>Conclusion : ideas are worthless, Execution is key

This was also often the conclusion found during the Dark Ages. ;D

Hahahaha Spanish Inquisition likes this

May I suggest a rephrasing for that?

Execution can bring profit. Ideas might not.

History is full of examples of visionaries coming up with ideas that have inspired and fueled others--in some cases whole industries have been founded on these ideas. For instance, Doug Engelbart gave the "Mother of All Demos" in 1968 [1]. It was a proof of concept, but the ideas he talked about were implemented by other companies--who profited from it.

It is unfortunate that we live in a world where ideas hold such little monetary value, but they're most certainly not worthless.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY&t=4s

I dunno, makes sense to me. Your idea is worthless to ones self (monetary) if you do not leverage/execute it.

Of course you need both execution and ideas.

But let's say you have very good ideas but you're a mediocre executioner.

1. Could you find a very lucrative job/partnership mostly because of your ideas, and get quality help with the execution ? It's possible.

2. Ideas are easy to steal. Do you have a decent strategy to prevent that from happening ? Those sometimes exist.

3. Not every business sucseeds. Can you try repeatedly ? Maybe, depending on context.

"Ideas are unlikely to have any immediate monetary value until they are executed" is more accurate, but doesn't roll off the tongue so easily.

AT&T had advertisements that said "You Will"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Will

I was always confused as to why they'd spend money on vaporware advertising, since I don't think they were responsible for doing any of the things.

Bell Labs was responsible for much of the underlying technology, and these applications had been foreseen. But they were undoubtedly deluded about their ability to deliver those applications.

"Branding"

I get why they spent money on vaporware advertising.

But I don't get why there's no modern equivalent. No one seems to be making equivalent statements about technology that's 20-30 years away from today.

There are vague hints that AI and QC will somehow be awesome, but they're very light on specifics.

It's interesting how we got from the forward-looking 90s to the backward-looking 20s.

To be fair, many of those came to fruition over AT&T's network, until you hit your monthly data and FAX cap

Directed by David Fincher!

And in what universe is great execution devoid of ideas?

Do you mean to say that doing something well is way better than imagining doing something well?

Doing something well means you already imagined doing something well first. Or, in other words, "imagining doing something well" is necessary, but not sufficient to actually do something well.

Coming up with an idea for something, and then sharing this idea with other people in an open manner, can plant the seed that germinates the execution for that idea.

To me, that's part of the reason why thought pieces are valuable to me. Also, unconventional tracks at academic conferences, like provocations at DIS 2020 [1] (which I cite here since it's on my mind because I'm personally applying to it right now).

[1]: http://dis.acm.org/2020/provocations.html

I mean, you're not wrong, but at the same time whether you call it "imagining" or "coming up with ideas", if done well the results of said process are valuable.

Ie. Good ideas are valuable

One should also consider that good ideas usually come out of having a lot of domain knowledge in a particular area. And that requires effort and work ("execution" but in the past).