转 创造任何真正有价值的东西，都像一场马拉松，你必须为此进行训练。 Creating anything worthwhile is like a marathon, and you must train for it.
Hiten ShahFounder & CEO building SaaS for 20+ yrs
目录
观点原文
转 创造任何真正有价值的东西，都像一场马拉松，你必须为此进行训练。
Creating anything worthwhile is like a marathon, and you must train for it.
ABAB AI 解读
这句话很短，但它在纠正一种极其常见、也极其致命的错觉。
一、它真正反对的不是“努力”，而是短跑思维
Creating anything worthwhile is like a marathon.
作者在否定的是这样一种潜意识假设：
- 好的东西可以靠一次爆发完成
- 成功来自灵感、运气或某个关键节点
而现实恰恰相反：所有“值得”的东西，都需要长期稳定输出。
二、为什么强调“你必须训练”（train），而不是“你必须坚持”。这是关键。
坚持是意志力问题；训练是系统问题。
训练意味着：节奏管理
不是每天拼命、而是可持续的强度、能力积累、技能、判断、耐力都会复利、不训练，后期必然崩盘、适应长期孤独
马拉松的大部分路段没人喝彩
真正的价值，往往在“无人关注期”形成
三、企业家视角：这是一句“反创业神话”的话
创业神话喜欢讲：爆款、一夜成功、指数级增长
而这句话在提醒你：指数级结果，来自线性但长期的投入。
没有训练的人，可能：前 6 个月看起来很猛、但在第 18 个月直接耗尽
四、投资视角：这是在讲“谁能留在牌桌上”
真正的长期回报，不属于：最聪明的人、最激进的人
而属于：能持续参与的人
市场奖励的是：不被情绪拖垮、不被周期淘汰、不在中途退场
训练，本质上是在为“活得足够久”做准备。
五、历史视角：所有伟大成果，都是“长期训练”的副产品
伟大的公司、伟大的思想、伟大的制度、伟大的财富
几乎没有一个是靠：短期冲刺、临时动员、单点突破
它们的共同点是：在漫长时间里，重复做对的事。
六、一句冷静但非常残酷的总结
你不是输给了别人，而是输给了“你没有为长期而训练”。
这句话的真正力量在于：它把“失败”从运气与天赋，拉回到准备程度与时间尺度。
Sharing
相关观点
- AI 会让平庸的品味变成灾难。 在现代历史的大多数时间里，平庸的品味是有“限速器”的。 生产是有成本的。传播需要时间。必须有人愿意署上自己的名字。市场确实会过滤掉大量垃圾，但整体产出速度受制于摩擦。 AI 消除了摩擦，却保留了品味本身。 这两者的结合，才是真正的危险。 生成式模型是在已有大量内容的基础上训练的，然后被奖励去生成在多数人眼中“看起来合理”的东西。它的输出在表面上很专业，却没有任何必须“有意义”的义务。它是无数他人决策的平均值，被剥离了那些决策之所以成立的具体语境。 于是，一种新的平庸诞生了——精致、快速、无限。 你可以在写作中看到这一点。自动补全不断把人推向通用表达、全球可读的句子、安全的形容词。那些标志着真实生活经验的本地细节，会在“建议”中被一点点删掉。久而久之，个人声音会塌缩成同一种“职业化语浆”。 你可以在故事里看到这一点。让模型讲来自 200 个国家的故事，往往只是在同一套情绪模板上更换道具：稳定、怀旧、和解。冲突被打磨掉，没有锋利到可能犯错的东西，也没有鲜活到足以真实存在的东西。 你可以在音乐里看到这一点。当每天可以生成数百万首新曲时，平台就变成了一个带搜索框的垃圾填埋场。问题不再是“如何创作”，而是“如何找到任何值得被关注的东西”。垃圾信息变成策略，洗脑式好听变成漏洞利用。 你可以在电影里看到这一点。数据驱动的娱乐内容，最终会收敛到适合分心观看的作品：清晰的对白、熟悉的叙事弧线、统一的灯光设计，没有任何要求你真正投入注意力的东西。这是一种为“半看不看”而优化的产品，而它反过来训练观众永远半心半意地观看。 但更深层的问题在这里。 平庸的品味不只是生产平庸的作品，它还会改变品味形成的环境本身。 当信息流被平均化的输出填满，参照系就会发生漂移。人们不再意识到缺失了什么。团队不再锻炼判断力，因为机器不断给出“看起来还行”的选项。领导者开始把吞吐量误当成进步，因为仪表盘很热闹、内容持续发布。 真正的灾难发生在上游——发生在感知层面。 在一个拥有无限草稿的世界里，真正稀缺的资源是： * 丢弃的能力 * 感觉到“差一点也不行”的能力 在系统不断试图把一切打磨成安全形态时，保护具体性与锋芒的能力 这，才是品味的本质。 品味，是宁愿让“平均用户”失望，也要取悦“对的人”的决断。品味，是当算法不断把你推向中间值时，仍然坚持一个明确的立场。 AI 让这一点变得更紧迫，而不是更不重要。 真正会赢的团队，会把 AI 当作生成器，然后建立一种对筛选极其残酷的编辑文化。他们会减少指标数量，但更加在意那些能保护质量的指标。他们会训练人们识别“雷同”，点名它、删除它、然后重来。 而大多数组织会反其道而行之。他们会庆祝产出数量，却在不知不觉中丢失了方向与灵魂。 AI 不需要是邪恶的，这一切也会发生。它只需要——足够容易。 AI makes mediocre taste catastrophic. For most of modern history, mediocre taste had a governor. It cost something to produce. It took time to distribute. It required a human to sign their name to it. The market filtered plenty of junk, but the throughput was limited by friction. AI removes the friction and keeps the taste. That combination is the danger. Generative models are trained on the bulk of what already exists, then rewarded for producing what looks plausibly “right” to the most people. The output has surface competence and zero obligation to mean anything. It is the average of a million decisions made by other people, stripped of the context that made those decisions work. So you get a new kind of mediocrity. Polished. Fast. Infinite. You can see it in writing. Autocomplete nudges people toward generic phrasing, toward the globally legible sentence, toward the safe adjective. The local detail that signals lived experience gets edited out by suggestion. Over time, voice collapses into the same professional-sounding paste. You can see it in story. Ask for a tale from 200 countries and you often get the same emotional template with different props. Stability, nostalgia, reconciliation. Conflict sanded down. Nothing sharp enough to be wrong, nothing alive enough to be true. You can see it in music. When millions of new tracks can be generated daily, the platform becomes a landfill with a search bar. The problem stops being creation. The problem becomes finding anything that deserves attention. Spam becomes strategy. Catchiness becomes an exploit. You can see it in film. Data-driven entertainment converges on content that can survive distracted viewing. Clear dialogue, familiar arcs, uniform lighting, nothing that asks you to lean in. It is a product optimized for being half-watched, which trains an audience to keep half-watching. Here’s the deeper issue. Mediocre taste does not just produce mediocre artifacts. It changes the environment that taste is formed inside. If feeds are filled with average outputs, the reference points shift. People stop noticing what is missing. Teams stop building muscles for judgment because the machine keeps giving them plausible options. Leaders start confusing throughput for progress because the dashboards look busy and the content keeps shipping. The catastrophe is upstream. It happens in perception. In a world of infinite drafts, the scarce resource is the ability to discard. The ability to feel when “almost good” is still wrong. The ability to protect specificity when the system keeps trying to sand it down into something safe. That is what taste really is. Taste is the decision to disappoint the average user in order to delight the right one. Taste is insisting on a point of view when the algorithm keeps offering you the center. AI makes this more urgent, not less. The winning teams will treat AI as a generator, then build an editing culture that is ruthless about selection. They will measure fewer things and care more about the ones that preserve quality. They will train people to notice sameness, to name it, to delete it, to start again. Most organizations will do the opposite. They will celebrate output and quietly lose the thread. AI does not need to be evil for this to happen. It only needs to be easy.Hiten Shah · 2025/12/30
- 在现代软件的大多数历史中，执行能力一直是瓶颈。 想法无处不在，但要把一个想法变成现实，需要人手、许可和时间。执行的成本天然起到了过滤作用，淘汰了薄弱的思考。大多数糟糕的想法，在用户看到之前就已经死掉了。 而这个过滤器，正在消失。 AI 压缩了意图与产出之间的距离。草稿瞬间出现，实验在决策尚未定型前就已发生。过去需要数周完成的工作，如今一个上午就能搞定。 这看起来像进步——而且确实是。但移除一个约束，并不会消除所有限制，它只会暴露下一个瓶颈。 新的瓶颈，不再是“能不能改”，而是“改动是否能被理解”。 当执行节奏很慢时，理解还能跟得上。团队一边构建一边讨论，用户逐步适应，意义与产出同步形成。 而现在，产出常常跑在理解之前。 产品变化的速度，快于用户更新心智模型的速度； 信息传递变化的速度，快于信任重新附着的速度。 在公司内部，团队在尚未形成共同理解前就已交付； 在公司外部，用户察觉到变化，却说不清这些变化意味着什么。 没有爆炸式失败。性能在悄无声息中衰减。 在公司内部，这表现为：有动作，但没对齐。 一个团队因为“很容易”就改了新手引导； 另一个团队因为“很容易”就重写了核心流程； 客服通过用户的困惑才知道这两件事。 没人做错什么，他们只是跑得比对产品的共同理解更快。 市场部门最先感受到这一点。当文案变得廉价，一致性就变得昂贵。内容不断输出，但受众已经分不清你到底相信什么。信任需要一个稳定的形状；如果没有，理解你的成本就会落在客户身上。 而大多数客户，不会愿意付出这个成本。 在公司外部，这种模式更隐蔽。一个曾经知道该点哪里、该期待什么的用户，依然喜欢这个产品，却不再探索。探索需要信心，信心依赖可预测性，可预测性依赖于意义能稳定存在足够长的时间，供人学习。 在 AI 加速的环境中，大多数失败看起来并不像“错误”， 而更像犹豫。用户感知到了变化，却感受不到收益； 预期不再自然对齐；速度最终转化为流失。 执行如今很容易规模化，但理解并不能。 你可以并行化生产，但意义的形成仍然依赖顺序、叙事与时机。总得有人决定什么才重要，解释发生了什么， 并一遍又一遍地重复，直到它真正被理解。这项工作看起来很慢，因为它是人的工作，也很少显得“酷”。 但它仍然是最重要的工作。 在这种环境中胜出的团队，看起来会更保守。他们交付的东西会少于工具所允许的上限，却多于用户所能承受的极限。他们会选择更少的改动，并把更多精力投入到更难的部分——让这些改动清晰、可重复、值得信任。 过去，执行的摩擦提供了护栏。当这种摩擦消失，清晰度就必须取而代之。如果没有清晰度，进步仍会继续，但信任会逐步落后。一旦信任滑落，其他一切都会变慢，哪怕产出从未下降。 速度如今不再稀缺。意义，才是。 For most of modern software, execution was the constraint. Ideas were everywhere, but turning one into reality required people, permission, and time. The cost of doing filtered out weak thinking. Most bad ideas died before users ever saw them. That filter is disappearing. AI compresses the distance between intent and output. Drafts appear instantly. Experiments happen before decisions feel final. Work that once took weeks now fits inside a morning. This looks like progress, and it is. But removing a constraint never removes limits. It exposes the next one. The new constraint is no longer making changes. It is making changes understandable. When execution moved slowly, understanding could keep pace. Teams talked while building. Customers adapted gradually. Meaning formed alongside output. Now output routinely outruns comprehension. Products change faster than users can update their mental model. Messaging shifts faster than trust can reattach. Internally, teams ship before shared understanding forms. Externally, customers notice movement but cannot explain what it means. Nothing explodes. Performance decays quietly. Inside companies, this shows up as motion without alignment. One team updates onboarding because it is easy. Another rewrites a core flow because it is easy. Support learns about both through confusion. No one did anything wrong. They just moved faster than the shared understanding of the product. Marketing feels this first. When copy becomes cheap, consistency becomes expensive. The feed fills up, but the audience cannot tell what you believe. Trust requires a stable shape. Without one, the customer has to work harder to understand you. Most customers do not. Outside the company, the pattern is subtle. A customer who once knew where to click and what to expect still likes the product, but stops exploring. Exploration requires confidence. Confidence depends on predictability. Predictability depends on meaning that stays still long enough to be learned. Most failures in an AI-accelerated environment look like hesitation, not mistakes. Users sense change without benefit. Expectations stop snapping into place. Speed turns into churn. Execution scales easily now. Understanding does not. You can parallelize production. Sense-making still depends on sequencing, narrative, and timing. Someone has to decide what matters, explain what changed, and repeat it until it sticks. That work feels slow because it is human work. It rarely looks impressive. It is still the work. The teams that win here will look conservative. They will ship less than their tools allow and more than their users can absorb. They will choose fewer changes and do the harder part of making those changes clear, repeatable, and trustworthy. Execution friction used to provide guardrails. As it fades, clarity has to replace it. Without clarity, progress continues while trust falls behind. Once trust slips, everything else slows, even if output never does. Speed is abundant now. Meaning is scarce.Hiten Shah · 2025/12/24
- 人们之所以等待许可，是因为他们以为会遇到阻力。 但现实是，大多数系统根本无人值守。 People wait for permission because they assume friction. In reality, most systems are unattended.Hiten Shah · 2025/12/23
- 还有一个值得点明的层面。 即便团队是出于善意在与客户沟通，大多数公司在结构上就让“真正的理解”难以长期维持。 激励机制在悄悄地惩罚它。 深度理解会制造摩擦。它会减慢推进速度，在领导最渴望确定性的时刻，引入不确定性和模糊性。 于是，系统会无声地教会员工：哪一类“客户洞察”是被接受的。 久而久之，人们会适应这一点，因为他们在观察—— 什么会被奖励，什么能通过评审。 真正的理解，很少给出干净利落的答案。它揭示的是权衡、二阶效应，以及一个更刺眼的问题：方向本身是否就是错的。 这种洞察是不方便的。它难以被压缩、被总结，往往在决策的中间层就被消解、被抹平。 这就是为什么，“理解客户”本质上是一个组织行为问题。 那些真正理解客户的公司，会刻意为“长期的不确定性”而设计组织。 他们比竞争对手更能容忍混乱，通过保护那些不合群、不顺耳的信号。 当数据“感觉不对”时，他们甚至愿意放慢决策速度——哪怕在外人看来这显得不理性。 而这，最终会成为他们的竞争优势。 One more layer that’s worth naming. Even when teams talk to customers with good intent, most companies structurally make understanding hard to sustain. The incentives quietly punish it. Deep understanding creates friction. It slows momentum and introduces ambiguity right when leadership wants certainty. So the system teaches people which kinds of “customer insight” are acceptable. Over time, people adapt because they’re paying attention to what gets rewarded. They learn what survives review. Real understanding rarely produces clean answers. It surfaces tradeoffs, second-order effects, and questions about whether the direction itself is wrong. That kind of insight is inconvenient. It doesn’t compress well. It often dies in the middle layers of decision-making. That’s why customer understanding is an organizational behavior problem. The companies that actually understand customers design for prolonged uncertainty. They tolerate confusion longer than competitors by protecting dissenting signals. They’ll even slow decisions when the data feels “off,” even if that looks irrational from the outside. This becomes their competitive advantage.Hiten Shah · 2025/12/23