The title clearly states that the average founder doesn't grow old as fast as everyone else. I assume ur actually meant that the age of the average find increases 6 months every year. So, no, not very clear
Sometimes you do need to (as a human) break down a complex thing into smaller simple things, and then ask the LLM to do those simple things. I find it still saves some time.
Or what will often work is having the LLM break it down into simpler steps and then running them 1 by 1. They know how to break down problems fairly well they just don't often do it properly sometimes unless you explicitly prompt them to.
If 3 or 4 competitors can all provide a mostly identical product, isn't that a commodity? That is essentially the case right now, with the different companies playing around with UI, integrations and business model.
If all models were equal then sure. But for professionals who use these to solve complex problems and need correctness above all? The models and weights are not equal and interchangeable.
I use them every day for coding and Gemini 3 pro, Opus 4.5, and GPT 5.1 (haven’t tried 5.2 yet) are basically identical in terms of ability. Opus 4.5 has a slight edge in my personal experience so far.
In my experience the LLMs work better with frameworks that have more rigid guidance. Something like Tailwind has a body of examples that work together, language to reason about the behavior needed, higher levels of abstraction (potentially), etc. This seems to be helpful.
The LLMs can certainly use raw CSS and it works well, the challenge is when you need consistent framing across many pages with mounting special cases, and the LLMs may make extrapolate small inconsistencies further. If you stick within a rigid framework, the inconsistencies should be less across a larger project (in theory, at least).
My hypothesis is people will get burned out on this unguided learning via LLMs and still want some sort of curated/guided learning experience through material to understand some subject.
There is the problem of "I don't know what I don't know" that a course can solve for you. An LLM can sort of do that, but you have to take its word for it, and it does it pretty much strictly worse at the moment (but is much more flexible).
> My hypothesis is people will get burned out on this unguided learning via LLMs [...]
I'm less optimistic. Already 20+ years ago many people complained if you pointed them to books which answered their questions in depth. The standard reply was "just tell me how to solve this particular problem" instead.
As a personal anecdote, I had a fairly involved application that built up a context with a lot of custom prompting and created a ~1000 word output. I could run my application over and over again to inspect the results. It was fairly reproducible.
I was having really nice results with the o4-mini model with high thinking. A little while after GPT-5 came out I revisited my application and tried to continue. The o4-mini results were unusable, while the GPT-5 results were similar to what I had before. I'm not sure what happened to the model in those ~4-5 months I set it down, but there was real degradation.
If you live in a city with multiple colleges/universities check out the cars in the staff parking lot. Many will have parking passes/stickers for multiple colleges on there. These are adjuncts that have to drive all over town to cobble together a full time job as an instructor.
My experience with adjunct professors is they're much better at teaching than old tenured professors who just want to do their research and couldn't care less about the students.
reply