Feedback on “Thought Partner”

Gregory Shove

The One Thing

Lean into the consultant analogy.

• What is a consultant if not a thought-partner? And they might even do some of the work for you to (hopefully). That seems like a spot-on analogy for AI. And you talk about consulting/consultants throughout this piece but don’t explicitly make the connection. I think that’s a missed opportunity.
• Instead, you use the metaphors of a “Super Soldier Serum” and “A Coach in Your Pocket,” but those just muddy the meaning of your message. Does your thought partner also make you a super soldier? (And are you a super soldier, or are you just flying a supersonic aircraft? In other words, is AI just high-tech tool?)
• There’s also an opportunity to play up how cheap AI is by comparing it to the rates that BCG charges, for instance. If AI is actually 90% as helpful as a consultant but 1% the cost, then you have a great argument for its value.

Feedback

I really appreciate this approach to AI, and I think it’s the only reasonable way to look at it (the same way we look at all technology: as tools). It’s not a separate being that is going to do anything for you, but it is a source of information that can catalyze your thinking. This is a valuable message, and you communicate it well. Most of my comments here are about some structural tweaks and suggestions to make your argument more clear and concise.

• The “Silicon Valley” bit in this sentence is odd and feels like over-explaining. You can cut it; the “ketamine-like hallucinations” bit works on its own.

At the same time, the leading AI models still don’t work reliably — and they’re prone to ketamine-like hallucinations, Silicon Valley-speak for “they make shit up.”

• This feels like an inconsistent tone and an oversight, with a sort of reused metaphor (”hallucination”), and it’s not necessary to your argument. I suggest cutting this:

If you’re using “AI is a bubble” as an excuse to ignore these capabilities, you’re making a big mistake. Don’t laugh. I know Silicon Valley tech bros need a win after their NFT/metaverse consensual hallucination.

• This is not a great piece of evidence for why AI is failing. 100 million users within two years of launching ChatGPT, and I’m supposed to believe that’s bad for business? I suggest cutting this (see below).

For all the hype of AI, few are getting tangible ROI from it. OpenAI has an estimated 100 million monthly active users worldwide. That sounds like a lot, but it’s only about 10% of the global knowledge workforce.

• This is very clever and rhetorically strong — playful, authoritative, specific:

Most people “bounce off,” asking a few questions, getting some nonsense answers, and return to Google. They mistake GPT for “Better Google.” “Better Google” is Google. Using AI as a search engine is like using a screwdriver to bang down a nail. It could work, but not well. That’s what Bing is for.

• Compress your intro so that you can bring this paragraph up the end of that first section:

The reason people make this mistake? Few have discovered AI’s premier use case: as a thought partner.

1. By putting a section break (”Super Soldier Serum”) before this, it makes me think that the “thought partner” idea is just a sub point, rather than the main point of your entire piece. You want it to be clear what your main claim is so that I, the reader, am looking at your entire argument through the right frame.
2. Get rid of the section-break, and cut that “NFT/Metaverse” paragraph.
• Without the first section-break, here’s how it could read (with sentence-level edits too —indicated with bold):

Unless you’re an investor or an AI entrepreneur, though, none of this really matters. Let’s refocus: For the first time, we can talk to computers in our language and get answers that usually make sense. We have a personal assistant and adviser in our pocket, and it costs $20 a month. This is Star Trek (58 years ago) — and it’s just getting started. But even with all the hype around AI, few are getting tangible ROI from it. Many people have tried ChatGPT, but few are power users, and the number of active users is flatlining. Most people “bounce off,” asking a few questions, getting some nonsense answers, and return to Google. They mistake GPT for “Better Google.” “Better Google” is Google. Using AI as a search engine is like using a screwdriver to bang down a nail. It could work, but not well. That’s what Bing is for. Why do people people make this mistake? They have yet to discover AI’s premier use case: as a thought partner.

• This metaphor muddies your overall message:

Consultants are thought partners, and AI is Super Soldier Serum.

1. Is AI a thought partner, or is it a Super Soldier Serum for thought partners? And are the consultants thought partners, or are they soldiers? Do you see how the figurative language gets confusing?
2. As I understand it, you are saying that AI is literally a thought partner, like a consultant. I think it’d be more effective to compare AI to having your own, private BCG consultant, rather than to call AI a super serum for consultants.
• This reads too much like an ad for Section, only because the details are tangential to your point. You could cut this down to only a mention of Scott, since that’s the only detail here that this audience cares about, and it would still add credibility to your company.

Original:

Last fall I started asking AI to act like a board member and critique my presentations before I sent them to the Section directors. Even for a long-time CEO, presenting to the board is a test you always want to ace. We’re blessed with a world-class board of investors and operators, including former CEOs of Time Warner and Akamai. Also: Scott. I try to anticipate their questions to prepare me for the meeting, and inform my decisions around operations.

I prompt the AI: “I’m the CEO of Section. This is the board meeting pre-read deck. Pretend to be a hard-charging venture capitalist board member expecting strong growth. Give me three insights and three recommendations about our progress and plan.”.

Suggested Edit:

Even as a long-time CEO, presentations to the board are tests I always want to ace. At Section, we’re blessed with a world-class board of investors and operators. (And Scott’s on the board too.) To prepare for those meetings, I try to anticipate the board’s questions and inform my decisions about the company’s operations. Last fall, I started asking AI to act like a board member and critique my presentations. And I used this prompt: “I’m the CEO of Section. This is the board meeting pre-read deck. Pretend to be a hard-charging venture capitalist board member expecting strong growth. Give me three insights and three recommendations about our progress and plan.”

• A minor thing: the phrasing here is confusing and distracting. I had to double- and triple-back over this before I understood its meaning:

Whether interviewing for a job, admissions to a business school, or trying to obtain asylum… I can’t imagine not having the AI role play to better prepare.

Edit:

Whether you’re interviewing for a job, applying to a business school, or trying to obtain asylum… I can’t imagine a better way to prepare than role playing with AI.

• Why isn’t the second sub-section’s header “Consultant in Your Pocket” instead of “Coach in Your Pocket”? Coaches and consultants are different personas and serve different purposes (offer different services), and you don’t discuss coaches at all. But you discuss consultants throughout the piece.
• I personally find this point unnecessary and that it undermines your argument. The benefit of working with a consultant over an AI is that the consultant is human. I know what you’re getting at here, but if you’re going to claim that “inhumanity” is AI’s most important feature, I think you need to spend more time to support it and to clarify what you mean.

AI is a nearly free expert with 24/7 availability, a staggering range of expertise, and — most importantly — inhumanity. It doesn’t care whether you like it, hire it, or find it attractive, it just wants to address the task/query at hand. And it’s getting better.

• Man, this is quite the kicker! It has really strong rhetoric, reiterates your point nicely, and adds the surprise of the “your prompts aren’t the problem” point. And the invading army / horseback metaphor is perfect and concise. Well done!

The hardest part of working with AI isn’t learning to prompt. It’s managing your own ego and admitting you could use some help and that the world will pass you by if you don’t learn how to use a computer, PowerPoint … AI. So get over your immediate defense mechanism — “AI can never do what I do” — and use it to do what you do, just better. There is an invading army in business: technology. Its weapons are modern-day tanks, drones, and supersonic aircraft. Do you really want to ride into battle on horseback?