it’s testing with 10 users instead of waiting to test with 1,000.

The proper version will come. But the carnival version teaches you if you’re even building the right thing.

The Loose Lips Paradox

Sully got fired for one reason: he told the world exactly how far xAI has gotten.

But here’s the paradox: Everything he said was obvious to competitors.

Every AI lab knows small models are an option. Everyone knows Tesla cars have unused compute. Everyone’s testing AI agents internally.

Sully didn’t leak secrets. He leaked the progress bar.

He told everyone xAI is already:

• Running AI employees that fool humans

• Achieving 8x human speed in production

• Planning to deploy on Tesla’s car fleet

• Iterating daily on new model architectures

That last one is the killer. Competitors now know they’re not just behind—they know exactly how behind they are.

Here’s the fork Sully faced (probably without realizing it):

Option A: Stay quiet. Keep your head down. Ship great work in private. Build leverage through execution, not reputation.

Option B: Share openly. Build your personal brand. Attract opportunities. Show the world what you’re capable of.

Most advice tells you to pick B. “Build in public!” “Share your journey!” “Be authentic!”

And for 99% of people, 99% of the time, that’s right.

But there’s a threshold where openness becomes liability.

Sully crossed that threshold. He didn’t just share what he was working on (fine). He didn’t just share the approach (probably fine). He shared:

• Exact progress milestones

• Internal testing details

• Competitive timelines

• Legal gray areas

• Product roadmaps

He essentially handed every competitor a checklist: “Here’s what you need to catch up to xAI.”

He built a great personal brand, got podcast fame, and inspired thousands of engineers. But he lost his job and possibly his industry reputation.

Now, was it worth it? Depends on what he wanted.

If he wanted to work at xAI long-term, obviously not. If he wanted to become a known voice in AI and start his own company? Maybe yes. That podcast will open doors. VCs will remember his name.

But he didn’t make that choice consciously. He just got excited and talked.

Here’s the framework that would have helped:

Share the vision freely. “We’re building AI that works 8x faster than humans”—that’s inspiring, not revealing.

Share the approach selectively. “We’re using smaller models for speed”—that’s interesting, not damaging.

Never share the progress bar. “We’re already running 20 internal AI employees” + “We’re deploying on Tesla cars” + “We iterate daily”—that’s a roadmap for competitors.

The question for your work:

When you’re tempted to share your project publicly—on LinkedIn, in meetings, in Slack—ask: Am I sharing to build support, or am I accidentally giving competitors my playbook?

Because there’s a point where transparency stops being helpful and starts being stupid.

Sully found that point. Three days too late.

Outro

xAI’s playbook is simple: choose speed over perfection, use carnival generators when you can’t get real ones, and guard your progress bar like your job depends on it.

Because it does.

Sully proved that. He built incredible things, inspired thousands of people, and lost his job in 72 hours.

Sometimes the best lessons come from watching someone else step on the landmine.

Links:

1. https://x.com/elonmusk

2. https://x.com/sulaimanghori

3. https://x.ai

4. WTF is happening at xAI | Sulaiman Ghori

Afternoon, CEO!

Today, we are looking at GitHub not as a code repository, but as a staffing agency.

There are brilliant open-source tools out there (like Manim for animation, or Crawl4AI for data scraping). But usually, using them requires you to remember complex installation paths and read obscure documentation every time.

We are going to change that. We will download a tool once, let AI “read the manual” for us, and package it into a Skill. This turns a clunky folder of code into a permanent, voice-activated team member that works alongside you.

Read more

I just finished a book that made me rethink every career decision I’ve ever made.

It’s by a Nobel Prize winner who spent decades studying why smart, capable people end up with lives they didn’t really choose.

Turns out, the problem was never about what we want.

The real culprit? The invisible constraints we’re all operating under. And once you see them, you can’t unsee them.

The Constraint You Didn’t Know Was Running Your Life

Here’s a brain-bender: In 1900-1920, the first generation of college-educated women had the LOWEST marriage and birth rates of any generation since.

This makes no sense. Earlier times = more traditional = everyone married young, right?

Nope. Half never had kids. A third never married.

Claudia Goldin (2023 Nobel laureate) studied five generations of educated women from 1878-1978. What she found applies to anyone trying to build a career and a life at the same time.

Each generation wanted roughly the same thing: meaningful work AND a personal life. But their outcomes were wildly different.

Why? Because what changed wasn’t their preferences. It was their constraints.

Generation 1 faced “marriage bars” – actual policies banning married women from certain jobs. Plus no washing machines, so laundry took 6 hours. Choose one: career or family.

Generation 3 (the Baby Boom moms) got dishwashers and no marriage bars. Suddenly having both seemed possible! Marriage rate: 90%+. They’d work, have kids, quit, return later to “low-risk jobs” like teaching.

Generation 4 watched their moms do unfulfilling work and said “hard pass.” They wanted law, medicine, finance. They got birth control pills. They crushed their careers. Then looked up at 45 and... 28% had no kids. Oops.

Generation 5 learned from Gen 4’s mistakes. They got IVF and better maternity leave. Result: late marriage (age 27) but kids too (only 17% childless).

The pattern: People don’t actually change that much. But when the constraints change, suddenly different choices become possible.

This matters for you because you’re operating under constraints you probably can’t see. Your industry’s norms. Your company’s unwritten rules. The way your role is structured. The tech available to you.

You think you’re choosing based on preferences. But you’re mostly just optimizing within your constraints.

Your Job Might Be “Greedy” (And That’s Costing You)

Even with better constraints, Generation 5 women still earned 27% less than men with identical education.

Why? Everyone assumes: sexism.

Which... exists. (Michelle Williams got $100K while her male co-star got $1.5M for the same reshoots. )

But Goldin found the real driver: “greedy work.”

Here’s how it works. In some fields, the more hours you worked in the PAST, the more each hour is worth in the FUTURE. Your time compounds.

Law, medicine, finance, management – all greedy. A doctor who’s seen more patients? Each hour becomes more valuable. A lawyer who’s built client relationships? Gets the big cases.

But take time off – for kids, or burnout, or literally anything – and your hour-value drops. Permanently.

The pay gap doesn’t exist at age 25. It opens at age 28-29, right after people have their first kid. Then it grows.

Why? Because greedy jobs punish any career interruption. They demand you be available 24/7. Client relationships matter. Face time matters. Past hours worked matter.

And from a household perspective, having one person in a greedy job and one in a flexible job maximizes family income. That’s just math.

So millions of rational families independently make the same choice: one person goes greedy, one stays flexible. And the flexible one is usually the woman.

Here’s why this matters for you: Your field might be greedy without you realizing it.

If your value compounds based on relationships, face time, and uninterrupted experience accumulation – you’re in a greedy field. Every hour you work makes future hours more valuable. Every break costs you more than the time away.

This isn’t good or bad. It just IS. But knowing it lets you make better decisions.

Maybe you’re optimizing for the wrong thing. Maybe you should switch to a less greedy field. Maybe you should restructure how your team works so it’s less greedy for everyone.

You can’t fix what you can’t see.

The Counter-Intuitive Solution: Make Yourself Replaceable

Goldin’s solution to greedy work will sound insane: increase substitutability.

Translation: make it easier for someone else to do your job.

Every instinct screams this is wrong. Job security = being indispensable, right?

Wrong.

Look at pharmacists. High-paying job. Lots of customer interaction. But the gender pay gap? Tiny. Women earn 94% of what men earn.

Fifty years ago, pharmacy WAS a greedy job. Pharmacists had “their” customers. Personal relationships mattered. You’d get 2am calls for emergency prescriptions.

Now? Standardized medications. Electronic records. Any pharmacist can help any customer. They’re highly substitutable.

Result: Job stopped being greedy. Pay gap shrank. But pay DIDN’T drop.

The same thing is happening in consulting, accounting, finance, hospitals. Why?

Better knowledge management. Documentation. Slack histories. Handoff protocols.

When team members are more substitutable, everyone’s schedule can be more flexible. The work becomes less greedy. And paradoxically, this makes the team MORE valuable, not less.

For you, this means: Document everything. Build systems. Make your knowledge transferable. Create processes others can follow.

This feels like you’re making yourself expendable. But actually, you’re making your entire operation more resilient, more scalable, more attractive to clients (internal or external).

Plus, young professionals quit jobs with brutal hours now. If you want to keep good people, you HAVE to build substitutability in.

The thing we’re all afraid of – being replaceable – might actually be the thing that saves us.

The Thing That’ll Stick With You

Five generations. Same basic wants. Completely different outcomes.

What changed wasn’t people. It was constraints: laws, technology, social norms.

The problem isn’t preferences or individual bad actors. Which is good news – we can fix systems. Bad news – fixing systems is harder than blaming people.

A world that’s better for women turns out to be better for men too. Less greedy work. More flexible schedules. Better work-life balance for everyone.

We just have to be willing to see the constraints we’re operating under. And then change them.

Wild how that works.

Links:

1. https://goldin.scholars.harvard.edu

2. https://www.amazon.com/Career-Family-Womens-Century-Long-Journey/dp/0691201781

Afternoon, CEO!

Today, we are significantly upgrading your engineering division. We aren’t just hiring another generalist; we are equipping your existing AI staff with a marketplace of plugins and skills. This allows us to turn a standard coding assistant into a subject-matter expert—whether handling complex PDFs or designing frontend interfaces—with a single command line instruction.

Read more

An 18-year-old made $2 million per month with a calorie-tracking app, eight months after launch.

But here’s the part that made me spit out my coffee: He didn’t build his own custom AI model. He just... connected two existing ones.

While I’m over here trying to figure out which Python library to use, he’s treating AI models like LEGO bricks.

Let me show you what he did that I completely missed.

1. The Build vs. Buy Decision (Spoiler: He Chose Neither)

Zach Yadegari wanted to track calories for his gym sessions. MyFitnessPal made him manually confirm every food item after taking a photo. He quit after three days.

Most technical people would think: “Time to build a custom model!”

I certainly would have. Six months of gathering data, fine-tuning, debugging why it thinks an apple is tikka masala...

Zach did something different.

He just plugged OpenAI’s GPT vision model and Anthropic’s Claude vision model together. Added some RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) so the models could double-check themselves. Done.

90% accuracy. Better than industry average.

Total time spent training custom models: Zero hours.Here’s what I didn’t understand until I saw this: The question isn’t “build or buy.” It’s “compose or compete.”

Trying to build better vision models than OpenAI is like trying to manufacture better electricity than your local power company. Sure, you could. But why would you?

The companies competing on “better AI models” are burning through millions in compute costs. The companies competing on “better AI model composition” are four teenagers in a hacker house.

This creates a weird tradeoff most people miss:

If you build your own models, you own the technology but you’re competing with Google’s budget.

If you compose existing models, you own the application but you’re dependent on someone else’s API pricing.

Zach chose dependency. And hit $24M ARR in 8 months.

Meanwhile, there are startups that spent two years building custom models and never launched.

The hard part isn’t the AI anymore. It’s knowing what problem to solve and how to package it.

I spent so much time learning ML fundamentals that I missed the fundamental shift: In the age of model APIs, “knowing how to code AI” is less valuable than “knowing what to build with AI.”

Everyone has access to GPT now. Not everyone knows what to do with it.

2. When $770K in Marketing Spend Is Actually Market Research

Cal AI spends $770,000 per month on ads and influencer marketing.

That’s almost their entire profit going right back out the door.

My first reaction: “Oh great, another startup hemorrhaging cash for vanity metrics.”

But look at how they spent it:

Phase 1 (Early days): Partner with fitness influencers on TikTok. Performance-based payment plus referral codes.

Phase 2 (After validation): Scale with TikTok Ads and Apple Search Ads.

See the difference?

Phase 1 wasn’t marketing. It was paying influencers to tell them if their product was any good.

If the app sucked, influencers’ followers wouldn’t convert. The referral codes would show that immediately. Cal AI would know within days whether they built something people actually wanted.

This is the opposite of what I thought marketing was.

I thought: Build product → Validate with users → Then market it.

They did: Market to users → Validation happens automatically → Scale the marketing that works.

The tradeoff here is subtle but important:

Traditional validation is cheap but slow. You talk to users, run surveys, do beta tests. It takes months to know if you’re building the right thing.

Marketing-as-validation is expensive but fast. You pay influencers to promote your product and watch what happens. You know within days.

Cal AI spent $770K to learn what most startups spend 18 months trying to figure out: Who actually wants this? How much will they pay? What messaging works?

By the time they scaled to paid ads, they already knew:

• Which user segments converted best

• What pain points resonated

• How to position the product

• What price points worked

The expensive “marketing” in Phase 1 made the expensive marketing in Phase 2 way more efficient.

Here’s what clicked for me: Sometimes the fastest way to validate isn’t to build smaller—it’s to spend louder.

I keep trying to “validate cheaply” by talking to potential users, running surveys, building MVPs. But talk is cheap. Watching someone actually pull out their credit card? That’s real data.

Cal AI’s “reckless” marketing spend was actually the most conservative move they could make. Because finding out your product is wrong after 6 months of careful validation is way more expensive than finding out after 2 weeks of paid traffic.

3. The Reddit Hates You, App Store Loves You Paradox

Reddit absolutely destroys Cal AI.

“Predatory pricing!” “Hidden fees!” “Scammy subscription traps!”

The complaints are everywhere. Long, detailed posts about how the app tricks people into subscriptions they didn’t want.

Meanwhile, App Store rating: 4.8 stars. 150,000+ reviews. 30%+ retention rate.

What’s happening here?

Most founders would panic at the Reddit backlash. Try to fix the pricing. Make it more transparent. Add more free features. Chase universal approval.

Cal AI looked at the data and basically said: “Cool, Reddit isn’t our customer.”

They designed everything for people who value convenience over cost optimization:

• Hide the price until after onboarding (Reddit hates this)

• Use dynamic pricing based on user behavior (Reddit really hates this)

• Make the free version basically useless (Reddit loses their minds over this)

• Auto-charge after 3-day trial (Reddit wants to burn the building down)

But here’s the thing: The people complaining on Reddit and the people paying $49.99/year are two completely different humans.

Reddit users want maximum value per dollar. They’ll spend 30 minutes researching alternatives to save $5.

App Store users want minimum friction. They’ll pay $50 to avoid spending 30 seconds manually logging food.

Cal AI picked the latter and optimized everything for them. Made the experience so smooth that the price doesn’t matter. Built in just enough behavioral economics (sunk cost fallacy, dynamic pricing, fake freemium) to convert that audience at scale.

You can’t serve both audiences.

If you make Reddit happy with transparent pricing and generous free tiers, you lose the friction-hating users who were going to pay anyway. They need a little push.

If you optimize for conversion, you get Reddit threads full of angry people. But those people were never going to pay the premium tier price anyway.

This was hard for me to accept because I’m a Reddit person. I research everything. I optimize costs. I get offended by hidden pricing.

But I am not the target market for most consumer apps.

The real lesson: Controversy from the wrong audience is fine. Silence from your actual audience is death.

Cal AI would rather have 1,000 Reddit threads calling them a scam and 500,000 happy paying users than 1,000 Reddit upvotes and 5,000 users unwilling to pay.

They picked their lane. Optimized ruthlessly. Ignored everyone else.

Meanwhile, I’m over here trying to make everyone happy and ending up with a product nobody loves.

The Pattern I Keep Missing

So here I am, trying to build the “right way.” Custom models. Careful validation. Fair pricing. Universal appeal.

And this 18-year-old just composed some APIs, spent like a drunken sailor on marketing, pissed off half the internet, and made $24M ARR.

The pattern isn’t about being young or lucky or unethical.

It’s about understanding that the rules changed. Building your own AI isn’t the flex anymore. Solving a problem people will pay for is the flex. And sometimes solving it fast and dirty beats solving it perfect and slow.

The future belongs to people who can see past what they “should” do and just ship the thing that works.

Even if Reddit hates it.

Links:

1. https://x.com/zach_yadegari

2. https://www.calai.app

3. https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/1in01pp/anyone\_have\_success\_using\_cal\_ai

4. https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/16/photo-calorie-app-cal-ai-downloaded-over-a-million-times-was-built-by-two-teenagers

5. https://lifehacker.com/health/ai-powered-calorie-counting-apps-worse-than-expected

6. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/06/cal-ai-how-a-teenage-ceo-built-a-fast-growing-calorie-tracking-app.html

7. https://www.eesel.ai/blog/cal-ai-pricing

8. https://dataintelo.com/report/calorie-counting-app-market

Afternoon, CEO!

Today, we aren’t just hiring a new pair of hands; we are implementing a management protocol to stop your AI staff from rambling. You know how some consultants talk in circles, wasting your time and budget? AI models do the same thing, consuming “tokens” (billable units of data) and filling their “context window” (short-term memory) with fluff.

We are instituting a reverse-interview strategy. Instead of you guessing the right prompt, we will force the AI to ask you exactly what it needs to know to get the job done right.

Read more

Ever notice how you keep making the same mistake in different packaging?

Like, you swore you’d stop volunteering for every project, but here you are at 11 PM finishing someone else’s slides. Again.

Or you promised yourself you’d speak up in the next meeting, but when it came time, you just... didn’t.

It’s not willpower. It’s not discipline. It’s something way more interesting (and fixable).

Today we’re talking about the mental code you wrote when you were six years old—and why it’s still running your life.

Your Brain Is Running Code from Kindergarten

Here’s something nobody tells you in business school:

The way you handle conflict at work? Mostly determined by age 6.

Your relationship with authority? Age 6.

That thing where you overcommit and burn out? You guessed it—age 6.

German psychotherapist Gitta Jacob calls these patterns “schemas.” They’re the mental frameworks you built as a kid to understand yourself and the world.

And here’s the kicker: they’re self-reinforcing.

Let me show you how this ruins your Tuesday.

Say you developed this schema: “I need to work twice as hard to deserve recognition.”

Your manager praises your work. Your brain translates: “They’re just being nice. They don’t really mean it.”

You ship a successful project. Your brain: “Lucky timing. Next one will expose me.”

You get promoted. Your brain: “They must be desperate. I’m a fraud.”

See the pattern?

Every piece of evidence that contradicts your schema gets twisted to fit it anyway. It’s like your brain is running a spam filter, except it’s filtering out good news and keeping the garbage.

Psychologists call this a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

I call it “why I went to therapy.”

The cycle goes: Schema → You notice things that confirm it → You ignore things that contradict it → Schema gets stronger → Repeat until retirement.

And the truly maddening part? You probably can’t even see it happening.

It’s like trying to read the label from inside the bottle.

The goal isn’t to delete these schemas. It’s to see them clearly enough that you can choose whether to use them.

Because sometimes that “work twice as hard” schema serves you. And sometimes it just makes you the person who’s still online at midnight while everyone else is asleep.

The trick is knowing the difference.

The Four Voices in Your Head (And Why They Won’t Shut Up)

Your schema isn’t one thing. It’s four distinct voices having a very loud argument in your head.

Voice 1: The Inner Child

This is the part of you that still remembers what it felt like to be small and powerless.

When a senior executive asks you a question and you suddenly feel like you’re seven years old getting called on in class? That’s your Inner Child.

There are three types:

The Wounded Child feels inadequate. I once met someone making $300K who still felt “not good enough” because she grew up poor. The bank account changed. The feeling didn’t.

The Spoiled Child never learned boundaries. These are the people who rage-quit when told “no.” They look entitled, but really they’re just terrified because they never learned where the limits are.

The Happy Child remembers joy and curiosity. This is the only one we actually want to keep around.

Voice 2: The Inner Critic

Remember your parents’ voices? The things they said about work, success, what you “should” do?

Congratulations! They live in your head now. Rent-free. Forever.

Three flavors:

The Achievement Police: “Why are you resting? You’re not successful enough yet!” Useful in small doses. Exhausting in large ones.

The Guilt Monger: “Your parents sacrificed everything. How dare you be happy?” This one is just pure poison.

The Demolition Expert: “You’re worthless.” If this voice shows up, tell it to shut up. Seriously. Out loud if necessary.

Voice 3: The Coping Strategy

As a kid, you figured out how to survive. Maybe you:

• Complied: Became the “good kid” who never caused trouble (now you’re the “yes person” who can’t say no)

• Avoided: Stayed in your lane (now you’re the person who never takes risks)

• Overcompensated: Fought back constantly (now you’re the workaholic who can’t stop)

Here’s what’s wild: The strategy that saved you at seven is probably sabotaging you at forty.

Voice 4: The Adult Self

This is your idea of what a “professional adult” looks like. Some of it’s healthy (taking responsibility, managing emotions). Some of it’s a disaster (perfectionism disguised as standards).

The question: Which voice is driving when you make decisions?

Because I guarantee it’s not always the Adult.

How to Rewrite Code That’s Been Running for Decades

Okay, you’ve identified your schemas. Now what?

Here are four practices that actually work. I know because I’ve had to do all of them. (Therapy is expensive and also the best money I’ve ever spent.)

Practice 1: Talk to Your Inner Child (Yes, Really)

Find a quiet moment. Imagine meeting your childhood self.

What would you say to that kid?

When I did this exercise, I imagined seven-year-old me, terrified of getting in trouble, trying desperately to be perfect.

I told her: “Hey. You’re going to be okay. You’ll mess up sometimes. People will still like you. Actually, they’ll like you more when you’re not trying so hard. I know because I’m you, thirty years later.”

It sounds ridiculous.

It’s also surprisingly powerful.

Practice 2: Reparent Yourself

Give yourself permission to do things for no reason except joy.

Listen to music. Dance badly. Take a walk. Play.

I know, I know. You have seventeen Slack messages and a deck due Friday.

Do it anyway.

The more you amplify the happy parts, the less room there is for the wounded parts.

It’s not about “fixing” yourself. It’s about crowding out the old patterns with better ones.

Practice 3: Negotiate with Your Critic

List the harshest things you say to yourself.

Now ask: Would I say this to a colleague I respected?

No? Then why are you saying it to yourself?

Rewrite the criticism as if you’re talking to a peer you want to help succeed.

Instead of: “You’re so lazy, you should be working harder” Try: “You seem tired. What if we tackle this differently?”

Practice 4: Test Different Strategies

If you always say yes, practice saying no once.

If you always avoid, try engaging once.

If you always push, try resting once.

You don’t have to change everything. Just run one experiment.

See what happens.

Most people are shocked to discover the world doesn’t end when they try a new approach.

(Some are disappointed. They were kind of hoping for the drama.)

The Punchline

Your schemas aren’t personality traits. They’re not fixed. They’re code—code that you can debug.

The first step is seeing the code. The second is deciding if it still serves you. And the third is having the guts to run a different program, even though the old one feels safer.

Because here’s the thing: You can keep running six-year-old code and wondering why your forty-year-old problems won’t resolve. Or you can rewrite it. Your call, boss.

Links:

1. https://www.instagram.com/gittajacobofficial

2. https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Negative-Thinking-Patterns-Self-Help-ebook/dp/B00RQECLNW

Afternoon, CEO!

Today, we are dramatically scaling your engineering department without adding a cent to your payroll taxes. We are onboarding OpenAI’s Codex to handle the heavy lifting of coding, reviewing, and deploying. This isn’t just about writing code faster; it’s about setting up a workflow where your “staff” reviews your work automatically and lets you push production updates from your phone while you wait for your latte.

Read more

Imagine spending months building your product, then Anthropic drops a keynote that makes your roadmap obsolete. That’s what happened to Eigent in January 2026. Instead of folding, they posted a joke tweet that got 8.3k likes and 1.6M views. A day later, 1,000+ GitHub stars. Two weeks later, they’re #1 on GitHub Trending. Here’s how they pulled off what looks like magic but is actually just very good decision-making under pressure.

They Chose the “Wrong” Option (Which Made It Right)

Late night, London.

Three co-founders sit in their living room after watching Claude Cowork launch.

The product they’ve been building? Anthropic just announced something eerily similar.

Here’s where most founders panic-pivot.

Or write a dramatic “we’re shutting down” post.

Or try to out-feature the giant (LOL).

Eigent did none of these.

They doubled down on open source.

Now, I know what you’re thinking.

“Open source? How do you compete with a well-funded closed product by... giving yours away?”

This sounds like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Except it’s not.

Here’s what I missed for years:

The best product for everyone is often the wrong product for someone specific.

Let me explain with an analogy that’s probably too honest.

You know how McDonald’s makes objectively good burgers? Fast, consistent, cheap.

But there’s a thriving market for $18 organic grass-fed burgers at local joints.

Why? Because some people don’t want McDonald’s.

Not because it’s bad. Because it’s wrong for them.

Eigent realized something crucial:

Not everyone wants Anthropic’s solution.

Who doesn’t?

Companies that can’t let data touch the cloud. (Banks, healthcare, government)

Teams that need deep customization. (The product has to fit their exact workflow)

Organizations allergic to vendor lock-in. (What happens if Anthropic changes pricing? Or shuts down the API?)

An 11,000-person company in the Middle East chose Eigent for local deployment.

A world-leading open-source data company picked them for customization.

Not because Eigent was “better.”

Because it was the only option that fit their constraints.

Here’s the thing I’m still processing:

When a giant enters your space, your job isn’t to beat them. It’s to become un-comparable.

You do this by serving people with needs the giant actively ignores.

Not niche as in “small.”

Niche as in “different shape.”

The tradeoff?

You give up mass market appeal.

You’ll never have Anthropic’s user base.

But you might have customers who can’t live without you.

Which actually matters more than I thought.

The Slow Accumulation That Became Sudden Speed

Okay, but here’s the part that makes this story actually interesting.

Eigent didn’t just have clever positioning.

They had three years of technical depth nobody else had.

March 2023: They publish CAMEL, a paper on multi-agent AI.

Gets 4,000 GitHub stars in a week.

Andrew Ng takes a photo of their poster at NeurIPS.

(If Andrew Ng photographs your work, you’ve made it.)

Then they just... kept going.

• CRAB: Teaching AI to operate phones and computers

• OWL: Browser automation

• OASIS: Simulating a million AI agents

• Loong: Generating high-quality training data

From the outside, this looks like random academic research.

But it’s actually a tech stack disguised as papers.

When Claude Cowork launched, Eigent didn’t scramble.

They had:

Ready-to-use browser automation from OWL.

Multi-agent coordination from CAMEL.

Enterprise benchmarks from actual client work.

I used to think research was separate from building products.

Like, you either do research (slow, academic) or ship products (fast, practical).

Turns out that’s wrong.

Research IS product development.

Just on a longer time horizon.

Here’s the pattern:

Shallow moat = “We have nice UI”

Deep moat = “We spent years solving problems you don’t even know exist yet”

When you do research, you’re not just publishing papers.

You’re building capabilities that compound.

Each paper teaches you something.

Each project adds a tool to your arsenal.

By the time competitors try to catch up, you’re not one step ahead.

You’re in a different dimension.

This applies to your work too.

That “extra” project you do on the side?

That skill you’re learning that seems irrelevant?

That’s your research phase.

It won’t pay off this quarter.

But in two years, when everyone’s scrambling to learn what you already know?

You’ll have options they don’t.

The Pause That Accelerated Everything

May 2024.

The product MVP is looking good.

Time to launch and grow, right?

Guohao writes a doc: “Lay the Foundation.”

The directive: Stop building the product. Fix the infrastructure.

Context: They have TWO engineers.

Not twenty. Two.

Every startup playbook says: Ship fast. Iterate. Get users. Grow.

This is the opposite.

They spend an ENTIRE YEAR making their framework production-ready.

No product launches.

No user growth.

Just engineering.

When I first read this, I thought: That’s career suicide.

A year with two engineers and nothing to show customers?

But here’s what actually happened:

When they finally launched, they didn’t have a duct-taped demo.

They had a system that enterprises could actually deploy.

Without a sales team, they started landing clients:

• 11,000-person Middle Eastern company

• Major open-source data company

• Google inviting them to test Gemini early

Why?

Because enterprise buyers care if your thing works, not how fast you shipped.

Nobody wants to be your beta tester when real money is on the line.

They want boring reliability.

This breaks every “move fast” rule I was taught.

But the tradeoff makes sense:

You can go fast with a weak foundation and collapse later.

Or go slow with a strong foundation and accelerate later.

Most people pick fast → collapse.

Because slow → accelerate requires patience nobody has.

But here’s what I’m learning:

Real speed isn’t about how fast you ship version 1.

It’s about how fast you can scale version 10.

A shaky foundation means every new feature is a negotiation with your technical debt.

A solid foundation means you can stack features like Legos.

The first approach feels fast for six months.

Then turns into molasses.

The second approach feels slow for six months.

Then becomes unstoppable.

For your work:

That boring refactor you keep postponing?

That documentation you “don’t have time for”?

That’s your foundation.

Skip it, and you’ll spend next year fixing what you built this year.

Build it, and next year you’ll be building on top of what you built this year.

Different game entirely.

The Real Game

January 2026, Eigent hits #1 on GitHub Trending.

But that’s not the point.

The point is what they gave up to get there—and what they gained instead.

They gave up: Trying to beat Anthropic head-on. Mass market dreams. The “move fast” playbook everyone follows.

They gained: A defensible position. Enterprise clients who can’t leave. Technical depth nobody can copy quickly.

The lesson isn’t “do what Eigent did.”

It’s “understand what you’re trading.”

Every choice has a cost. The question is whether you’re paying it on purpose.

When the giant launches, will you have something they can’t replicate? Not because you’re better—because you’re different in a way that matters to someone specific.

That’s not a consolation prize. That’s the whole game.

Links:

1. https://x.com/guohao_li

2. https://www.eigent.ai

3. CAMEL: Communicative Agents for “Mind” Exploration of Large Language Model Society

4. CRAB: Cross-environment Agent Benchmark for Multimodal Language Model Agents

5. OWL: Optimized Workforce Learning for General Multi-Agent Assistance in Real-World Task Automation

6. OASIS: Open Agent Social Interaction Simulations with One Million Agents

7. Loong: Synthesize Long Chain-of-Thoughts at Scale through Verifiers

Afternoon, CEO!

Today, we are effectively acquiring a top-tier consultancy firm and shrinking it down to a single browser tab. We are automating the grueling work of market research—finding competitors, analyzing their financials, and spotting their weaknesses—so you can skip straight to the strategy.

Read more

A patient in Liverpool waited 91 hours on a hospital gurney for a bed. Not 91 minutes—91 HOURS. Four days listening to footsteps and beeping machines. This wasn’t an outlier. This was winter 2024 in the UK’s NHS. But then 50 hospitals did something weird: they stopped looking at other hospitals for answers and started copying Amazon instead.

The Problem: Hospitals Only Know How To Live In The Present

Here’s how hospitals traditionally work:

Patients show up. Staff scramble.

More patients show up. Staff scramble harder.

Everyone scrambles until someone collapses or the day ends.

The entire system lives in the present tense. What’s happening NOW, we handle NOW. No bandwidth for tomorrow.

This works fine during “normal times” (that mythical two-week period in April when nobody gets sick).

But winter? Winter is chaos.

One ER director’s typical morning: Arrive at 8 AM. Discover 200 patients need care today. Remember you only scheduled 150 staff. Start frantically calling people.

First your own nurses: “Want to work a double shift?”

Then the temp agencies—those mercenary outfits that provide contract staff at 2-3x the cost. And they’re not even guaranteed to show up because every other hospital is calling the same agencies, fighting over the same pool of temps like it’s Black Friday for healthcare workers.

But even if you find staff, you still have a problem: Where do you put the patients?

The ER can treat them, sure. But then they need to go to a hospital ward. Except the wards are full. Why? Because the patients IN the wards can’t leave.

Not because they’re sick. Many are medically cleared. But they’re waiting for prescriptions, or rides home, or community care arrangements.

This is the “exit block problem.” (Polite hospital-speak for “the entire system is constipated.”)

Imagine a parking garage where cars keep entering, no spaces are available, and the exit is blocked by cars that COULD leave but are waiting for... reasons.

That’s a hospital in winter.

The patient who waited 91 hours? That wasn’t because doctors weren’t trying. It was because the system had no ability to plan ahead.

Like running a restaurant where you wait until you’re completely slammed, THEN run to the grocery store to buy ingredients and hire a chef.

That restaurant would fail immediately.

Hospitals just suffer.

The Solution: Time Travel (Sort Of)

The NHS rolled out an AI tool that predicts ER demand three weeks in advance.

Here’s what surprised me: Accuracy doesn’t really matter.

Whether it predicts 30% more patients or 25% more—who cares?

What matters is having ANY advance warning at all.

The system looks at weather forecasts (temperature drops = respiratory spikes 3-7 days later), school holidays (kids spread disease like it’s their job), historical patterns, flu transmission rates.

Then it tells you: “Next Monday 10 AM-2 PM, you’re getting slammed” or “Three weeks from now, cold snap + flu season = 30% surge.”

With three weeks of warning, hospitals can finally do three things:

One: Stop playing schedule roulette.

Traditionally, hospitals schedule staff weeks ahead based on last year’s patterns or vibes. If something unexpected happens, panic-call temp agencies.

Now they can see the staffing gap coming and post overtime shifts to “bank staff”—regular employees who want extra cash.

Using internal staff costs WAY less than temp agencies. Plus you can optimize: pediatric surge predicted? Schedule more pediatric nurses specifically.

Two: The great bed liberation.

If you know a wave is coming in three weeks, start planning discharges NOW.

Which patients are medically ready but stuck waiting? Get them out. Which elective surgeries can be postponed? Reschedule them.

You’ve turned “exit block” from a passive disaster into active management.

Three: Surgery Tetris.

Non-emergency surgeries get scheduled dynamically based on predicted ER pressure. Light week? More surgeries. Busy week? Scale back, save resources for emergencies.

One pilot hospital called this “groundbreaking.” Translation: “Holy shit, we can actually plan things now.”

The real breakthrough isn’t the AI. It’s that AI changed how hospitals think about time.

Old hospitals operated in linear time: present moment only.

New hospitals got a new dimension: the next three weeks.

Those three weeks aren’t for waiting. They’re for preparing.

It’s like the difference between driving without GPS (you only see what’s directly ahead) versus with GPS (you can see three kilometers ahead and adjust before problems hit).

GPS doesn’t change your car. It changes your understanding of the road.

AI didn’t change the hospital’s resources. It changed their understanding of time.

The Real Lesson: They Learned From The Wrong Industry

Here’s what’s wild about this case:

This playbook isn’t new. It’s exactly what e-commerce has been doing for years.

Amazon’s “predictive dispatch” looks at your browsing history and buying patterns, then moves items to local warehouses BEFORE you click buy. That’s how they do 2-hour delivery.

NHS hospitals are basically doing e-commerce logistics with nurses and beds.

The difference: E-commerce moves packages. Hospitals move nurses. E-commerce can stock inventory in advance. Hospitals can only prepare the ABILITY to handle patients.

Which makes this approach even MORE valuable in healthcare.

But here’s what struck me:

Healthcare didn’t learn this from other hospitals. They learned it from retail.

The innovation wasn’t medical. It was operational.

The best hospitals didn’t benchmark against other hospitals. They benchmarked against Amazon.

They stopped asking “What are other hospitals doing?” and started asking “What are the best operators in ANY industry doing?”

That’s the move.

When your entire industry operates one way, look outside your industry for different playbooks.

The constraint isn’t usually what you think it is.

Hospitals thought the constraint was nurses and beds (resources).

Turns out the real constraint was TIME. Specifically: not having advance warning.

E-commerce figured out how to manufacture certainty from data. Hospitals just copied the homework.

And it’s working: ambulances stopped piling up at entrances, patients move through faster, temp agency costs drop.

This is now running in 50+ UK hospitals. It’s a flagship government project.

But the playbook isn’t government or healthcare specific.

Any business facing demand uncertainty can use this:

Call centers predicting volume spikes. Airports predicting delays. Supply chains predicting stockouts. Cities predicting traffic jams.

When everyone’s firefighting, you’re already preventing fires.

That’s not just an advantage. That’s a different game.

The Punch:

NHS hospitals didn’t just steal Amazon’s playbook. They learned how to pull the future into the present. And the best part? They didn’t need to invent anything new—they just needed to look at who was already solving similar problems in completely different contexts. Sometimes the best answer to your problem is sitting in an industry that has nothing to do with yours.

Links:

1. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ai-exemplars-programme

2. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/faster-treatments-and-support-for-health-workers-as-ai-tackles-ae-bottlenecks

Afternoon, CEO!

Today, we are solving the single biggest drain on your executive attention: the inbox. We are onboarding a new recruit to handle the endless flood of unread messages, dig up buried travel details, and draft replies while you focus on high-leverage work. No more scrolling through 3,000 threads to find that one invoice.

Read more

Morning, CEO!

Your gut is giving you career advice right now.

It’s telling you that young founders have an edge. That pivoting industries will bring fresh perspective. That each failure is a stepping stone to success.

Your gut is very confident about this.

Your gut is also completely wrong.

Today we’re looking at Seth Stephens-Davidowitz’s Don’t Trust Your Gut—a book that uses millions of data points to demolish basically every intuitive belief you have about success.

AI can process data faster than you. But it can’t tell you which data to ignore.

That’s still your job.

The Boring Truth: Success Stories Are Lies

Quick question.

What does a successful entrepreneur look like?

If you said “twenty-something college dropout with a world-changing idea,” congratulations—you’ve been successfully manipulated by media narratives.

The actual data is way less sexy.

Economists analyzed 2.7 million American startup founders.

Average age? 42.

Not 27. Not 30. Forty-freaking-two.

(This is the part where you either feel relieved or personally attacked, depending on your age.)

But wait, there’s more disappointing news!

The “outsider advantage” is also a myth.

You know, that inspiring idea that industry outsiders bring fresh thinking while insiders are trapped in old paradigms?

Complete fiction.

If you have direct experience in an industry, your success rate is about double that of outsiders.

The deeper your experience, the bigger your advantage.

Oh, and that whole “fail fast, learn from failure” thing?

Also wrong.

Researchers looked at founder salaries before they started their companies.

The higher your previous salary (meaning: the more successful you already were), the more likely your startup succeeds.

So the actual profile of a typical successful entrepreneur is:

A middle-aged person who spent 15-20 years mastering their industry, climbed to near the top, built deep expertise and connections, then leveraged all that accumulated advantage to start something.

It’s not a movie plot.

It’s not inspiring.

It’s not even interesting.

Which is exactly why nobody talks about it.

But here’s what this means for you, sitting at your desk right now:

Every day you spend building expertise in your field, every relationship you develop, every pattern you learn to recognize—that’s not preparation for your “real” career.

That IS your competitive advantage.

You’re not killing time until you can pivot to something exciting.

You’re building an unfair advantage that gets more valuable every year.

The twenty-somethings with fresh perspectives? They’re not your competition.

They’re playing a completely different game with much worse odds.

Your biggest asset isn’t your youth or your “beginner’s mind.”

It’s the 10,000 hours you’ve already put in that nobody can take away.

The Three Questions: Your New Decision Framework

Okay, so you’ve been building expertise. Great.

Now what?

Whether you’re evaluating a side project, considering a career move, or just trying to figure out where to focus your energy, you need a framework.

Here’s the one that data suggests actually matters:

Before any big bet, ask yourself three questions:

1. Will this give me ownership?

Not necessarily equity (though that’s nice). But will you OWN the outcomes?

Because here’s the harsh truth: You’re probably not getting rich from your salary.

Among the top 0.1% of earners in America, over 80% own a business.

Only 20% got there through salary—and they’re CEOs of giant corporations or famous coaches.

For everyone else, the path to wealth runs through ownership.

Even a small ownership stake in outcomes beats being the best employee.

2. Can I avoid brutal price competition?

This is the question most people skip.

Economists call it the “Zero Profit Theorem”: In any industry with perfect price competition, profit margins get competed down to zero.

Think about it: If anyone can do what you do, and everyone can see what everyone else charges, prices race to the bottom until nobody makes money.

This is why the most successful industries aren’t the ones with the coolest products.

They’re the ones with moats.

Real estate dealerships? Protected by regulations. Wholesale distribution? Exclusive contracts. Specialized consulting? Deep expertise that can’t be comparison-shopped.

You don’t want to be in a fair fight.

You want structural advantages that keep competitors away.

3. Can I avoid winner-take-all dynamics?

This is the counterintuitive one.

Everyone wants to be in the “hot” industry. Tech. AI. Crypto.

But these industries have a problem: They tend toward 70-20-10 market splits.

First place takes 70%. Second takes 20%. Everyone else fights over 10%.

We see the billionaires who won. We don’t see the thousands of failed startups at the bottom.

The most consistently wealth-generating industries? They’re boring.

Auto dealerships. Market research. Specialized wholesale trade.

Industries where no single player devours the entire market. Where there’s room for hundreds of successful operators.

Here’s how this applies to your career right now:

That exciting pivot to a hot new field? You’re probably walking into a winner-take-all game where you have no accumulated advantage.

That boring deepening of expertise in your current domain? You’re probably building a moat in a space with room for many winners.

Most of us have been trained to chase the exciting opportunity.

Data suggests we should be building boring, defensible advantages in markets with structural protection from competition.

It’s not sexy. But neither is losing.

Manufacturing Luck: The Volume Strategy

Last piece: How do you get luckier?

Because let’s be honest—at some point, success isn’t just about skill or judgment. You need to be in the right place at the right time with the right people noticing.

Physicist Albert-László Barabási analyzed nearly 500,000 artists’ career trajectories.

What predicted success?

Not talent. Not hours practiced. Not number of works produced.

It was the number of different places they exhibited.

Artists who kept showing in the same galleries? Lower success rate.

Artists who constantly moved around exhibiting everywhere? 6 times higher success rate.

Why?

Because luck is a volume game.

You can’t increase your luck per attempt. But you can increase your number of attempts.

More places = more diverse eyeballs = higher chance of meeting your champion.

This applies directly to your career:

That project you’re working on? Don’t just show your boss. Show your boss’s boss. Show the team across the hall. Write about it internally. Present at the company all-hands.

That insight you developed? Don’t keep it in your notes. Write a memo. Share it with your network. Post about it.

That skill you’re building? Don’t hide it until it’s perfect. Use it on visible projects. Volunteer for cross-functional teams.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: The best idea that nobody sees is worthless.

The mediocre idea that gets in front of 100 people beats it every time.

This feels wrong because we’ve been trained to “put our heads down and do good work.”

But doing good work in silence is like being the best singer in your shower. Technically proficient, zero impact.

Research on dating sites proves this brutally:

If “unpopular” people message “popular” people, they think they’ll get ignored.

Actual response rates? 15-35%.

If you message 10 people you think are “out of your league,” odds of at least one reply: 80%.

Most people reject themselves before anyone else gets the chance.

In your career, this looks like:

Not applying because “they’d never pick me.” Not speaking up because “someone smarter probably thought of this.” Not sharing your work because “it’s not ready yet.”

Meanwhile, the programmer who wrote a script to auto-visit 100 dating profiles a day got 20 messages per day and met his future wife on date #88.

Volume works.

So here’s your action item: Pick one thing you’re working on and show it to 10 people this week.

Not people who will definitely care. People who might care.

Not when it’s perfect. Now.

You’re not increasing your luck per attempt.

You’re increasing your surface area for luck.

The Bottom Line:

Your gut evolved to avoid lions, not to optimize career decisions.

Data isn’t perfect. Your life isn’t an average. Sometimes intuition is right.

But when millions of data points all say “your intuition is systematically wrong about this,” maybe listen?

Think of data as a second opinion. Not gospel, but worth considering before you bet your career on a feeling.

Now go increase your surface area for luck.

You’ve got 10 people to bother this week.

Links:

1. https://sethsd.com

2. https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Trust-Your-Gut/dp/1526605090

Afternoon, CEO!

Today, we’re hiring a specialized creative who will end your thumbnail design nightmares. This new team member analyzes what’s working in your niche, applies your brand guidelines automatically, and generates multiple thumbnail options in seconds. No more staring at Photoshop at midnight wondering if your text is bold enough.

Read more