Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

The "must be able to code" requirement often signals that the hiring manager is not fully clear on what a PM is actually supposed to do. Technical credibility with an engineering team comes from asking sharp questions, understanding trade-offs, respecting complexity, and making decisions with clear reasoning, not from being able to write the code yourself. The risk you flag at the end is the real one: a PM who gravitates toward the technical layer because it feels concrete and measurable will naturally drift away from customers, market signals, and the messy human problems that actually determine whether a product succeeds or fails. The best PMs are not the most technical people in the room, they are the ones who can translate between customer reality and engineering constraints without losing either side in the process.

Clara Hawking - I have been discussing these issues since 2017, with these ideas crystallizing here: https://www.thegreatbritishbookshop.co.uk/products/generative-ai-threats-to-a-civilization GENERATIVE AI THREATS TO A CIVILIZATION Best.

This is awesome! It's one thing to learn about emotional intelligence. It's another to put it into practice.

Cynthia Johnson I admit. I was a bit tounge in cheek there. 😊

Good breakdown—AI terminology is expanding quickly, and clarity like this really helps in keeping the ecosystem understandable.

Good point. Many AI discussions still focus on capability while ignoring the concentration of power, decision-making, and economic leverage.

I've watched some of the smartest people turn into their own bottlenecks. EQ offers discernment that IQ often overthinks. Self-awareness is priceless.

Paolo Spada Good ideas. I woukd be happy for Masters to be closed book.

Sunn k bahut sukun mila bhai 😬😃

Mr. Huang is the guy who is mainly responsible for it to become so costly....

I don’t find it unrealistic that some people responded quickly. There is a real audience of people who eagerly wait for encyclicals, Supreme Court opinions, and other major institutional texts, then read them as soon as they come out because they are major intellectual events, IMHO. There are few modern day publications that distill and deal so deeply and seriously with philosophy (if you consider the law to be applied philosophy) and real world topics like these do. Neither limit the length of what they're saying to appeal to editors or audiences with limited attention spans and they are grounded in evidence and citations, parsing topics at a level few other organizations consistently match. Whether they're skimming it, reading it, or just glancing at it, at least they're paying attention to it.

A lot of people think emotional intelligence is being soft. It isn’t. It’s being disciplined enough to: - pause before reacting - ask instead of assuming - keep your word - own mistakes quickly - stay calm under pressure In business especially, emotional volatility is expensive. The people who create the most stability around them usually end up creating the most opportunity too.

Justin Wright great list. This is always what we’re headhunting for in executive search and recruitment, especially in a day where we need to put the human back in human resources in the artificial terror intelligence era. These are not things you can find on a résumé, and these are often things that AI tools will screen out without even noticing. Hence the value of having human to human executive recruiter interviews.

Mike Pappas isn’t this the same as custom GPTs, using task specific iterations trained on vetted data sources? Multiple thinkers feed the vetting system as a backstop. Do you’d use the vetted “custom gpt” to refine and validate the consortium of ideas?

Rachel Wilson Rugelsjøen have you heard of 'Aloha' ? Ask, Listen, Observe, Help, Ask again. You're spot on, with wait, consider the options, discover together which fits, which may not fix the immediate issue. Communication has so many different levels of comprehension. When we pause and allow people to show you what they mean or need it's powerful for everyone involved. 'They' may not know themselves, may even feel self-aware yet have missed a more important issue. Engaging and interactions reveal greater depth for both parties.

This is what Dan Simmons wrote about in Hyperion

Then why every week new company is firing ??

Unfortunately the organisation he represents has no moral standing.

Using WALL-E as a futuristic reference for “taking care of all our problems” misses the point of the film entirely. But as usual Bernie is spot on when questioning the narratives of the few people who own the tech. If we’re going to use non-fiction narratives for visualising the future then Neuromancer should be the reference point. AI needs governance. No if’s, but’s or maybe’s

The question that matters most isn’t what AI can do. It’s what existing incentives, power structures, and institutional habits will it amplify once deployed at scale. That’s the part many AI debates miss: capability is only one layer. The deeper issue is whether we’re building systems that distribute agency, judgment, and benefit; or simply make existing concentration faster and harder to see. I wrote more about why the public AI debate is aimed at the wrong layer here, if interested: https://billcrichmond.medium.com/the-wrong-ai-battle-1d027e709903