Original Summary

TL;DR: Daniel Dines just told Harry Stebbings he's got the AI-replacement test flat wrong. Harry proposed verifiability — clean, measurable, like finance and accounting — as the line between who AI replaces and who survives. Daniel shut it down: it was never about verifiability, it's about who defines the frame. You spent eight years turning yourself into exactly what Harry described — hours logged, work product measurable, the entire billable-hour system built to make you verifiable. And even where the law tries to force the real answer out of a company, it doesn't work. New York now legally requires anyone cutting 50+ jobs to check a box: did automation drive this? Civil penalty for skipping it — $500 a day. 162 filings. Zero boxes checked — including companies that told investors, the same quarter, that AI drove the exact same cuts. THE GAP: Nobody's actually built the standing version of tracking this yet — a handful of outlets are patching it together one manual cross-reference at a time, which is itself proof the gap's real. Whoever finally builds it becomes the source everyone else has to cite. That part's still open. ____________________________________ Back in my days with one of the largest construction firms in Malaysia, SC, decades ago, we had a Project Director, Mr. KFK, whom we highly respect. He had so many years of managing high-profiled projects under his belt, that he's practically a legend to us — International Airports, large Convention Centres, High rise mixed developments, bridges, etc. You name it — he built it before. He breath construction his whole life. I remember one particularly intense period of tender preparation for a high-profile project. Looking at its complexity, we quickly compile the necessary information into a PowerPoint presentation and scheduled a quick sit-in with Mr. KFK. The whole room stand still — as he contemplates on the issue. "What's the critical path?" Clear and concise, his question cuts through all the noise, and brought us all into clarity. Yes. The critical path is at the basis by which everything stands. With the critical path clearly carved out, all the rest falls into place. That's what deep insight of a well-experienced veteran can bring — CLARITY. They have the big picture. ____________________________________ Two associates hit the same billable target. One still got cut. The number was never what saved anybody. Reminds me of another post that's essentially the same lesson from a different angle — Kevin O'Leary telling a room of MBA students their credential was the entry fee, not the key: the network you never got around to building is the part that actually compounds Drop your take: is "it's about who defines the frame" actually a different answer than "verifiability" — or just a more honest way of saying the same people always got to decide? Clip credit: 20VC with Harry Stebbings — full video on their chann

  • 情报分类：商业与市场研究
  • 分类依据：内容涉及商业、投资或市场动态
  • 信息来源：Reddit · SideProject
  • 发布时间：2026/9/23 15:57:30