Skip to content

In the AI Era, Taste Is an Amplifier

Aug 20, 2026 1 min
TL;DR AI pushes execution cost toward zero. People with good taste create more value; people with poor taste create more garbage. The difference is not whether you can use AI, but whether your mind contains something worth amplifying before you use it. This series documents my attempt to sharpen judgment systematically.
Table of Contents
  1. Taste Is Not a Gift
  2. 31 Dimensions
    1. Fundamentals: Understanding the Thing
    2. People and Markets: Understanding Humans
    3. Consequences: Looking Farther
    4. Superstructure: Taste About Taste
    5. The Founder's View: YC Heuristics
    6. Marketing and Perception: How It Gets Seen
    7. The AI Era: A New Blind Spot
  3. How This Series Works
  4. References
Series: 品味修煉 (1 / 1)

🌏 中文版

Once tools drive execution costs extremely low, differences do not shrink. They expand.

Give AI to someone with taste and they can realize ideas that previously exceeded their capacity. Give the same tools to someone without taste and they merely produce mediocrity faster and at greater volume. AI is an amplifier, not a generator: it magnifies what you already have. It does not conjure what is missing.

Seeing a good design and immediately thinking, "I'll use AI to make something like that," reveals your position. A person with taste asks: Why is this good? What problem does it solve? What can I learn from it? Can I make something better?

The question, then, is whether taste can be trained.

Taste Is Not a Gift

Japanese creative director Manabu Mizuno, who designed Kumamon, defines taste as knowing what is ordinary. Broad exposure establishes a baseline; taste is the ability to depart from it. It is accumulated knowledge, not talent.

Paul Graham's 2002 essay Taste for Makers listed fourteen properties of good design: simplicity, solving the right problem, and looking easy despite being difficult. In 2021, Is There Such a Thing as Good Taste? argued by contradiction: if taste does not exist, good art does not exist and artists cannot be good at their work—an obviously false conclusion.

Manager Today makes the idea more operational: taste combines pattern recognition—exposure that builds an ordinary-versus-excellent baseline—with creating and defending criteria. Explain why, accept objections, and update the standard. Taste is not preference itself. It is sensitivity to quality differences and a willingness to revise judgment.

If you are willing to be contradicted, your taste improves. If you are not, you are performing taste.

31 Dimensions

Taste is not one faculty but a combination of judgments. I compared eleven frameworks from Paul Graham, Shreyas Doshi, Julie Zhuo, Logan Lincoln, NN/g, Intercom, and PostHog; design psychology from Don Norman and Christopher Alexander; YC's startup judgment from Kevin Hale, Michael Seibel, Dalton Caldwell, Garry Tan, and Peter Thiel; Steve Jobs and Jony Ive's design philosophy; and marketing theory from Rory Sutherland, Byron Sharp, and April Dunford. The result is 31 independently trainable dimensions in eight layers.

No essay uses all of them. Each selects the two or three most relevant dimensions. This table is a scanning checklist, not an exam.

Fundamentals: Understanding the Thing

DimensionQuestion
CraftIs it well made? Do the details hold up?
EmpathyWhat does it feel like to be that user? Not requirement analysis—inhabiting the experience.
Domain knowledgeHow well do you know the field? If you do not understand it, do not judge it.
InstinctIn the first half-second: "wow" or "hmm"?
CareDid they care even where nobody looks? Is the back of the fence painted?
DelightIs there sustained, playful pleasure, not just a first-second wow?

Craft examines construction, empathy the experience, and domain knowledge the prerequisite. Intercom's Paul Adams states it plainly: taste is domain-specific; there is no universal good judgment.

Instinct differs from craft: polished but lifeless and rough but magnetic are different cases. Care also differs from craft: Jobs would reject a beautiful surface hiding chaos beneath it. Ive argued that what people do when nobody sees proves what they truly care about. Delight unfolds over time: the iMac's color could make entering the office pleasant every day, not only during unboxing.

People and Markets: Understanding Humans

DimensionQuestion
Human natureWhat human need does it capture? Why will people use, buy, and stay?
Against human natureWhat impulse does it deliberately resist, and why? A savings app may make withdrawals difficult.
EthicsAt scale, does it make the world better or worse?
MarketIs the timing right? Who wins structurally? Where is the moat?
Signal perceptionWhat does it communicate before use—packaging, weight, unboxing?

Someone who sees only craft can be a critic. Someone who also reads human nature and markets can build products. Ben Thompson's Aggregation Theory is the cleanest framework for internet market structure. Signal perception comes from the third principle in Apple's 1977 Marketing Philosophy, Impute: people judge by appearance, so presentation shapes perception.

Consequences: Looking Farther

DimensionQuestion
SystemsSix months later, what becomes easier and what becomes harder?
Second-order effectsAsk "and then what?" three times.
InversionDo not ask how it succeeds; ask how it dies.
First principlesWhat is true at the lowest level? Recalculate from raw materials.
Superlinear thinkingIs the return curve convex? Does it compound?
Experience over timeOn day 1, 30, and 365, does the experience deepen or decay?

These tools point in six directions: systems outward, second order forward, inversion backward from the end, first principles downward, superlinearity toward curve shape, and time experience across unfolding use. In Farnam Street's collection of Munger models, inversion is among the best ways to kill bad bets. Gary Klein's HBR premortem—assume failure and work backward—improved the ability to identify future causes of failure by 30%. Paul Graham's Superlinear Returns notes that people think linearly although the most important results are superlinear.

Superstructure: Taste About Taste

DimensionQuestion
RestraintWill you remove a feature that looks reasonable?
CultureWhat should feel familiar, and what must be distinctive?
CreativityBeyond judging, what new solution can you invent?
CoherenceDo all parts tell one story? Would removing any part weaken it?
CalibrationNot "I think it works," but "35% chance; seeing X changes my view."

Restraint asks whether you can choose not to build; culture whether you can avoid copying; creativity whether you can do more than judge; coherence whether the whole exceeds its parts; calibration whether you can face the quality of your own judgment. Julie Zhuo's The Tax of New says every new feature carries a hidden tax, and removing a failed feature is harder than launching it. Coherence follows Christopher Alexander's Quality Without a Name: if removing a part does not weaken the whole, that part did not belong.

The Founder's View: YC Heuristics

DimensionQuestion
Schlep blindnessWhat valuable but annoying problem are you unconsciously avoiding?
Contrarian judgmentIs this an idea that looks bad but is good, or a tarpit?
HandworkWill you do ugly, unscalable work?
ObsessionCan you truly not stop, or are you merely interested?
Independent thoughtCan your thinking produce a non-consensus conclusion?

These come from Paul Graham's essays and YC partners' frameworks. Schlep Blindness: Stripe succeeded because others avoided payments infrastructure. Black Swan Farming: the best startup ideas initially look bad. Do Things That Don't Scale: Airbnb knocked on doors. Bus Ticket Theory: great work comes from unstoppable obsession. How to Think for Yourself: are you independent or conventional?

Marketing and Perception: How It Gets Seen

DimensionQuestion
Perceptual reframingCan you leave the thing unchanged and alter the frame of experience?
Mental availabilityWill people remember you when the need arises?
Positioning judgmentWhich arena should you enter? Which frame makes value clearest?

Rory Sutherland's central argument in Alchemy is that 10% of the cost of changing reality can sometimes achieve 100% of the perceptual effect. Uber's map does not shorten a wait; it shortens the anxiety of waiting. Byron Sharp's How Brands Grow argues that growth comes from mental availability—the quality and quantity of memory structures—rather than differentiation. April Dunford's Obviously Awesome shows that the same product placed in a different category triggers different expectations. Positioning is the first marketing step, not the last.

The AI Era: A New Blind Spot

DimensionQuestion
Detecting cognitive surrenderAre you thinking, or merely approving AI output?

The model proposes, frames, recommends, and drafts; the human approves without contributing independent thought. If you cannot defend the decision without the model's language, you have not finished thinking.

How This Series Works

Each essay selects one object—a product, design decision, technical choice, or market phenomenon—and examines it through two or three dimensions. The structure stays fixed:

  1. What it is: the object and the problem it solves.
  2. My judgment: thesis first; state the conclusion.
  3. Analysis: support the judgment through two or three named dimensions and concrete scenes or decisions.
  4. Extract the principle: one sentence to carry away.
  5. Self-calibration: return after three months and ask whether the judgment was right.

The fifth step matters most. Taste grows not from making judgments but from verifying them later. Annie Duke explains that a good outcome is not the same as a good decision. Separating result quality from decision quality requires honest calibration, not more confidence.

This is therefore not a review series. It is a public, falsifiable training log for judgment.

Every essay practices the same thing: see an object, form a clear judgment, state it, and wait for reality to calibrate it.


References

Taste methodology

Markets and consequences

YC startup judgment

Marketing and perception

Design psychology