Why is there only one Elon Musk? Why is there so much low-hanging fruit?

https://guzey.com/why-is-there-only-one-elon-musk/

Been thinking about this tweet of mine a lot lately: https://twitter.com/alexeyguzey/status/1260212436977823747

Thoughts?

1 Like

Musk was able to keep an independent viewpoint because he made his money very quickly in one of the most lucrative frontier environments in human history. He may have not been capable of succeeding in a system that required compromising one’s values over a long period to succeed.

The successful young-ish people today do not seem like true protagonists, in the sense that they do not pick an arbitrary goal they want and then make it happen. They did not make their money in staggeringly lucrative frontiers, and so are heavily constrained by stakeholders and the systems they are in. This trains them out of having an independent/uncorrelated viewpoint and means they only work on low-risk things once they have made their money.

2 Likes

The twitter progress-sphere is pathologically afflicted by stakeholder constraints, in my opinion.

People get trained to produce content that the hive supports and believe this is independent thought – even OP would be guilty of this in many cases I think.

2 Likes

These are all very good points. Yes, I’ve been noticing this thought pattern creep as well.

“By having every smart teenager in mid 2010s read it, HPMOR might’ve destroyed trillions worth of value just by this single line”

How much future value is being destroyed today by thought-pattern creep on twitter?

re: stakeholder constraints – an alternative way of looking at this is that this is exactly what gets the founders the outcomes they are interested in and by participating you are in fact agreeing to follow their vision to an extent, which of course applies anytime you join something as a non-founding member… and if the founders’ vision is good, then perhaps it makes sense for many people to work on them and to try to realize them!

Also re: stakeholder constraints – an alternative way of looking at this is that this is exactly what gets the founders the outcomes they are interested in and by participating you are in fact agreeing to follow their vision to an extent, which of course applies anytime you join something as a non-founding member…

It’s a legitimate transaction and it makes sense for a lot of people to make it. However, accumulating resources with fewer constraints leads to more great founders…

1 Like

I collected my thoughts on it here. Gist is that the traits that makeup Musk are highly disagreeable and the cost of allowing disagreeable traits might be higher than we should accept from most people. Thus we end up clipping the disagreeable wings of those people that it would be beneficial to tolerate it from. Might this tradeoff be acceptable in the aggregate?

Hmm this post is kind of depressing to me but incredibly insightful and also inspiring in ways.

I think Pioneer and Emergent Ventures arre significant progress on this though.