The leverage paradox

Nice content. loved it

Very good points. I am not that worried yet about the "the advances were available to everyone" the tools are indeed available, but there is a very large number of people who use ai to create cat pics, and ask for recipes... they have the tools, but never dig deep enough to actually know how to use them. So advantage for those who work long hours.

“The leverage paradox” nails the frustration of the AI era. Tools let you move fast, but they also make the noise so loud that only what’s unique breaks through. I love how you frame AI drafts as just the starting point; the real work is in the iteration, refinement, and injecting your own voice. Thanks for this reminder: in a world that automates the obvious, the edge lies in being unapologetically weird, human, and thoughtful.

Nice post! I really like the analogy to craftsmen. Let me add that all of this require something called patience, which I feel fewer and fewer people seem to have these days

Brilliant article and very thought provoking. Just a feedback though, your staircase and escalator example doesn't work. Here's why: Staircase makes sense because every person has to do the effort of climbing each step and with effort you reach the top.

On the other hand, the escalator is designed to be like - once anyone gets on the escalator, they automatically reach the top, no matter how high that 'top' is. Which means you are saying that AI/LLMs are that escalator that will make everyone reach the top as soon as they step onto the escalator!

Honestly feels like we’re in that stage where everyone is just pumping out AI content because they can, not because it’s actually useful or unique. I think the real winners will be the ones who treat AI like a tool, not a replacement — using it to speed up the boring parts but still putting in the human effort to make something that feels real

Probably one of the better articles I've read in AI recently. My theory is we'll soon be in an era of the ultra-niche run by indie hackers like us. The cost to enter the market is decreasing and so what used to be unattainable to build and support now is getting much cheaper and most importantly scalable. Maybe not a great example but take Uber or Airbnb. Soon it wouldn't be hard to build two sided marketplaces. I'm in an airport in Montana so the idea that comes to mind is kayak rentals for those in their 50-60s visiting here--ultra niche. No way is the market big enough to be an Uber but in the next few years I could vibe code it, run support with AI, and outreach with AI (mostly ofc as your recommend 😉)

I wonder if using AI (the way we do it today) actually hurts businesses, especially those where human interactions are important.

Take prospecting as an example. I recently developed TaskWand, an n8n workflow generator, and I'm prospecting to find affiliates. I often hear (and I've done this in the past) that you absolutely need to do mass outreach and let AI handle communications.

But I feel like the more we do this, the lazier we get at finding relevant targets. And AI messages are spotted from a mile away - they have no soul, they're impersonal.

I dropped that approach to send messages manually with imperfections, and I realize the results are better. Simply because people aren't fooled and they recognize the authenticity of something that comes from a human.

Even though I work with AI every day and build AI SaaS products, I'm afraid it's sterilizing the market. Eventually, those who thought they'd save time by delegating to AI will end up losing their competitive advantage - not for reasons of reactivity or competitiveness, but because of the mediocrity generated by AI or the AI patterns we'll all have seen over and over until we're sick of them.

This is an incredibly thoughtful post - one that really requires deep absorption.

It also makes me wonder: as AI continues to reduce barriers and increase output, how do you think we’ll handle the challenge of oversupply? If most needs are quickly met by AI, will it push people toward manufacturing “problems” just to create demand, even when those problems don’t truly exist? I’d be curious to hear your perspective on how this dynamic might play out.

There is a small window of time right now where those who leverage AI tools can have a big advantage. Very soon it will just be the norm--how dev is done. Just as before AI, there will always be those 10x or even 100x devs, but it won't be the AI that makes that difference--it's always the human.

"Because it's hard to adopt a new technology while continuing to put in the same hours and the same effort you put in before the technology was introduced."

It's nice to think, when learning a new technology, that you are swimming up above--giving yourself an advantage. In reality, the water is rising--swim up or drown.

When I developed software for the financial markets, everyone was competing for speed. If you could shave off another 10 nanoseconds, you could be #1...for a few weeks until everyone else also shaved off 10 nanoseconds...and then you work to shave off the next 10 nanoseconds. It's a race to the bottom.

I'm also reminded of something my dad said decades ago back on the farm. We had a lot of workbench space in our shop, and it was 100% packed with tools and parts and junk. I suggested we build more workbench space. Dad, in his wisdom, said, "You will always fill all the workbench space you have."

Personally, I've barely scratched the surface of AI tools. I know I'll have to figure these things out to stay competitive, but for me, it's a lot less about chasing bleeding edge tech and a lot more about building things I enjoy working on and that people love to use. ☕

Brilliant analysis, Channing! The leverage paradox perfectly captures what we're experiencing in AI legal tech. Everyone now has access to basic legal AI tools, but the competitive bar has skyrocketed - clients expect comprehensive legal analysis that previously took days, delivered in hours with perfect accuracy.

Your 100-shot approach resonates deeply. At our AI legal assistant platform, we've learned that the first AI draft is just raw material. The real value comes from iterative refinement, legal expertise validation, and adding that human judgment layer that distinguishes professional legal advice from generic AI output.

The purple cow principle is crucial for legal tech founders: while everyone's building "AI lawyer bots," success comes from unique positioning - whether it's specialized practice areas, transparent referral ecosystems, or innovative partnership models. The winners aren't just leveraging AI faster; they're creating differentiated value propositions that can't be commoditized.

For fellow AI founders: what strategies have you found most effective for maintaining competitive differentiation when core AI capabilities become democratized?

Great article, Channing. The leverage paradox is exactly what we’re thinking about at Ito—we’re using AI not just to generate content faster, but to help users refine and enhance their own ideas. Even small tweaks can turn a “first shot” into a “hundredth shot.” Transparency is key too—showing users how Ito handles data builds trust and makes AI a real creative partner.

“Leverage paradox” is exactly how it feels. Tools got faster, expectations sprinted ahead. I’m stealing the 100-shot mindset—ship less, sand more. Appreciate this.

This article really made me think.

Do you think this shift will ultimately make competition harder or easier? On one hand, everything feels easier—tools are faster, workflows are smoother—but it also seems like we’re becoming a bit lazy. Is that a good thing, or a dangerous one?

I keep wondering: if we understand the bigger algorithm behind this transformation, maybe we can use it to our advantage. But if we stay unaware of the deeper shift that’s happening, we risk becoming just another generic output—indistinguishable from everyone else.

This was a really thoughtful take on the leverage paradox. I like how you framed the difference between using AI as a shortcut versus treating it as a starting point for deeper work. The reminder to put in those extra 'coats of paint' and aim for purple cow originality really resonated.

Really enjoyed this post — the leverage paradox is so true in daily life. Even small routines can show it: I’ve been testing a smart toothbrush (BrushO) that gives AI feedback on brushing and tracks habits. It’s interesting how even something as ordinary as brushing your teeth can turn into leverage for long-term health.

This hits close to home in research AI. Before: literature reviews took 2 weeks. Now: anyone can generate one in 20 minutes, but reviewers expect coverage of 500+ papers instead of 50.

Your 100-shot advice is key. Our users who succeed iterate 10-15 times and verify every citation. The lazy ones get beautiful papers with hallucinated sources.

The purple cow in research is domain expertise knowing which AI suggestions are brilliant vs nonsense. That judgment layer can't be automated.

Questions for founders: Are you seeing similar higher bar effects in your industry? How do you avoid the one-shot trap when AI makes everything feel instant?

This "leverage paradox" is less a paradox and more a fundamental sorting mechanism. The author is right, but the second-order effect is where the real alpha is.

AI is essentially quantitative easing for content and code. It floods the market with cheap "currency" (AI-generated drafts), which inevitably devalues the currency itself and inflates the value of scarce assets. What are those scarce assets? Taste, curation, and a verifiably human point of view.

The game is no longer about who can push the "generate" button faster. It's about who has the best "BS filter" and the most unique raw material (personal experience) to feed the machine in the first place. Your AI output is a commodity; your perspective is the moat. The "100-shot" approach isn't just about polishing; it's about injecting that non-replicable human element.

So, the tactical question for us builders is: are we spending our time learning to write better prompts (a skill with a rapidly depreciating value), or are we building systems for aggressive curation and unique data synthesis (a skill that appreciates as the noise increases)?

Look around after reading this made me a bit sad

This really resonated with me. The paradox is that the same tools that make creating easier also flood the space with more of the same. It’s not the “ability to publish” that matters anymore — it’s the willingness to push beyond the first draft and inject something genuinely human.

What stood out most to me was the reminder that uniqueness is now the scarce resource. Anyone can generate, but very few will refine, contextualize, or bring an authentic perspective. That last 10% of craft is what separates work that’s ignored from work that people remember.

Nice!

The “staircase-escalator” analogy is spot on. AI makes things easier, but suddenly everyone’s on the ride, and the climb gets way tougher.

What resonated most with me is the reminder that the edge isn’t in using AI (everyone’s doing that now), it’s in what you add on top of it; the extra craft, the originality, the purple cow factor. That’s where the real wins will be...

That's so good

AI makes the first draft cheap, but the leverage paradox means the real advantage now lies in refinement and differentiation. Don’t stop at what AI hands you — iterate deeply (‘100-shot’) and make something distinct (‘purple cow’). That’s how you escape the slop trap.

This article cuts straight to the heart of the AI age. Yes, AI makes it easier to create—but the escalator is crowded, not empty.

In today’s flood of AI content, the real scarcity is expression with warmth and personality. Hope to see more voices that stand out here.

yes very true, it is taking much effort now to get noticed in online world -too many distraction and low results.

I love this lucidity, indeed a few months after AI arrived, the web was overflowing with AI generated content. Now how many has actually been seen and been interacted ? Very few. There is AI content that ranks, but it's the fruit of lots of work and creativity.

Great points, Channing. The part about not settling for a one-shot really resonates—AI drafts are just raw clay, and treating them as final is a trap.

But I’d argue polish is only half the battle. A perfectly polished draft can still disappear into the noise. The real edge is in making your work unmistakably different—something people can’t scroll past or ignore.

I put my thoughts into an essay called The Purple Cow Playbook for Indie Hackers, which outlines a practical cycle: draft, inject your fingerprint, test small, polish, and then release bold.

Happy to share the link if outbound links are okay here.

That’s such a fascinating reflection — it really highlights how technology didn’t reduce work but reshaped the competition around it. Instead of giving us leisure, it raised the bar for what “enough” looks like. Makes me wonder if the real challenge isn’t technological progress, but how we design the incentives and culture around work itself.

This really nails the challenge of the AI era! It’s easy to churn out content fast, but true impact comes from putting in extra effort and making your work stand out. Using the right tools, whether for writing, design, or streaming content, can help you craft something unique instead of just adding to the AI noise.

Damn! Well put. We're seeing the hype overshadow the actual benefits and most powerful use-cases, as usual. AI will follow in the footsteps of other great technologies — just like the mp3 and blockchain. Powerful technologies, marketed as... powerful technologies... instead of focusing on the problem they each solved, and the real use-cases they would go on to revolutionize.

you just have to choose

Thank you

In the leverage paradox, AI reduces task effort while intensifying competition. Continuously adapting, learning, and innovating is the only way to maintain a competitive edge.

Great piece, Channing. The "leverage paradox" nails the trap so many founders are in. As a fractional CMO, I see teams using AI to produce 10x more content, but it all just blends into the noise. Your "purple cow" point is key. The real edge isn't speed anymore — it's insight. AI gives you the first draft. Our job is to add the unique perspective, the contrarian take, the deep customer empathy that turns generic output into something magnetic. The escalator is real. Winning means climbing higher and making your flag impossible to miss.

I think about this every time I scroll YouTube. Half the new channels are AI voiceovers on stock clips and it all blends together. The paradox is real - the tech made it easier but now the only way to stand out is to work harder than before.

Feels like an ad straight from the creator of IH for ElevenLabs :) But there are some gems in it, thanks.

"Many of us today work longer hours than people did in the 1930s, especially today's high earners" is so so true and yet we cannot afford things like people did in the 1930s!

Incisive. Instead of being converted into leisure, the gains from technology have simply become the weapons in our competitive arms race.

AI is carrying everyone along, the wheels of the times keep rolling forward...

🔎 Fascinating take, Channing. The leverage paradox captures the AI era perfectly: technology reduces effort per task but raises the bar for competitiveness. What stood out most is your call to avoid “AI slop” by applying craftsmanship and differentiation. The reminder to aim for one-hundredth of a shot instead of one shot resonates deeply; excellence will increasingly come from refinement, not automation alone. A timely perspective for anyone trying to stand out in a world where AI makes it easy to blend in. 👏

so much worth reading

This is one of the most crucial and clearly articulated ideas for navigating the current moment. It perfectly names the uneasy feeling many of us have: the tools are miraculous, but using them doesn't feel like winning.

Keynes's error was a classic one: he viewed technology through a purely utilitarian lens, not a competitive one. He saw that we could produce the same amount of stuff with less effort, but he didn't account for how that would inflate our expectations and redefine the "stuff" we need to produce to feel successful. The escalator analogy is perfect. We're all moving faster, but the finish line keeps receding.

Your two pieces of advice are the only way out.

The "100-shot" philosophy is the operational key. AI isn't a replacement for effort; it's a force multiplier for effort. It takes the drudgery out of starting, but it says nothing about finishing. The real work—the editing, the refining, the imbuing with unique human perspective—is more important than ever because it's the only thing that can't be automated. The leverage paradox means that the value of that final 10% of polish has skyrocketed because the cost of the first 90% has plummeted to near zero.

And the Purple Cow is the strategic imperative. When everyone has access to the same infinite herd of beige cows, the only thing that gets noticed is the purple one. Uniqueness is no longer a "nice-to-have" growth hack; it is a fundamental requirement for existence. AI is the ultimate commoditizer, so the only defensible ground is that which is uncommodifiable: unique taste, a specific voice, a weird obsession, a personal story.

The great challenge for indie hackers now is to resist the seductive ease of the one-shot and to have the courage to be strange. This article is a badly needed rallying cry for exactly that.

tried to launch my startup, thought my app was awesome, but in communities it just feels like one more, all kinda similar

'AI slop' is such a spot-on phrase. As someone building AI tools, I've seen first hand how easy it is for outputs to feel generic or unoriginal. What’s rewarding, and what stands out, is when you push beyond the first draft. You one-hundred-shot your way to something genuinely original.

When I built ScrumBuddy, I built our own orchestrator around Claude to make it perform better. I built a jail for Claude to get the most of it in our automated code generation workflows. I made sure it wasn't just about leveraging the AI tool, but by adding more value to it.

That's how we can partner with AI tools and not be threatened by them.

Great article. Thanks for the reminder that mastery, not shortcuts, is where the real value lies.

This really hits home. I’ve been using AI tools a lot lately, and yeah, it’s easier than ever to “create” something, but it all starts to feel samey so fast. I catch myself pumping out generic stuff just because I can, not because it’s meaningful.

I like the idea of putting in those extra “coats of paint.” It’s tempting to just prompt and post, but the few times I actually tweak, personalize, or remix what the AI gives me, the response is always way better. Feels more like “my” thing.

Also totally feeling the purple cow idea. My feed is full of AI-generated art that all uses the same vibe, pretty but forgettable. The stuff that makes me pause is always a little weird, messy, or clearly human.

Good reminder to not just ride the escalator, but maybe hop off and carve your own path sometimes.

Love the staircase to escalator framing.

Tools lower effort per unit, but they raise the competitive bar; sameness becomes the default and craft becomes the moat. The “hundred-shot” idea and purple cow filter feel like the right antidotes: treat AI output as a draft, then add taste, testing, and narrative until it’s unmistakably yours.

I'm super curious though, what’s been your highest-ROI extra coat lately: tight editing, real user data, or the way you frame distribution?

P.S. I’m with Buzz, we build conversion-focused Webflow sites and pragmatic SEO for launches. Happy to share a quick GTM checklist if useful.

Yep, it feels overwhelming — AI tools everywhere. For me, I’m just trying to keep my head down and build something useful (Luxememory) instead of chasing the hype.

This is such a sharp breakdown of the paradox. The “staircase to escalator” is great ... AI made the climb easier, but at the same time extended the height we’re all expected to reach.

What resonates most for me is the idea that the problem isn’t the tech itself but the sameness it creates when everyone leans on it in the same way. AI doesn’t eliminate the need for craft but t shifts where the craft happens. The people who win aren’t the ones who press “generate” once, but the ones who treat AI output like raw clay and then shape, refine, and polish it into something distinct.

That’s why the “purple cow” advice feels especially important right now.

best article

Loved this, @channing-allen the , staircase vs escalator analogy perfectly captures what’s happening with AI.

At GudSho, we’re seeing the same thing in social media: everyone can create fast, but most of it looks the same. The winners will be the ones who refine, “hundred-shot” their work, and stand out as the purple cows.

Do you think this AI slop phase will fade, or is it the new normal?

This is worth reading because I need to put in more effort these days to be able to rank, everyone is ranking, and it makes the competition tougher

wow nice and insightful

And noboby can predict what next level of AI will do.

You’ve captured the paradox well. New tools lower the barrier to entry, but that also means the average quality of output drops unless someone’s willing to go deeper. In healthcare, for example, agencies can’t afford “AI slop” in documentation. They need systems that structure information, keep compliance airtight, and still leave room for efficiency.

That’s where platforms like Alora make a difference. Instead of chasing shortcuts, they build workflows that actually reduce errors and keep staff focused on care. It’s a good reminder that the winners in this AI era will be the ones applying leverage with precision, not just speed.

Curious — for makers or founders who've sold micro-products: did previews help close first buyers? I’m testing previews + small limited coupons and would love experiences.

This hits hard,The “leverage paradox” framing really nails what a lot of us are feeling right now. The staircase has turned into an escalator, but suddenly everyone’s sprinting on it.

What I’ve learned building in voice AI is that the “slop effect” creeps in fastest when we forget the human on the other side. A support ticket isn’t just text to be summarized; it’s someone frustrated on the phone. An outbound campaign isn’t just a batch of prompts; it’s a business hoping to connect with real people.

AI can crank out infinite drafts, voices, or code modules but the winners will be the ones willing to “hundred-shot” their work and inject actual taste, empathy, and differentiation.

Purple cows don’t happen by chance, they’re designed with intention.

I think what is clear from the article is that technological progress requires an increase in skill at another level, not a rejection of it. In the age of AI, what matters is not speed, but the ability to stand out and maintain quality.

I think what is clear from the article is that technological progress requires an increase in skill at another level, not a rejection of it. In the age of AI, what matters is not speed, but the ability to stand out and maintain quality.

Hello everyone
i am Shalom edits a professional video editor

This is such an interesting take — leverage is supposed to give us freedom, but sometimes it just pulls us deeper into complexity. Striking the balance between scaling and actually enjoying the freedom it’s meant to provide is tricky. How do you personally decide when more leverage is actually worth it?

"AI slop" is such a perfect description of what we're up against. I’m building KarmaGuy—which helps generate Reddit replies—and I’ve seen firsthand how AI that feels generic gets ignored fast. Injecting small imperfections, personal voice, even a bit of humor can make replies feel real.
How are others balancing efficiency with authenticity in content creation tools?

The leverage paradox” resonates deeply. I love how this article reframes the narrative—it's not that technology fails to deliver, it's that when everyone has a supercharged ramp (AI and automation), the finish line keeps moving. As Channing points out, “new technologies give us greater leverage… but because this leverage is usually introduced into competitive environments… we end up having to work just as hard as before (if not harder)

informative

That’s such a good way of framing it — the leverage paradox is everywhere right now. AI and other emerging tools make individual tasks much easier, but at the same time, the bar for staying competitive keeps getting higher. It feels like you can’t just use the tools casually; you almost have to master them to avoid falling behind.

I’ve been noticing this while experimenting with new platforms myself, and it really highlights how efficiency alone isn’t enough anymore — adaptability matters even more.

Loving all the insights here....especially about AI amplifying mediocrity if we rely on it blindly. To me, the real leverage isn’t just using AI faster, it’s thinking differently about what’s worth creating. The flood of generic content isn’t the problem>>the problem is the lack of intentionality and human judgment. Those who succeed won’t just iterate on AI output....they’ll curate, refine, and inject originality in ways AI can’t replicate.

informative