Part-Maven Part-Maverick

About Part-Maven Part-Maverick

Podcasts with brilliant authors, thinkers and experts - sharing ideas and challenging assumptions through useful contrarian perspectives. mavenmaverick.substack.com (https://mavenmaverick.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Hosted by Ritavan

Category

business · technology

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

9 Jul 2025

Latest episode

8 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

32 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   8 Oct 2026

   Eric So — The Collision: What AI Does to Us

   Every time you hand a task to AI, you make two decisions.The first is visible: get this done. The second is invisible: stop getting better at this.Most people only see the first one. Today, practically all writing about AI asks what the technology will do next. Eric So, who teaches AI at MIT, asks a question with a longer shelf life: given what we already know about how humans think, learn, and compete, what happens when you place a machine that thinks into that environment? His new book, The Collision: What AI Does to Us, makes almost no predictions about AI. It takes decades of established science about people and treats AI as a new variable in their environment. That choice is why the ideas hold up. Below are the models from our two hours together that stayed with me, especially the ones that run against intuition. 1. The Dream Team Fallacy The intuition is simple. Take an elite human, add an elite machine, and you get the best of both. A doctor with AI should beat a doctor without it, and a strong analyst with a strong model should beat either one working alone. The evidence says otherwise. Study after study finds that the combination often performs worse than the human alone or the machine alone. Eric’s explanation is that the two do not add together like ingredients in a recipe. They combine like chemicals in a reaction, where each one changes how the other behaves. The main mechanism is anchoring. The picture people have in mind is two independent thinkers stress-testing each other. What happens in practice is that the machine speaks first, the human latches onto its answer, and the rest of the session is spent adjusting around it. The human stops contributing an independent view, which was the whole point of including the human. The practical lesson: decide in advance which work goes to the human alone, which to the machine alone, and which to both. When you do combine them, form your own view before you look at the machine’s. 2. The Ratchet Your brain is about 2 percent of your body mass and burns about 20 percent of your energy. Evolution built you to cut that cost whenever something offers to carry it, which makes a machine that thinks for you the most tempting offer your brain has ever received. Now add competition. You do not need to see a colleague use AI. You only need to suspect it, and the suspicion pulls you in. Your use then pulls them in further. This is a prisoner’s dilemma, and the mechanism that keeps it moving is a ratchet: each turn is easy to make and very hard to reverse. The subtle part is what the ratchet does to institutions. Eric described colleagues attending seminars on how to make their assignments “AI-proof.” Each redesign assumes every student will use AI, which quietly removes the option of doing the work unassisted. Once the system is redesigned around universal use, the choice to abstain no longer appears on the menu at all. 3. Capability Has No Shelf Life Most organizations treat skill as inventory. You build it once, store it, and retrieve it when needed. Eric calls this assumption one of the most common and costly errors he sees in business. The brain works differently. People who learned to juggle grew measurable brain matter in the regions responsible for hand-eye coordination within weeks, and within a few months of stopping, that growth receded. Skill is a state you maintain through use, and the brain reclaims what you stop using. AI makes this dangerous because the output stays high while the capability underneath it drains. The essay still reads well and the code still runs, so the gauge reads full right up to the moment you need the skill and find it gone. Eric admitted on air that after thirty years of programming, he now mostly types instructions into an interface. He also named a loss he suspects but has not yet tested: thinking through a problem without a machine to argue with. 4. Work Is a Chain, and the Cheap Link Holds It Together AI is good at tasks. Jobs are sequences of tasks. The pitch deck is one link, and presenting it, defending it under questioning, and adjusting it in the room are the links that follow. Outsource the first link and you weaken every link downstream, because the understanding you would have built while making the deck is the understanding you need when someone challenges it. The same logic applies to junior roles. Many firms now use AI as a reason to hire fewer junior people, because their grunt work looks easy to automate. That grunt work is how senior people get made. A tennis academy that stopped junior players from hitting against the wall, because wall practice produces no trophies, would have no champions in ten years. Rory Sutherland’s hotel doorman makes the same point from a different angle. A consultant sees a salary for opening a door and recommends cutting it. The consultant does not see the greeting, the help with luggage, the security, or the impression of quality that justified the room rate. The cost appears on a spreadsheet. The value was never written down. 5. The Skill-Biased Paradox Economists call AI a skill-biased technology. Its benefits go mostly to people who already have expertise, because they know which questions to ask and can tell a good answer from a plausible one. The paradox is in where that expertise came from. Eric built his through years of formative struggle before generative AI existed, and he doubts he would ask the same questions today if he had skipped that struggle. Today’s experts are the last generation trained without the shortcut. The tool amplifies exactly the expertise it makes harder to build, and that leaves every organization with an open question: where will the next generation of experts come from? 6. When Polish Is Free, Signals Collapse A tailored cover letter used to tell an employer that a candidate cared enough to do the work. Now anyone can produce one in seconds, so it signals nothing. Eric pointed to research showing what employers do next: they fall back on older signals, such as which university you attended and whom you know. The people who lose are the capable outsiders, whose effort was the only signal they had. Ramanujan reached Hardy through a cold letter full of mathematics. In today’s inbox, filled with polished messages that cost nothing to write, it is worth asking whether that letter would get read. 7. Guard or Cede The useful question is which work AI should do, and the answer depends on who you are. Eric gives coding to AI because his value lives in the questions he asks as a researcher. A security engineer who did the same would be giving away the core of the job. Eric calls the parts of your work that define your value your signature thinking skills. Guard those, and let the machine have the rest. One subtle point he added after finishing the book: even “harmless” uses carry a cost. Asking AI for a first outline or a brainstorm anchors your thinking before you have explored the problem yourself. The blank page is uncomfortable, and some of its value lies in that discomfort. The System Gambit (https://www.amazon.com/System-Gambit-Leverage-Unlock-Compounding/dp/3982897211/) is a rigorous guide to the one strategic move that most investors and operators never make: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mavenmaverick.substack.com (https://mavenmaverick.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

2. 

   24 Sept 2026

   300 Years of Financial Advice with Joseph Moore

   Joseph Moore (https://www.josephmoorebooks.com/) is a national bestselling author, historian, and investor (https://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Rich-American-History/dp/0063464586/) whose relentless optimism, academic research, and self-experimentation with history’s wildest financial strategies made him financially independent in his mid-40s. His new book “leaves you believing in the American Dream again.” He teaches readers how to avoid the scams we keep falling for, what history says about crypto, stocks, and real estate (hint: it isn’t what they tell you), and offers 25 lessons that really worked (and 7 that didn’t) to get ahead in America. History tells you what doesn’t work, not what works. It shows what did not happen and why. Anything else is to try to predict what will happen is overfitting: porting a rule that worked in one environment into another where the conditions are very different. Financial advice is environment-specific. Whether to save, spend, hold cash or hold property depends on the context you are operated in. Advice often outlives the conditions that made it effective, so inherited wisdom is often entirely wrong. Passive income is a macro artifact. It works only without inflation. Once inflation is normalized, passive pays only negligibly. Anything paying well demands active work or carries speculative risk. Assets that decay are like bonds with entropy. Anything physical has a maintenance cost that eats the yield. Thus value comes from actively improving it, and not from passively owning it. Net worth is a meaningless number. It has at most 3 uses: settling an estate, assessing credit, signalling status. Treating it as wealth or money results in bad policy and bad decisions. Fast time and slow time. Financial time decouples from clock time and runs at different speeds for different people. Most of life is slow. Fast time rewards concentration or punishes it. The work of slow time is building something that survives fast time and is positioned to be rewarded by it, instead of punished by it. Technology is revolutionary only when it forces a new system. Plugged into the old paradigm it yields marginal efficiency, which competes away because anyone can buy the same tool. Gains persist only where you hold leverage or proprietary asymmetry. More on proprietary asymmetry in my book The System Gambit (https://www.amazon.com/System-Gambit-Leverage-Unlock-Compounding/dp/3982897211/): Limit, concentrate, then diversify. Narrow into your comparative advantage. Get good enough to see where the paradigm is unoptimized. Diversify to protect what you made. Remember that diversification preserves wealth, but it does not create it. Retirement saving is not wealth building. Confusing them substitutes preservation with growth. Investment in your own capability compounds faster than any regular contribution to a savings plan can. Define enough. Without a ceiling, capacity keeps buying returns you no longer need and that are likely to put you in trouble. Attitude is a structural input. Optimism plus a saving habit predicts financial outcomes better than inheritance or income. Thanks for reading Part-Maven Part-Maverick! Subscribe for free to receive new posts. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mavenmaverick.substack.com (https://mavenmaverick.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

3. 

   10 Sept 2026

   Bidhan Parmar — Radical Doubt: Why Doubt is the Skill AI Can’t Copy

   Uncertainty is about unknown probabilities. Doubt is about interpretation: two people can face the same facts and reach different conclusions because context, experience, and identity shape what the facts mean. That distinction matters because most systems train people to treat not knowing as weakness. School rewards fast right answers. Work rewards confidence and speed. But real judgment requires something else: sit with ambiguity, generate options, test assumptions, revise. Intuition belongs in that process, but only as a hypothesis. Good decision-makers do not stop at their first instinct. They ask: what would change my mind? where could this fail? what evidence is missing? The practical rule from the episode: slow down early to move faster later. Testing, feedback, and extra discussion are not overhead; they prevent expensive mistakes. The firefighter equipment example made this concrete: technically sound gear failed in use because nobody tested it under real conditions. The AI takeaway is similar. Automate formalized work. Keep human judgment where the problem is ambiguous, cross-functional, or strategic. Speed only helps if you’re doing the right thing. The hardest challenge is scale: how do you preserve personalized judgment and feedback across many students or employees? Bidhan’s shift toward oral exams instead of hackable papers shows one answer: design for real understanding, not just output. Mental model: use structure for routine work, doubt for ambiguous work, and intuition as a starting point, not as a verdict. The System Gambit (https://www.amazon.com/System-Gambit-Leverage-Unlock-Compounding/dp/3982897211/) is a rigorous guide to the one strategic move that most investors and operators never make: Thanks for reading Part-Maven Part-Maverick! Subscribe for free to receive new posts. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mavenmaverick.substack.com (https://mavenmaverick.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

Contact Part-Maven Part-Maverick

Guest appearances

Books guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.