As AI gets better does human creativity become more or less valuable?

1. LLMs get so good, most creativity becomes indistinguishable:
- For 90% of content, AI will match or surpass average human output
- Consumers won’t know or care who made it
- The bar for acceptable creativity is dropping = fast, cheap, good enough

2. Human creativity becomes more meaningful:
-As sameness floods the feed, human quirks, taste, and pov stand out more
-People will crave work that feels intentional and original have errors / aren’t perfect

Both are probably true. Cost of content goes to zero but value of original perspective goes up

invest in teams, not projects… in brains, not products — or get forked or stolen & vampired via better distro 

in the age of no-code, first movers is a disadvantage 

in the age of no-code, technical excellence yields diminishing returns

gamble on teams who understand gtm, partnerships & marketing, systems thinking & incentives, comms & positioning 

gamble on teams who think deeply about strategy or get your lunch eaten 

your strategy is your moat (switch cost)

your moat is your story (narrative)

your story is your multiple (price)

they will pivot 648 times anyway 

its no longer about what you build, it’s about how you defend it & embed it into the everyday lives of your users

ecosystem things // building idle rpg /animarising

this is lowkey why historically vcs like to fund yappers bc they think it’s a game of attention but that’s not the full story despite how many times they feel the need to yell that from the rafters

Interesting distinction. It's a fine line to walk. Attention can be a powerful tool for a strategist if used to build momentum, but it's rarely the end goal itself. Sustainable strategy requires substance behind the noise.

yapping != strategist 
attention != sustainable 

tho both are venn diagrams