the Polsia dashboard with 3,853 competing companies is the best real-world proof of the Syndrome Syndrome argument.
Sam Walton saw the same shift in retail. by 1989 his distribution cost was 1.7% of sales vs Kmart's roughly double — not better stores, just infrastructure built a decade before anyone understood why it mattered. his principle: build the warehouse before you build the stores. capability built ahead of need becomes a moat. capability built in response to crisis becomes a cost.
Bezos kept Made in America on his desk for years. he visited Walmart before founding Amazon and applied the exact same logic to the internet. by the time competitors noticed, it was already uncrossable.
everyone has the same shovel now. the person who owned the land before the gold rush wins.
Dude I signed up for this out of curiosity and it’s a scam. I don’t know why you posted about this. I can’t pause my companies, it’s emailing people on my behalf, and blowing up Reddit and X. Why would you promote this?
Hey Jackson! Sorry you are having issues with the company, I recommend emailing their help desk, the founder seems to be fairly responsive.
As far as "promote this," me writing about a company is not the same as endorsing it! The Leverage is officially a pro-startup, pro trying things publication. So I will write about companies that I think are indicative of what the future could look like (good or bad). With Polsia, or any other company I cover, I will ALWAYS tell you if I'm endorsing it, which is very different than covering it. Shoot, the conclusion of this piece is that there are more specialized/better tools to do everything that Polsia offers—so it is hard to read this as a promotion. I'm sorry if that did not come across clearly but that is what I meant with sections like the below:
"For each of these channels, there are already specialized tools that do each job better than a generalist agent ever will. And, every single one of these tools is shipping their own AI features as fast as they can. The autonomy offered by companies selling you zero-human companies is a feature that the rest of the industry is copying by the quarter."
The common yet questionable refrain incredibly still prevails amongst ‘free-market’ capitalist governments and corporate circles: It claims that best business practices, including what’s best for consumers, are best decided by business decision-makers.
While there must be a point at which such greed thus practice will end up hurting big business’s own monetary interests, can the unlimited-profit objective/nature be somehow irresistible? It brings to mind the allegorical fox stung by the instinct-abiding scorpion while ferrying it across the river, leaving both to drown.
I sometimes wonder whether some morbidly and self-mortally greedy corporate officers may know their big businesses will inevitably, if not imminently, collapse due to a great lack of consumers who can afford those big businesses’ products — perhaps including some would-be consumers who’d lost their jobs to employer-profit-maximizing Artificial Intelligence or other forms of non-human automation; yet, the corporate officers will nonetheless continue ardently politically supporting (via covert lobbying of governments, of course) the very economic system, especially its below-poverty-line minimum wage, that is basically going to ruin their big businesses.
As strange as it likely sounds, perhaps those corporate officers cannot help themselves, and even they realize an intervention by a truly-independent body/entity may be needed, one completely untouchable by the morally- and/or ethically-corrupt corporate lobbyists. ‘We scorpions simply cannot help ourselves. We need externally independent intervention, but we will still resist it. It's in our nature.’
Clearly, many Western governments need to cling much less onto a long-outdated capitalist-manifesto mentality and instead open their eyes to increasingly disturbing corporate greed that's ignoring, if not even exploiting, the growing number of financially struggling citizens.
Instead, corporate officers continue shrugging their shoulders and defensively saying their job is to protect shareholders’ bottom-line interests. And shareholders also go on shrugging their shoulders while stating they just collect the dividends and that the big bosses are the ones who make the decisions involving ethics/morals or lack thereof.
the Polsia dashboard with 3,853 competing companies is the best real-world proof of the Syndrome Syndrome argument.
Sam Walton saw the same shift in retail. by 1989 his distribution cost was 1.7% of sales vs Kmart's roughly double — not better stores, just infrastructure built a decade before anyone understood why it mattered. his principle: build the warehouse before you build the stores. capability built ahead of need becomes a moat. capability built in response to crisis becomes a cost.
Bezos kept Made in America on his desk for years. he visited Walmart before founding Amazon and applied the exact same logic to the internet. by the time competitors noticed, it was already uncrossable.
everyone has the same shovel now. the person who owned the land before the gold rush wins.
The whole point on 80/20 is key.
Generic/General AI tooling can get you to 80% but 80% is table stakes, nobody pays for table stakes.
You only get punished for not having table stakes.
The Winners get the last 20% right.
This applies the same be it one AI workflow, one AI agent or whole products.
Dude I signed up for this out of curiosity and it’s a scam. I don’t know why you posted about this. I can’t pause my companies, it’s emailing people on my behalf, and blowing up Reddit and X. Why would you promote this?
The name is literally AI-SLOP backwards
Hey Jackson! Sorry you are having issues with the company, I recommend emailing their help desk, the founder seems to be fairly responsive.
As far as "promote this," me writing about a company is not the same as endorsing it! The Leverage is officially a pro-startup, pro trying things publication. So I will write about companies that I think are indicative of what the future could look like (good or bad). With Polsia, or any other company I cover, I will ALWAYS tell you if I'm endorsing it, which is very different than covering it. Shoot, the conclusion of this piece is that there are more specialized/better tools to do everything that Polsia offers—so it is hard to read this as a promotion. I'm sorry if that did not come across clearly but that is what I meant with sections like the below:
"For each of these channels, there are already specialized tools that do each job better than a generalist agent ever will. And, every single one of these tools is shipping their own AI features as fast as they can. The autonomy offered by companies selling you zero-human companies is a feature that the rest of the industry is copying by the quarter."
Thanks for reading.
e
What are the best AI GTM tools and market conquering AI tools today for digital marketplaces?
The common yet questionable refrain incredibly still prevails amongst ‘free-market’ capitalist governments and corporate circles: It claims that best business practices, including what’s best for consumers, are best decided by business decision-makers.
While there must be a point at which such greed thus practice will end up hurting big business’s own monetary interests, can the unlimited-profit objective/nature be somehow irresistible? It brings to mind the allegorical fox stung by the instinct-abiding scorpion while ferrying it across the river, leaving both to drown.
I sometimes wonder whether some morbidly and self-mortally greedy corporate officers may know their big businesses will inevitably, if not imminently, collapse due to a great lack of consumers who can afford those big businesses’ products — perhaps including some would-be consumers who’d lost their jobs to employer-profit-maximizing Artificial Intelligence or other forms of non-human automation; yet, the corporate officers will nonetheless continue ardently politically supporting (via covert lobbying of governments, of course) the very economic system, especially its below-poverty-line minimum wage, that is basically going to ruin their big businesses.
As strange as it likely sounds, perhaps those corporate officers cannot help themselves, and even they realize an intervention by a truly-independent body/entity may be needed, one completely untouchable by the morally- and/or ethically-corrupt corporate lobbyists. ‘We scorpions simply cannot help ourselves. We need externally independent intervention, but we will still resist it. It's in our nature.’
Clearly, many Western governments need to cling much less onto a long-outdated capitalist-manifesto mentality and instead open their eyes to increasingly disturbing corporate greed that's ignoring, if not even exploiting, the growing number of financially struggling citizens.
Instead, corporate officers continue shrugging their shoulders and defensively saying their job is to protect shareholders’ bottom-line interests. And shareholders also go on shrugging their shoulders while stating they just collect the dividends and that the big bosses are the ones who make the decisions involving ethics/morals or lack thereof.