The Weakest Link

harder, better, faster, stronger

Builder clubs are valuable spaces for experimentation and community. My reflections below come from wanting to help them reach their full potential.

I recently hosted a builder club for one of the world’s largest AI companies, supporting their growth in the UK. The room was buzzing with curiosity about what frontier tools can enable. Yet beneath the excitement, I noticed a recurring pattern that reflects a broader challenge across many grassroots technical programmes.

Builder clubs, especially those designed for social scientists or participants with limited technical backgrounds, work best when creativity is paired with meaningful technical oversight. Without that foundation, helping participants turn ideas into working prototypes becomes difficult. “Vibe coding” through natural language prompting has lowered the barrier to experimentation, but it hasn’t removed the need for guidance. Building software is a high-touch process. A builder club should feel like a laboratory, not a zero-sum competition.

I observed a phenomenon common to the current wave of builder clubs. The judges awarded the top prize to the idea deemed “most impactful”, despite the idea effectively being a sci-fi fantasy: an AI assistant that could supposedly view a CCTV feed and answer queries like, “When did my kids come home last night?” The hosting AI company cannot publicly support this functionality. Rewarding this signalled that selling a dream mattered more than actually building.

When incentives tilt this way, participants optimise for the pitch rather than the product. A space built for learning becomes theatre. The goal should be to help participants bring their ideas to life; to understand what current tools can and cannot do, and how to move from prototype to product. Materialisation is key, as without it, I’d be better off pitching to Christopher Nolan.

Feedback, or the lack of it, is another challenge. During events, it’s minimal; after events, it’s usually non-existent. For builder clubs to serve as engines of growth, feedback must be central. Peer feedback rarely suffices, as participants are not representative users for one another. To turn creative bursts into a continuum of development, effective feedback loops are essential. Without them, participants are building in a vacuum.

The most critical challenge lies in the human infrastructure around these programmes. Many organisations rely on ambassador networks to run local initiatives. This creates a classic principal–agent problem: the organisation wants genuine engagement and learning, while ambassadors may optimise for status or visibility. Without governance, these intermediaries can inadvertently become gatekeepers, filtering out critical feedback and distancing participants from the source. This reduces transparency and trust, ultimately eroding brand equity. A better model requires flattening the hierarchy; connecting builders directly with the organisation and product team who build the tools.

So what does a better model look like?

For corporations investing in grassroots initiatives, the responsibility extends beyond providing merchandise or refreshments. Participants are investing their time and attention; in return, the organisation should invest in the conditions that enable genuine learning; namely, placing technically capable staff in the room to help bridge the gap between prompt and prototype. Without this infrastructure, programmes can inadvertently incentivise mediocrity.

For academic institutions, you are at an inflection point where disciplines are converging. “Builder clubs” that promote human flourishing over corporate metrics should be at the heart of the mission. Hosting them in-house allows domain knowledge to materialise in novel ways. Corporate stakeholders can help you get there, but the direction of inquiry and innovation should not be outsourced. We need leaders, not just logos. Retain your intellectual sovereignty.

Builder clubs are not where foundational technologies are built. They serve a different purpose: helping those with limited technical backgrounds understand what’s possible, and how to collaborate effectively with technical teams. Done well, they can improve the overall quality of thinking about technology.

My hope is that builder clubs continue to evolve into places where creativity and capability meet: environments where ideas don’t just inspire, they materialise. All stakeholders should aim to strengthen the ecosystem rather than introduce friction to it. When the incentive structures align, builder clubs can become powerful catalysts for innovation.