Article
I often talk about my mistakes, wrong approaches, and lessons learned in my blog posts. Whether it is making purely result-oriented decisions, juggling too many tasks at once, misunderstanding AI, or delaying investments, I have made plenty of errors. I have also stumbled in more profound areas, like my worldview and understanding of our ability to know things. And let us not forget my social skills and communication blunders. As you can see, the list is long.
When it comes to dealing with mistakes publicly, I see people generally fall into two camps, with some in between but tending towards one side or the other.
One extreme is the person who tries to appear flawless. When they make a mistake, they look for blame everywhere but themselves and only admit fault when they have no other choice. I know several people like this, both professionally and personally. Honestly, during my teenage years, I was closer to this type. I wrote about this a few years ago.
On the other end is the person who, when faced with a mistake, first asks what they could have done better. They look inward. For example, if a new team member does not meet expectations, the department head might reflect on whether they could have provided better guidance, improved onboarding, or made a better hiring choice. The point of this post could be that now i tend to think more like this.
Continue reading
Enter your email to unlock this article and join the newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
Why treat every non-optimal decision as a mistake?
What is the difference between judging decisions by outcomes versus by process?
Who is Martin Kabrhel and why is his thinking relevant?
How does treating mistakes this way accelerate personal growth?
Is this approach consistent with Carol Dweck's growth mindset research?
Is this mindset realistic or does it lead to excessive self-criticism?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
More articles
Europe does not have the capacity to face a full-scale, mass drone war of the kind we see in Ukraine. Three dependencies weaken it: China supplies the physical material for defence systems, the United States supplies capabilities Europe does not have, and twenty-seven states cannot agree how fast, or who pays. Rearmament plans exist, but they are being carried out slowly.
AI produces the graphic, the newsletter and the product page faster than a person. What is left for the one who used to do it is the judgement — knowing whether the output is good. But most people have worse judgement than AI. And whoever cannot judge quality cannot delegate either. How do you tell whether yours is the judgement a company relies on, or the kind it can replace?
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing — the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.