[hyperpape]

This article is inane.

The law seems...truthy, though I find it a little too underspecified to assess.

The conclusion is true, and I'll even overlook it being a slight strawman. Your "long genius"[0] CEO cannot talk to AI and get a full business overnight. That's true.

But how does that follow from the "law"? The article admits that you can shift complexity to a complex algorithm or information processing system that the consumer doesn't touch.

You know what's a incredibly complex information processing system? GenAI.

So we have a reasonable conclusion, an ok "law", and no real connection between them. It was an inane non-sequitur.

[0] Not actually a genius.

[bee_rider]

Laws are, of course, some of the least well supported scientific objects generally (just sort of ad-hoc observations that never got upgraded to a hypothesis or theory). It is a shame that “law” sounds so authoritative.

But these businesses laws seem to be even worse. We need a new name, Tesler’s Quip maybe.