> "Having the courage to go on when nobody believes in you"

If you're doing something that isn't like how people are used to things being done, is novel, or is contra to common beliefs, there's a good chance that nobody will believe in you. And in such situations, their lack of belief is not a reliable indicator of whether what you're doing is valid or correct. Most people's negative responses in such cases are emotional responses, not rational ones.

In such situations, "Being honest with themselves about whether what they are doing is actually working or not" and "Having the courage to go on when nobody believes in you" are not opposites.

Not if you're perfectly able to differentiate which things will eventually succeed rather than will always fail! The best strategy for "winning in the age of AI" is "be able to predict the future with perfect accuracy", which at least anecdotally quite a lot of people lately seem to think they are able to do lately.

Probably not so different from past hype cycles, except maybe this time it will be different!

There's a difference.

The first is getting market feedback.

The second is just getting opinions.

Not quite. Optimism about where you are going doesn't conflict with being able to accurately assess where you currently are.

It does require you to think carefully about what constitutes validation or invalidation of your ideas, though.

No, they're actually the same thing: making an honest assessment of reality. In the first case you're doing so to prevent self-delusion. In the second you're doing so to prevent others from clouding your judgment.

Not really. You can be honest about something working and others can disagree with your assessment.