“Recursive self-improvement has graduated from a safety paper to a shipping manifest.”
For years, “recursive self-improvement”—the idea of AI building better versions of itself—was a concept relegated to academic safety papers and late-night philosophy forums. It was a theoretical horizon event, something to be modeled, debated, and perhaps feared.
But this morning, the tone shifted. As noted in a briefing this morning from @alexwg, recursive self-improvement has graduated from a safety paper to a shipping manifest.
The evidence is tangible. Anthropic confirmed that their new “Claude Code” wrote the entire Claude Cowork desktop app in a mere week and a half. This isn’t just code completion; it is code creation at a structural level. More importantly, this app grants the AI direct access to the file system. It is no longer trapped in a chat window, floating in the abstract void of the cloud. It has touched down. It can sort downloads, generate reports, and effectively reorganize “local reality.”
Simultaneously, the definition of “colleague” is dissolving. The CEO of McKinsey dropped a quiet bombshell, revealing that the firm now counts AI agents as “people” that the firm “employs.” The current census? 40,000 humans and 20,000 agents. The goal is parity within 18 months.
We are witnessing a fundamental agentic shift. When a consultancy firm—the bastion of human capital and billable hours—begins to view synthetic agents not as tools (CAPEX) but as employees (OPEX), the psychological contract of work changes. We are moving away from a world where we use software to a world where we manage it.
The org chart is no longer a biological tree; it is becoming a hybrid network. The recursive loop isn’t coming; it’s already clocked in.
Note: the following post was largely generated by Google Gemini 2.5 Flash. I prompted Gemini to draft it after reading Simon Willison’s post about the Claude 4 Opus system prompt and being struck by the notion of us humans also having our versions of system cards. I asked Gemini to probe and explore that notion along with the related notion of how our life experiences constitute the human version of reinforcement learning. Rather than avoid the use of and being critical of using AI to write for me, I’m enjoying exploring and learning more about its capabilities!One thing is clear: Gemini 2.5 Flash seems to be an impressive new model!
Simon Willison’s recent dive into the Claude 4 Opus system prompt got me thinking. He dissects the meticulously crafted instructions that define Claude’s core behavior, its ethical guardrails, and its fundamental operational parameters. It’s a fascinating glimpse into how a complex AI is given its foundational “personality” and purpose. But as I read, a parallel began to emerge in my mind, one that brought me back to something far more organic and familiar: ourselves.
Could it be that what we, as humans, are taught and learn from our parents and primary caregivers is, in essence, our own unique, individual “system card”?
Think about it. From the moment we are born, we are immersed in a world of instruction, observation, and subtle conditioning. Our parents, whether consciously or unconsciously, are constantly programming us. They instill values: “Always be kind,” “Honesty is the best policy.” They teach us social norms: “Say please and thank you,” “Don’t interrupt.” They guide our understanding of the world: “Look both ways before crossing,” “Stranger danger.” They impart their wisdom, their fears, their hopes, and their biases, all of which become foundational layers in our burgeoning minds.
This isn’t merely about rote memorization or factual knowledge. It’s about the deep-seated principles that govern our reactions, our decision-making, and our very perception of reality. Just as Claude’s system prompt dictates its default tone and its approach to difficult queries, our upbringing shapes our inherent optimism or pessimism, our tendency towards introversion or extroversion, our inclination to trust or to be cautious.
Consider the parallels more closely. A system prompt aims for consistency and predictability in an AI’s behavior. Similarly, parents strive to create a stable and predictable environment for their children, instilling routines and expectations that foster a sense of security and belonging. This consistency helps to solidify the early “programming.”
The “ethical guardrails” in an AI system prompt are designed to prevent harmful or undesirable outputs. Our parents, too, establish ethical guardrails. They teach us right from wrong, the consequences of our actions, and the importance of empathy. These lessons, often reinforced through discipline and encouragement, become our internal compass, guiding us away from behaviors that could harm ourselves or others.
Furthermore, a system prompt often defines an AI’s learning parameters and its ability to adapt. Our upbringing isn’t a static, one-time download. It’s an ongoing process. As we grow, we continue to learn from our parents through their reactions to new situations, their advice on navigating challenges, and their own evolving perspectives. This continuous input refines and expands our internal “system card,” allowing us to adapt to new information and experiences.
Of course, the analogy isn’t perfect. We are not machines, and our development is infinitely more complex and nuanced than any AI’s. We possess free will, consciousness, and the capacity for self-reflection in ways that current AI cannot. Our “system card” is not a rigid, unchangeable code. It’s a living document, constantly being rewritten and revised by our own experiences, our peer interactions, our education, and our personal revelations.
Yet, the foundational layers laid down in childhood are undeniably powerful. They form the default settings, the initial operating system upon which all subsequent experiences are built. Think about how ingrained certain parental phrases or beliefs become. Even as adults, we might hear our own parents’ voices in our heads when faced with a difficult decision, or find ourselves automatically reacting in ways that mirror their habits.
Beyond the Prompt: The Lifelong Reinforcement Learning of Being Human
If our upbringing is our initial system card, then what about the rest of our lives? Here, the analogy to AI models becomes even more fascinating, specifically through the lens of reinforcement learning.
In reinforcement learning, an AI agent learns to make decisions by interacting with an environment, receiving “rewards” for desirable actions and “penalties” for undesirable ones. It’s a continuous feedback loop that refines the agent’s behavior over time, teaching it to achieve specific goals.
Doesn’t this sound strikingly similar to the human experience? Our formal education, from kindergarten to university, is a structured environment where we are rewarded for correct answers, for understanding concepts, and for demonstrating skills. Getting good grades, receiving praise from teachers, or excelling in a chosen field are all forms of positive reinforcement that shape our learning and our approach to intellectual challenges. Conversely, failing an exam or struggling with a subject provides negative feedback, prompting us to adjust our study habits or seek different approaches.
But it extends far beyond the classroom. Every social interaction, every career choice, every personal relationship is a mini-experiment in reinforcement learning. We try different communication styles, observe the reactions of others, and adjust our approach based on the outcome. A successful collaboration at work (reward) reinforces certain teamwork strategies. A relationship that falters (penalty) leads us to re-evaluate our emotional intelligence or our communication patterns. Even a simple act like trying a new recipe – if it’s delicious (reward), we’ll make it again; if it’s inedible (penalty), we learn what not to do.
This continuous stream of feedback, both positive and negative, constantly refines our “system card.” It strengthens certain neural pathways and weakens others. It allows us to adapt our initial programming to the ever-changing complexities of the world. We learn from our mistakes, not just intellectually, but at a deeper, almost instinctual level. The pain of a poor decision, the joy of a success, are powerful motivators that drive our personal “reinforcement learning” algorithm.
Think of it: Our early experiences are the initial dataset, our parents the initial trainers providing supervised learning. But then, as we venture out, we become our own agents in a vast, dynamic environment. We set our own goals, navigate unforeseen challenges, and receive a constant barrage of rewards and penalties, subtly (or sometimes not so subtly) adjusting our internal parameters. We optimize for happiness, for success, for connection, for meaning – whatever our individual “objective function” may be.
The beauty and the challenge of this human “system card” lie in its malleability. Unlike an AI whose prompt might be a fixed piece of code, ours is dynamic. We have the remarkable capacity to critically examine our early programming. We can identify limiting beliefs instilled in us and actively work to reframe them. We can challenge inherited biases and cultivate new perspectives. This introspection and intentional self-modification are what allow us to transcend our initial programming and forge truly unique identities. It’s our capacity for conscious reinforcement learning, where we can even choose which “rewards” and “penalties” we pay attention to, and which “policies” we decide to adopt.
This perspective also highlights the immense responsibility of parenthood. Every word, every action, every value conveyed, contributes to the shaping of a developing human being’s fundamental operating system. It’s a profound act of creation, far more intricate and impactful than any lines of code. And as we grow, the responsibility shifts, allowing us to become the agents of our own continuous learning and evolution.
Ultimately, the idea of our upbringing as a personal “system card” and our lifelong experiences as a form of reinforcement learning offers a compelling framework for understanding ourselves. It acknowledges the profound influence of our early environments while simultaneously celebrating our capacity for growth, adaptation, and self-determination. Just as AI developers meticulously craft prompts and then subject their models to iterative learning, our parents, with all their love and imperfections, craft the initial blueprint for who we become, and then life itself provides the ongoing, messy, and ultimately transformative training data. And that, in itself, is a truly remarkable feat of human design.
I’ve been experimenting with all of that available chatbots including Google’s Bard, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing Chat, and Anthropic’s Claude. A few days ago I was playing with Claude when I decided I’d try to learn more about multi-step prompting.
A recent video with Ethan Mollick emphasized that we tend to overemphasize initial prompts – looking for the “perfect prompt” – when what really adds value to a chatbot result isn’t the perfect initial prompt but rather the interaction you have with the chatbot. In other words, just like with an real intern, the conversational back and forth is what really adds to the learning and understanding from a session. I’ve begun applying this approach more regularly as I continue exploring these amazing new tools.
Below is the result of my back and forth conversation with Claude as I tried to learn more about the best practices for multistep prompting.
Introduction: The Power of Multistep Prompting
When conversing with Claude, you can get much more natural, detailed responses by using multistep prompts. This technique involves breaking down complex requests into multiple simpler follow-up prompts, rather than asking lengthy, dense questions all at once.
For example, instead of saying:
“Claude, can you tell me about the major battles of World War 2 fought by American troops in the European theater, with a focus on key events like the Normandy invasion?”
You would ask:
“Claude, what were the major battles American troops fought in during World War 2 in Europe?”
Then based on Claude’s initial response mentioning D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge you could ask focused follow-ups like:
“Can you provide more details on the D-Day invasion?”
“What happened at the Battle of the Bulge and why was it significant?”
This prompts Claude to provide more detailed, robust responses on a specific aspect of your original broad question. Chaining these bite-sized prompts together allows for a natural dialogue where you guide the conversation based on Claude’s replies.
The rest of this post will provide tips to help you get the most out of using multistep prompts to have engaging, productive conversations with Claude. Let’s get started!
Tip 1: Start with a Focused Initial Prompt
When first engaging Claude, begin with a clear, concise prompt setting the context. For example:
“Claude, can you recommend a good sci-fi movie from the last few years that has cool visual effects?”
Starting the conversation with a specific question about the type of movie you want gets better results than a vague prompt like “Let’s talk about movies.” It provides Claude with clear criteria to focus its initial response on recent sci-fi films with great special effects.
Tip 2: Ask One Question at a Time
Deconstruct big requests into individual follow-up prompts. Asking “What were the major events of WW2 and how did technology impact them?” overloads Claude. Instead try:
“What were the major events of WW2?”
“How did technology like radar and rockets impact these events?”
Simpler prompts allow more detailed, thoughtful responses from Claude.
Tip 3: Build on Previous Responses
Review Claude’s last response before asking your next prompt. For example:
You: “Who were Apple’s founders?”
Claude: “Apple was founded in 1976 by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne.”
You: “What specific contributions did Steve Wozniak make to Apple?”
This builds a logical flow and conversation.
Tip 4: Clarify When Confused
If Claude’s response doesn’t make sense, politely ask for clarification before moving on:
You: “What was the impact of Midway on WW2?”
Claude: “The Battle of Midway enabled the Allies to gain the upper hand in the Pacific theater.”
You: “I don’t understand how Midway gave the Allies an advantage. Can you explain that more clearly?”
Don’t just accept unclear responses. Ask follow ups to get back on track.
Tip 5: Change Direction Based on Responses
Let Claude’s replies guide where you take the conversation next…
Tip 6: Periodically Summarize Key Facts
Restating important details helps ensure Claude stays on topic. For example:
You: “Can you tell me about the first airplane flight?”
Claude provides response.
You: “So the Wright brothers flew for the first time in 1903 in Kitty Hawk. What happened next in early aviation?”
Summarizing facts focuses the dialogue and confirms Claude’s understanding.
Tip 7: Keep Conversations 3-5 Prompts Long
Try to complete conversations within 3-5 focused prompts. For example:
Prompt 1: Ask for book recommendations
Prompt 2: Clarify if you want fiction or non-fiction books
Prompt 3: Ask for more details on a specific recommended book
Prompt 4: Thank Claude and end the conversation
While more than 5 exchanges often indicates a disjointed or unclear goal, I often end with a final prompt to the effect of “Is there anything else I should know or try to understand?” In other words, remember perhaps there’s “one more thing!”
Tip 8: Wrap Up with a Summary
End conversations by asking Claude to summarize its overall response:
You: “Can you please summarize the key points you mentioned about World War 2?”
This provides a clean conclusion to the dialogue.
Tip 9: Provide Feedback if Responses Seem Off
If Claude seems confused or makes incorrect statements, politely clarify to improve its training:
You: “I asked about D-Day, but your response seems to be about a different battle. Can you please double check your information about D-Day?”
This constructive input helps Claude improve.
Tip 10: Practice Makes Perfect
Have fun practicing multistep conversations on topics like movies, recipes, sports, current events, trivia, and product recommendations. The more you use prompts and follow-ups, the more natural conversations will become.
Taking It to the Next Level: Advanced Multistep Prompting
While effective for everyday conversations, multistep prompts can also enable advanced, niche uses of Claude you may not have considered:
Foreign Language Translation – Claude has some ability to translate between languages when you provide context. Try prompts like:
“Claude, can you translate this Spanish phrase into English: ‘¿Cómo estás?'”
Poetry – Claude can generate original poetry if you guide it. Prompt it to start a poem, suggest a topic, and refine the wording.
Research Assistance – Ask Claude to find and summarize information on obscure topics:
“Claude, can you research the ancient Sumerian civilization and summarize their key achievements?”
Creative Writing – Claude can craft short stories if you provide plot points and characters. Slowly build up a narrative through prompts.
Joke Telling – Give Claude a topic and have it come up with witty, original jokes through multistep exchanges.
Troubleshooting – Walk through a technical problem by describing symptoms and responding to Claude’s follow-up questions.
The possibilities are endless when you get creative with prompts! The key is providing context and steering the conversation to get Claude’s best work.
Conclusion: The Key is Conversation
The core takeaway is that multistep prompting allows for genuine back-and-forth conversation with Claude. Start applying these tips to your prompts and soon you’ll be chatting with Claude like an old friend! I’d love to hear of any other multistep best practices you discover. Now go have some fun conversations with Claude or your other favorite chatbot!