Socratic learning for AI, human flourishing, flexible leadership, AI in investment decisions, and more

📖In this issue

• Framework: Levels of AI in Investment Decision-Making

• Cyborg psychology: Human-AI systems to support human flourishing

• Augmented Collective Intelligence deep dive

• Socratic Learning for unlimited AI improvement

• Kevin Eikenberry on flexible leadership, both/and thinking, flexor spectrums, and skills for flexibility

• Framing startups as creating opportunities vs solving problems

💡Framework: Levels of AI in Investment Decision-Making

AI has been used in investment decision-making for decades, with algorithmic trading a major market driver. Now the greatly broadened scope of generative AI is reshaping investment decision-making.

This framework is highly simplified, designed to draw out the spectrum from purely algorithmic decisions through to human-first decisions augmented by AI, across different asset classes.

See the full post for more detailed commentary.

🧠🤖Humans + AI

Cyborg psychology: Human-AI systems to support human flourishing

A marvellous MIT Media Lab doctoral thesis is jammed packed with projects, methodologies, and results, including Wearable Reasoner, Wearable Wisdom, Future You, AI-Generated Characters, and far more.

Cyborg Psychology: The Art & Science of Designing Human-AI Systems that Support Human Flourishing
Selected insights

Augmented Collective Intelligence deep dive

Augmented Collective Intelligence leader Gianni Giacomelli shares an extended white paper drawing together his work and insights over the last year, including the why, how, and social impact.

White Paper: Us, Augmented

Socratic Learning for unlimited AI improvement

In this GoogleDeepmind paper, Socratic learning refers to a recursive self-improvement process confined to a closed system, where an AI agent improves itself to an unlimited degree by applying internal feedback using “language games”.

Boundless Socratic Learning with Language Games
Summary insights from the paper

🎙️This week’s podcast episode

Why you should listen

Kevin draws out some interesting distinctions on how we can be more flexible as leaders, including his useful “flexor” framing. Many of the ideas echo the themes of Thriving on Overload.

💡Reflections

Framing startups as creating opportunities vs solving problems

I am working on the next product of my startup Informivity, more details in a whlie.

The mantra in startups is “what is the problem you are solving?” That’s great if you are solving a problem. But I always tend to see opportunities rather than problems, what could be that is not possible today.

In considering my framing, with the potential to be looking for funding at some stage, I considered whether I could simply say it is about seizing an opportunity rather than solving a problem. I found this response from ChatGPT useful, these are all solid points.

Arguments For Framing a Startup Around Creating an Opportunity:

1. Market Expansion and Differentiation:
   Instead of tackling a known problem in a saturated space, an opportunity-focused approach can open the door to entirely new market categories. By defining a new use case or experience, you can become a category creator and leader rather than one competitor among many.

2. Inspiring a Visionary Brand Narrative:
   Opportunity-driven positioning often resonates with a larger, more aspirational vision. Instead of presenting a “fix” to a known pain point, you frame your company as ushering in a new era or enabling transformative possibilities. This can captivate talent, press, and long-term investors who are drawn to compelling, forward-looking narratives.

3. Potentially Larger Upside if Successful:
   When you solve a known problem, the market might be well-defined, but so is the potential size. With a new opportunity, if you can create demand where none existed before, the upside might be significantly larger, and you could shape market expectations on your own terms.

4. Pioneering Customer Mindsets:
   Shifting from merely “solving problems” to “creating opportunities” can help you embed your product into a new kind of customer behavior. For example, rather than fixing a flaw in the way people currently shop, you might create a new shopping paradigm that changes how customers think about consumption entirely.

5. Long-Term Strategic Flexibility:
   When the narrative is not anchored to a single, well-defined pain point, you have more freedom to evolve. As the market responds to your offering, you can pivot or expand into new directions without always being evaluated against the initial “problem” you promised to solve.

Arguments Against Framing a Startup Around Creating an Opportunity:

1. Difficulty in Demonstrating Immediate Value:
   Investors and early adopters often look for clear, tangible value. If you’re “creating an opportunity,” it may be harder to show near-term ROI or convince people why they need this new offering. Without a recognizable pain point, the urgency to adopt can be low.

2. Challenging Product-Market Fit Validation:
   Problem-centric startups can measure success by seeing if they solve a known issue. In contrast, opportunity-driven companies may struggle to find clear product-market fit because they must first educate the market, prove relevance, and inspire demand for something customers never knew they wanted.

3. Complexity in Messaging and Positioning:
   Explaining how you solve a known problem is often more straightforward than justifying the value of a new, abstract concept. This complexity in narrative makes marketing and sales harder, as you need to invest heavily in customer education before achieving resonance.

4. Greater Execution Risk:
   Creating a new market category or opportunity demands not only building a product but also shaping customer mindsets, channels, and ecosystems. This is inherently riskier and more resource-intensive. You’re not just competing on product features; you’re competing for conceptual real estate in the customer’s mind.

5. Investor Skepticism and Funding Hurdles:
   Many investors are trained to look for problem-solution fits because they are more concrete and measurable. Pitching an opportunity rather than a problem can trigger skepticism, as investors might worry that your offering is a “nice to have” rather than a necessity. This makes securing initial funding more challenging.