Proof of effort 

As we enter a world where anyone can do anything with minimal to no execution struggle, the proof of effort shifts.

In the yesteryears, effort tends to be directly correlated with time spent. This is not always true, of course, but it is the closest metric to how hard something was to accomplish. Wonderful things that, even done efficiently, still take a long time are heralded as the peak of their field. The know-how, time and effort required to make these masterpieces were palpable.

However, that is not true anymore. The time to execute is collapsing, while the standard of what a masterpiece is increases. LLMs make execution a lot quicker in many aspects. They do it to an okay or somewhat respectable level, especially to the untrained eye. But here’s the catch. Most eyes that come across your work will be untrained. That is the reality if you want your piece to be enjoyed.

Then, in a world where people can endlessly recreate your work without any struggle, where does the proof of effort turn to?

We see this a lot with the communities that reject LLMs due to the threat they pose to their livelihoods and enjoyment of the craft. They taunt the lack of understanding of fundamentals and pick out the parts it got wrong. These communities are right to pick these up, but they often forget that the general populace does not care about how something is made.

Although I use LLMs extensively, I, too, leer and cringe at these productions. The prejudice that all the creator did was prompt, and that was the extent of their involvement. The proof of effort was missing and not easily perceivable, diminishing my admiration for it. Their intentions become questionable, whether they made this as a way to better the world or to make a quick buck for themselves and no one else.

As people get less impressed with execution, the proof of effort turns into yoghurt packaging. Where every yoghurt is essentially the same product, but producers market themselves as “high protein” or “all natural” or “we have just this one ingredient different”. This is what’s happening to every industry, and especially every non-physical product.

You will hear people say “we spend a lot of time talking to customers”, or “we spend a lot of time on planning and architecture”. But if you’ve been a product manager or built anything before, you’d know that these things should always have been the most important things to begin with. AI slop apps and games often market themselves as X but with one difference, or that they have someone behind them who has experience making things before AI.

Maybe the proof of effort does come in the planning and architecture phase. Maybe it is in the fundamental knowledge of the craft, or maybe it is the “taste” that “product thought leaders” keep pushing. All of these are convincing to a degree, but also give the vibe of Ideas Guy™.

I believe the proof of effort, on top of the ones mentioned above, falls on how well you can sell it and talk about it. How well you actually know the craft and how you deploy that expertise when building. The selling of your expertise and involvement in the project is the proof of effort. Which is inherently backwards, almost like trying to convince someone that I have more involvement outside of blurting out a few words and rubber ducking until I got something usable.

Cracking the proof of effort will not only make AI-assisted work more valuable, but also retain and increase the importance of the humans behind it.

I deeply hope this is the case.