It's not optimal. It's overwritten, repetitive, cliche and increasingly incoherent over longer generations. I say this as someone who likes AI and uses it to create rough drafts and structural revisions of my ideas.

Exactly stochastic but statistically optimal based on a bunch of very broad range of text which often is not actually good writing

The Pydantic stuff is nice, but in a minimalist way that I don't see being amenable to SaaS/vc/etc.

We have a SaaS platform (Pydantic Logfire - General and AI observability), and we raised our Series A from Sequoia.

For good or bad, I think we're pretty "SaaS/vc/etc." already.

Yeah it seems a bit forced though. Like why go from an open source utility library for typing to take VC money and try to shoe-horn in an observability platform that no one was asking for?

My prediction, not going to be a good investment.

As a big Clickhouse fan, agent evals are where their product really shines. They're buying into market segment where their product is succeeding so they can vertically integrate and tighten up the feedback loop.

Are you talking about this sort of thing? https://clickhouse.com/blog/tracing-openai-agents-clickstack

To be fair, good benchmarking is hard, most people get it wrong. Scientific training helps.

Elastic feels about as much like a primary data store as Mongo, FWIW.

MCP got a ton of use out of the gate. People were fawning over it for the first few months, and we can see how well that hype survived contact with hardcore engineers.

Anthropic has great marketing. They get shit (and I do mean shit) to stick in a way that I don't think anyone else in the AI space could. MCP and skills were both obvious duds to people who understand the tech.

Simon is more influencer than engineer at this point, he's incentivized to ride waves to drive views, and I think the handwaiving "this will be amazing" posts have been good to him, even if they turn out to be completely wrong.

This comment isn’t going to age well. Just my $0.02.

Feel free to make an argument, I'm happy to discuss what I might be missing.

Ah, the negative positive construction. Another casualty of the anti-AI movement. The semicolon was almost certainly inserted manually in place of an em-dash, models almost never use them.

Accusing people of using generative AI is definitely one of those things you have to be careful with, but on the other hand, I still think it's OK to critique writing styles that are now cliche because of AI. I mean come on, it's not just the negative-positive construction. This part is just as cliche:

> It is like having a Lego set where the bricks refuse to click if you are building something structurally unsound.

And the headings follow that AI-stank rhythmic pattern with most of them starting with "The":

> The “Frankenstein” Problem

> The Basic Engine

> The Ignition Key

> The Polyglot Pipeline

I could go on, but I really don't think you have to.

I mean look, I'm no Pulitzer prize winner myself, but let's face it, it would be hard to make an article feel more it was adapted from an LLM output if you actually tried.

Try to launch a B2B without marketing skills in 2026 and find out.

FAFO - forgo advertising and find out

Marketing/relationships is the only moat, not data. You can have amazing data and make an amazing product, and some asshat with a product that barely works and really tight marketing will crush you. Then people will ask why there isn't a product like yours on the market, all while ignoring all your marketing material.

Evidence?