yetineti

@Carl-Richard Perfecto.

The more a system optimizes itself, the less capable it becomes of adapting without disrupting its own structure. When a system can no longer create new value, it must increasingly extract value from what already exists. As humanity approaches the limits of what can be optimized within existing systems, each additional gain requires increasingly greater effort, while producing diminishing returns and reducing collective flexibility. At some point, the cost of maintaining progress exceeds the value of the progress itself. The next stage of progress may not come from making the system more efficient, but from making it more capable of change.

As the global economy grows, things will just become more and more monetized. The idea of pricing, people, the market, etc. has historically shifted a lot. People used to be a commodity for manual labor. People sold people. Now the idea of ‘what is someone worth’ means something entirely different. It’s quite interesting. We have evolved so much, people have to sell themselves to others now, ironically. This will only continue. As the market monetizes every little thing the only things left to sell will be whatever we have, uniquely. With technology, access, incrementally shorter work weeks—it will be easier and easier to promote ourselves, make connections and find more personal ways to survive. I don’t think there will really be any other option for a lot of people in the future. I think it’s becoming less of ‘How do I express myself and make money’ and more ‘If I don’t express myself—I won’t make money.’ There will still be regular jobs, sure. They’ll just become increasingly soul sucking and low ROI. You’ll barely have to think, nepotism will only get worse—but you’ll be able to be you! Eventually, we’ll be able monetize the judgement of each others worth properly In a system where every cost is being driven down, the only flexibility is in repricing > when everything has already been repriced > a new product must be introduced > if a new product can not be introduced > an old one must be removed > reprice > profit > consolidation > ambition > lack of flexibility > every cost factored > repeat.

@Natasha Tori Maru Yes. Some come out crying. Call and response comfort. Remarkably simple, actually. Imagine if we had to connect but for every output we can’t receive an input and for every input we can’t output! Crying is mysterious. Nobody questions a smile. People recognize a smile can be malicious but nobody seems to let that change their default interpretation or ‘genderize’ it. What should the default response or interpretation to crying be? It’s one thing to say ‘dynamic’ and another to determine what causes or justifies the majority of crying. If there truly is no median, does dismissal become an acceptable default for tears? There is something especially impactful seeing a man cry. I think validity is the wrong framework, but since men often work within this framework, tears can be especially expressive from someone who might otherwise try to avoid or naturally doesn’t relate to such emotions.

“Alice and the Two Brothers — Through the Looking-Glass (1871) Alice is walking through a strange world when she meets two brothers, Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The brothers show Alice a king sleeping beneath a tree. They tell her that the king is dreaming about her, and that she exists only because he is dreaming. If the king wakes up, they explain, Alice will disappear. Alice insists that she's real. The brothers disagree. They insist she's nothing more than a character in somebody else's dream. Alice becomes upset and begins to cry. One brother tells her that crying won't make her any more real and that there's nothing to cry about. Alice responds that if she weren't real, she wouldn't be able to cry in the first place. But the other brother dismisses that argument too. He asks her what makes her think her tears are real. At this point, Alice recognizes the absurdity of the conversation. The brothers have already decided that she isn't real, so nothing she does can count as evidence that she is. Not even her own tears. She decides they're talking nonsense, wipes away her tears, and moves on.”

@Leo Gura Is someone crying necessarily asking for your sympathy in the first place? Of course you get to decide whether to offer sympathy, but that doesn’t make you the authority on whether someone else’s distress is genuine or valid. What are you basing that judgment on? Your own emotional thresholds, experiences, and interpretation of theirs? What do you do when someone’s distress is genuine, but you don’t consider their reason for it reasonable? Can’t you acknowledge someone’s feelings without agreeing with them or giving them what they want? And why bring up children manipulating people with tears in response to @Judy2 questioning who determines what’s serious? Even children can experience genuine distress over things we consider trivial or unreasonable. Does not relating to their feelings make those feelings any less real?

I’d be curious how the men here feel and react when they cry.

Children are children.

It’s going to be a pain but the economy will eventually turn into hieroglyphics. The responsibility on the consumer to track market analytics and price statistics will only increase. Prices are going to go up and down so fast you’ll have to use AI to purchase things or you’ll be robbing yourself. We already see the shifts over the past decade or so: - Utility prices can vary by time of day - Gas prices can vary by $1-2 depending on location or membership - Movie prices are based on time since release or what platform you purchase it through - Medical prices vary by provider - Food prices vary independent of convenience fees, depending on if it is delivery, pickup or in-store - Airline tickets vary by demand, timing, placement - Concert tickets have dynamic pricing - Living complexes do not have standardized fees for admin., garbage services, parking, etc. - Fast food prices vary drastically depending on where the order is placed Ultimately, AI could push companies toward consolidation through either efficiency or trust. The real question is whether consumers benefit long-term or just become dependent on systems they can’t verify.

@Rigel So you regularly walk barefoot on concrete?

@Lyubov I think a good 50% of traditional sales could disappear in the next 5–10 years. People are focusing on how bad AI is at sales right now, but I think they’re missing how much the buying process itself will change. Gartner’s 2026 research found that 67% of B2B buyers prefer a sales-rep-free experience, while 69% still want human validation of AI-generated insights. Eventually, consumers will have personal AI agents that understand their needs, finances, and preferences, collate data across providers, compare actual value, and negotiate directly with seller-side agents. Businesses will have their own agents doing the same thing, with encrypted, privacy-preserving discussions and analytics that both parties can review before finalizing. For B2B, this could mean sharing relevant data securely to calculate mutually beneficial agreements without exposing sensitive information. The other half is that businesses will increasingly have to cater to these buying agents. Instead of spending so much on persuasion, they’ll need to compete on actual value, transparent pricing, better products, and how well they meet each customer’s specific needs. Their own AI will continuously analyze demand, customer preferences, and competitors to adjust offerings accordingly. So you end up with a full feedback loop: buyer agents identifying needs and comparing offers, seller agents tailoring products and terms, both sides negotiating, humans approving, and the resulting data improving future transactions. I think this automates huge portions of retail, insurance, healthcare, and B2B sales. Human sales shifts toward consulting, complex negotiations, finalization, and purchases where people actually enjoy the experience, like cars and luxury goods. The real disruption isn’t AI becoming better at persuading people. It’s a system where persuasion becomes much less necessary in the first place. A good example is roofing. Right now, you have someone coming into your house, sitting in your living room with a pamphlet, and spending an hour trying to sell you a roof. Why would any of that be necessary when your AI could gather quotes, compare materials, warranties, contractor reputations, and pricing, negotiate with their agents, and give you the best options to approve? You’d still have someone inspect and install the roof, but the whole sales pitch in your living room becomes pretty unnecessary.

The problem with that is there will always be someone who doesn’t want to do something and someone who develops a solution.

@LordFall It sounds like you’ve already done a lot of the AI work, and the rest is really about building the business around it. I think you’re clearly a good operator, but being a good operator and a good businessman aren’t necessarily the same thing. Sometimes they need each other. Right now you’re the photographer, scheduler, salesman, customer service, etc. If you got hit by a bus, most of the business goes with you. Why not hire a part-time assistant at around CA$19–22/hour to start taking some of that over? Maybe consider 2–5% equity later with aggressive vesting protections if you find someone genuinely capable of helping manage the business. But I definitely wouldn’t give away 50% for a role you haven’t clearly defined. It seems like you already have a decent SOP in your head and through your sales templates. It just needs to be something another person can follow. Start with 3–5 lead qualifiers, a basic CRM, standardized responses, and a process for tracking and retaining customer information. Let the assistant handle initial emails, DMs, scheduling, and follow-ups while you keep sales and photography. Every time they encounter something unfamiliar, you establish a rule: “For scenario X, respond with Y, unless Z.” Now that’s documented, and they don’t need to ask you again. Over time you’re building a system of repeatable decisions while collecting actual data on response times, conversions, lead quality, and what works. Then you start introducing AI, but one responsibility at a time. Take the most common, lowest-risk scenario, like someone asking about availability. Have AI identify the inquiry and draft the response, with your assistant approving it. Once it’s consistently reliable, let it handle that specific interaction independently and escalate anything unusual. Then move to the next scenario. Eventually you can expand from email and chat into scheduling, follow-ups, and voice calls using the same approach. The important thing is you’re not expecting an AI agent to suddenly replace customer service or close sales. You’re removing one validated responsibility at a time, with a human still overseeing the process. It’s almost like building a safety net. Every scenario either has a tested procedure or gets caught by a person who can handle it. As the procedures improve, fewer things need your attention. Eventually your assistant isn’t doing all the repetitive work anymore. They’re supervising the workflows, handling exceptions, and helping identify what to automate next. And even if AI never gets good enough to handle everything, you’ve still built a business that can operate without you personally managing every interaction. I think that’s the bigger opportunity here. You’re already good at doing the work. Now it’s about building something that can reliably do the work without depending entirely on you. AI seems like the obvious solution to that, but I think there’s an order of operations you’re potentially skipping. The company my friend works at already has a consistent business model generating revenue without AI. That gives them established processes, real customer interactions, and measurable outcomes to build automation around. You can consolidate the common denominators across emails, chats, and customer interactions, automate those first, and eventually build voice capabilities on top of the same underlying system. Something like: Proven business model > Document workflows > Delegate responsibilities > Collect data > Standardize decisions > Automate email/chat > Validate with human oversight > Expand into voice > Scale automation Otherwise, you’re trying to build the automation before you’ve fully defined the business it’s supposed to operate.

@Lyubov I’ve talked to voice bots and email bots from multi million and billion dollar companies, including Walmart and was not entirely disappointed. I feel like they’re pretty serious. I know someone who works for a multi billion dollar company and runs the customer service department and actively implements these things. The owner of my company built his own voice bot for the company calls. Perhaps your skepticism is being too broadly applied. Sales is hard, yes. Many companies are not even considering it at the moment. But scheduling, talking, problem solving, follow-ups, leads and acquisition are just becoming increasingly accessible.

People cry more on impulse, habit or survival, more than they consciously fake it, in my experience. Calling it fake or ignoring it on those grounds would only work in pick up, on the first few dates with someone, someone you’re just getting to know or interact with via work frequently, etc. This shouldn’t be a notable problem with in our own lives, if we are surrounding ourselves with good people. If it is, I’d suggest better people or considering more workable solutions. What ‘little thing’ could actually be solved? Maybe the solution is faster and more of a win-win-win than what meets the eye. — Anybody ever play Left4Dead? You would think my experience with all this crying would have desensitized me but the witch in that game, sobbing—fucking hell 🤣. Super scary. I was also like 10 years old, though.