# Next 18 months - Path 1 vs Path 2 Let’s talk about career paths. I need to take 4 courses before I can graduate and I have choice of spreading the load in next 18 months, or 12 months or just 6 months. 6 month likely means Sprited gets near zero focus. 12 month is restrictive. 18 month, I am making a bet. --- ## Path 1 — Graduate ASAP, ride the hot market * Compress coursework * Enter market while demand for AI talent is high * Optimize for: * Compensation * Wealth accumulation * Stability * Sprited = nights/weekends, optional upside * Identity = senior AI engineer / staff / EM-track This is high-certainty, high-liquidity path. ## Path 2 — 1.5 year Sprited Runway + Graduate * One course per term * Primary focus = Sprited * Clear runway end date (~18 months) * Two possible outcomes: * Financing / revenue → salary * No traction → Job search * Identity = founder-builder first, employee second This is the high-optionality, high-variance path. Neither is irresponsible, They just optimize different things. --- ## Checks ### 1\. Future Regret * If you choose Path 1, will you regret it at 50? → Probably yes. * If you choose Path 2 and Sprited fails after 18 months, will you regret it at 50? → Less likely. ### 2\. Recoverability * If Path 2 fails, what happens? → I still have MSAI, prior senior experience, real systems and ML work, a concrete founder story. I will re-enter the market slightly later. Not locked out forever. * If Path 1 succeeds, great but I will not be able to recreate uninterrupted founder runway again. Golden handcuffs kick in fast. Recoverability is much higher from Path 2 to Path 1 than the reverse. ### 3\. Market Timing Yes, the AI job market is hot now. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: * You can’t perfectly time markets * The “hot window” narrative is often overstated. * Strong candidates with real systems experience are employable across cycles. Meanwhile: * Founder time windows are personal, not market-driven. * Your energy, clarity, and life alignment right now are rare. Market timing matters — but less than people think, especially at your level. ### 4\. Financial Downside Let’s be precise. Path 1 downside: * Low financial risk * High opportunity cost * Long-term regret risk Path 2 downside: * Explicit, bounded cost: ~18mo, 150k-200k burn * Upside: company, financing, or stronger job positioning Path 2 has a known maximum loss. Path 1 has an unknown long-term regret cost. --- If I am going to take that Path 2, I will only take one course per semester. * 2026 Spring - ML * 2026 Summer - Ethics in AI * 2026 Fall - AI in Healthcare * 2027 Spring - Some other course Or I could also do: * 2026 Spring - ML, AI in Healthcare * 2026 Summar - Ethics in AI * 2026 Fall - Some other course --- ## So, what’s the plan? The plan is to build Sprited within 18 month timeframe (from 1/13/2026 to 7/13/2027). During that time, I will take 1 course a semester including Summer. I will take ML since that is prerequisite to others. --- ## Quarter by Quarter Planning 2026 Q1 - SpriteDX Release (Musk-style) with Accounts and Billing, 10 users. 2026 Q2 - Machi Prototype, VC Outreach, Co-founder Search, 100 users. 2026 Q3 - SpriteDX 1000 users, Machi Online - Proof of Concept, VC outreach. 2026 Q4 - Funding. 2027 Q1 - Machi Release. 2027 Q2 - Machi - 1000 users. --- ## Provisions * If big financial event occur, we reevaluate using the spreadsheet. * Cap yearly burn (living, etc) at $100k. * If no financial promise (verbal funding potential, or revenue) is seen at the end of 2026 Q4, 2027 quarters will accelerate to job hunt. * Escape hatch framing: “I took a planned two-year window to build an AI product from first principles while completing my MSAI, then decided to return to industry with much sharper judgment around ML systems.” --- ## Immediate Next Steps * Drop 3 out of the courses out of 4 for this semester. — Sprited Dev 🐛