Artist's co-founder warns that the biggest mistake founders make is building technology too early. Her team validated their text-based learning concept by manually texting early users, confirming the core hypothesis and user engagement before committing significant engineering resources.

The goal of early validation is not to confirm your genius, but to risk being proven wrong before committing resources. Negative feedback is a valuable outcome that prevents building the wrong product. It often reveals that the real opportunity is "a degree to the left" of the original idea.

Founders who've already built a product haven't missed the 'validation' window. The focus simply shifts from 'is there a problem?' to de-risking subsequent assumptions: Is the solution worthwhile? Will people pay enough? Can customers be acquired profitably? This process is ongoing, even at scale.

Large companies often identify an opportunity, create a solution based on an unproven assumption, and ship it without validating market demand. This leads to costly failures when the product doesn't solve a real user need, wasting millions of dollars and significant time.

For deep tech startups aiming for commercialization, validating market pull isn't a downstream activity—it's a prerequisite. Spending years in a lab without first identifying a specific customer group and the critical goal they are blocked from achieving is an enormous, avoidable risk.

Believing you must *convince* the market leads to a dangerous product strategy: building a feature-rich platform to persuade buyers. This delays sales, burns capital, and prevents learning. A "buyer pull" approach focuses on building the minimum product needed to solve one pre-existing problem.

Many founders become too attached to what they've built. The ability to unemotionally kill products that aren't working—even core parts of the business—is a superpower. This prevents wasting resources and allows for the rapid pivots necessary to find true product-market fit.

A common startup failure is building a solution for a problem that doesn't have meaningful pre-existing demand. This happens when founders start with a product vision instead of observing market pull. They arrive with a fully-built 'submarine' but find no 'water,' looking foolish for not checking for demand first.

While testing multiple customer profiles seems like de-risking, it's a "could work" strategy that dilutes focus and makes learning impossible. The better approach is to test segments sequentially, running a dedicated sprint for one "who would be weird not to buy" persona at a time.