Tag: artificial intelligence

Categories
AI

Digital Optimus and the End of Friction

We often imagine the arrival of the “universal robot” as a clanking metal biped walking through our front door, carrying laundry or folding dishes. We think of the physical Optimus first. But while we were watching the hardware, a quieter, perhaps more profound revolution has been brewing in the software.

Elon Musk recently spoke about “Digital Optimus.” The concept is deceptively simple: an AI agent capable of doing anything on a computer that a human can do.

For decades, automation was brittle. If you wanted a computer to talk to another computer, you needed an API—a rigid handshake agreement between software engineers. If a button moved three pixels to the right, the automation broke. We built brittle bridges over the chaotic rivers of our user interfaces.

“It implies an AI that doesn’t need to look at the code behind the website; it looks at the screen, just like you and I do.”

Digital Optimus changes the physics of this environment. It interprets pixels, understands context, and drives the mouse and keyboard with the same fluidity as a human hand. This is a shift from integration to agency.

There is something undeniably eerie about the prospect. We are approaching a moment where the cursor on your screen might start moving with a purpose that isn’t yours, executing tasks you’ve merely delegated. It is the decoupling of intent from action.

For the longest time, the computer was a bicycle for the mind—a tool that amplified our pedaling. With Digital Optimus, the bicycle becomes a motorcycle, or perhaps a self-driving car. We stop pedaling. We simply point to the destination.

The implications for the future of work are staggering, not because the AI is “thinking” better, but because it is finally “doing” seamlessly. The drudgery of copy-pasting between spreadsheets, the endless clicking through procurement forms, the navigational tax of modern digital life—these are the jobs of the Digital Optimus.

We are entering an era where our value as humans will not be defined by our ability to navigate the interface, but by our ability to define the destination. The screen is no longer a barrier; it is a canvas, and for the first time, we aren’t the only ones holding the brush.

Categories
AI Living Productivity

The Reality Gap

“I follow AI adoption pretty closely, and I have never seen such a yawning inside/outside gap. People in SF are putting multi-agent claudeswarms in charge of their lives… people elsewhere are still trying to get approval to use Copilot in Teams.” — Kevin Roose

There is a specific kind of vertigo that comes from scrolling through the “Inside” of the AI bubble while the rest of the world simply goes to work. It is the dizziness of watching a new species of behavior emerge—”wireheading” and “claudeswarms”—while the vast majority of the economy is still asking for permission to use a spellchecker.

The future isn’t just unevenly distributed; it is becoming mutually unintelligible.

Roose notes a “yawning inside/outside gap” that feels distinct from previous tech cycles. In one reality—geographically centered in San Francisco and digitally centered in specific discords—people are operating with a level of agency only sci-fi writers dared to imagine. They are deploying multi-agent swarms to manage their lives and consulting large language models for existential guidance.

In the other reality—the one inhabited by the vast majority of the global workforce—people are still waiting for an IT ticket to clear so they can use a basic productivity assistant.

It is tempting to look at this divide solely through the lens of technical access, but Roose hits on a deeper truth: “there seems to be a cultural takeoff happening in addition to the technical one.”

This is the friction of our current moment. It is not just that the tools are different; the permissions we give ourselves to use them are different. The “Inside” is operating with a mindset of radical experimentation and integration. The “Outside” is operating within legacy frameworks of risk mitigation and bureaucratic approval.

The danger of this gap isn’t just economic inequality, though that is a guaranteed downstream effect. The immediate danger is a loss of shared context. When the creators of technology live in a reality where “claudeswarms” run the day, they risk losing the ability to design for, or even empathize with, a world that is still fighting for permission to use the tools at all.

We are living in the same year, but we are no longer inhabiting the same time. The challenge for those of us on the “Inside” is to resist the intoxication of the bubble long enough to build bridges, rather than just building faster escape pods.

Meanwhile, in China (from the Financial Times)…

“I’ve witnessed first hand how China has grown from having zero AI talent 20 years ago to mass producing them,” he said. “Some of our most cutting-edge work is now done by fresh graduates. The real geniuses to change the world soon could well be among them.”

Categories
AI

The Second Fire: From Finding to Forming

There is a specific kind of vertigo that comes with a paradigm shift. It’s the feeling of standing on the edge of a map that has just been unrolled to reveal twice as much territory as you thought existed. Lately, as I navigate the vast, generative landscape of AI, that old vertigo has returned. It’s a hauntingly familiar resonance, a structural echo of the late nineties and early 2000s when we first encountered the Google search bar.

Back then, the world was a series of closed doors. Information was siloed in physical libraries, expensive encyclopedias, or the unreliable oral histories of our social circles. Then came that clean, white interface with a single blinking cursor. Suddenly, the friction of “not knowing” began to evaporate. We weren’t just browsing the web; we were suddenly endowed with a collective memory. It felt like a superpower—the ability to summon any fact from the digital ether in milliseconds.

“Google is not just a search engine; it is a way of life. It is the way we find out who we are, where we are going, and what we are doing.”

Today, the sensation is different in texture but identical in weight. If Google gave us the power to find, AI is giving us the power to form.

The “Aha!” moment of 2026 isn’t about locating a PDF or a Wikipedia entry; it’s the realization that the distance between a thought and its realization has shrunk to almost nothing. When I prompt a model to synthesize a complex theory or visualize a dream, I feel that same electric jolt I felt twenty years ago when I realized I’d never have to wonder about a trivia fact ever again.

But there is a philosophical weight to this new “awesome.” With Google, the challenge was discernment—filtering the flood of information to find the truth. With AI, the challenge is intent. When the “how” becomes effortless, the “why” becomes the only thing that matters. We are moving from the era of the Librarian to the era of the Architect.

We are once again holding a new kind of fire. It’s warm, it’s brilliant, and just like the first time we saw that search bar, we know that the world we lived in yesterday is gone, replaced by a version where our reach finally matches our imagination.

Categories
AI Software

The Thermodynamics of Thought

For the last two decades, we have lived in the era of zero marginal cost. The defining characteristic of the internet age was that once software was written, distributing it to the billionth user cost virtually the same as distributing it to the first. We grew accustomed to the economics of abundance—infinite copies, infinite reach, lightweight infrastructure.

But the recent commentary regarding the true nature of Artificial Intelligence forces a jarring mental correction:

“AI is not software riding on old infrastructure. It is a new industrial system that converts energy into intelligence – requiring a capital stack measured in trillions, not billions.”

This distinction is not merely semantic; it is physical.

When we view AI through the lens of traditional SaaS (Software as a Service), we miss the magnitude of the shift. We are looking for an app; what is being built is a refinery. We are witnessing a return to heavy industry, but the commodity being refined isn’t crude oil—it is information, and the byproduct is reasoning.

This requires us to think less in terms of code and more in terms of thermodynamics. In this new industrial system, intelligence is an energy-intensive output. Every token generated, every inference drawn, requires a specific, measurable conversion of electricity into heat and computation. Unlike the static code of a website, an AI model is a furnace. It must be fueled constantly.

This explains the capital stack. We are seeing numbers that seem irrational in the context of venture capital—trillions, not billions. But if you view a data center not as a server farm, but as a power plant that generates intelligence, the numbers align with historical precedents. We are not funding startups; we are funding the modern equivalent of the electric grid, the transcontinental railroad, or the petrochemical complex.

We are pouring concrete, smelting copper, and manufacturing silicon on a planetary scale. The “cloud” was always a misleading metaphor—it sounded fluffy and ethereal. The reality of the AI transition is heavy, hot, and incredibly expensive.

We are moving from an era where we organized the world’s information (low energy) to an era where we synthesize new reasoning (high energy). We are building a machine that eats electricity and excretes intelligence. That isn’t a software update; that is a new industrial revolution.

Categories
AI Robotics

Breaking the Glass: When Intelligence enters the Physical World

For the last forty years, our relationship with digital intelligence has been trapped behind glass. From the beige box of the personal computer to the sleek slab of the iPhone, we have accessed information through a window. We stare at intelligence; it stares back, passive and disembodied. We ask it questions, and it flashes text on a screen. But it has no hands. It has no agency. It cannot pour a glass of water or comfort a child.

As Phil Beisel astutely notes, we are standing on the precipice of a profound phase shift:

“Optimus marks the moment intelligence leaves the screen and enters the physical world at scale.”

This isn’t just about a “better robot.” It is the convergence of three exponential curves crashing into one another: AI software capability, custom silicon efficiency, and electromechanical dexterity. When you multiply these factors, you don’t just get a machine; you get a new category of being. We are moving from “compressed book learning”—the LLMs that can write poetry but can’t lift a pencil—to embodied intelligence that understands physics, gravity, and fragility.

The Pluribus Moment

The philosophical implication of this transition is staggering. We are building a “Pluribus” entity—a hive mind where individual learning becomes collective capability instantly.

In the human world, if I learn to play the violin, you do not. I must teach you, and you must struggle for years to master it. In the world of Optimus, if one unit learns to solder a circuit or perform a specific surgery, the entire fleet learns it overnight. The friction of skill transfer drops to zero.

The End of Scarcity

Elon Musk calls this the “infinite money glitch,” a sterile economic term for what is actually a humanitarian revolution: the decoupling of labor from human time. If the machine can replicate human movement and action 24/7, the cost of labor effectively trends toward zero. We often fear this as “replacement,” but looked at through a lens of abundance, it is the collapse of scarcity.

We are watching the birth of a world where the physical limitations that have defined the human condition—exhaustion, injury, the slow grind of mastering a craft—are solved by a proxy that we built. Intelligence is no longer a ghost in the machine; it is the machine itself, walking among us, ready to work.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models AI: Prompting

Liquid Software and the Death of the “User”

There is a profound disconnect in how we talk about Artificial Intelligence right now. In the boardrooms of legacy corporations, AI is a “strategy” to be committee-reviewed—a tentative toe-dip into efficiency. But on the ground, among the “AI natives,” something entirely different is happening. AI isn’t just making the old work faster; it is fundamentally changing the texture of what we build and how we think.

In a recent conversation, Reid Hoffman and Parth Patil explored this shift, and the metaphor that struck me most was the idea of software becoming “liquid.”

The Era of Liquid Software

For decades, we have treated software like furniture. We buy a CRM, a project management tool, or an analytics dashboard. It is rigid, finished, and distinct from us. We are the users; it is the tool. But Patil demonstrates a different reality: one where he drops a folder of raw CSV files into an agent like Claude Code and asks it to “look at the data and build me a dashboard.”

Sixty seconds later, he has a fully functional, interactive HTML dashboard. He didn’t buy it. He didn’t spend three weeks coding it. He simply willed it into existence for that specific moment.

This is “vibe coding.” It’s a term that sounds almost dismissive, but it represents a radical democratization of creation. You no longer need to know the syntax of Python to build a tool. You just need to know the “vibe”—the outcome you want, the logic of the problem, and the willingness to dance with an intelligent agent until it manifests.

The philosophical implication here is staggering. We are moving from a world of scarcity of capability to a world of abundance of cognition. When you can spin up a custom tool for a single week-long project and then discard it, the friction of problem-solving evaporates. The “app” is no longer a product you buy; it’s a transient artifact you summon.

Applying the “Vibe Code” Mindset

But how do we, especially those of us who don’t identify as “technical,” bridge the gap between watching this magic and wielding it? The conversation offers a roadmap. It starts by shedding the identity of the “user” and adopting the identity of the “orchestrator.”

If you want to move from passive observation to active application, here are three specific ways to start:

1. The “Interview Me” Protocol

We often stare at the blinking cursor, unsure how to prompt the AI. Hoffman suggests a reversal: Make the AI the interviewer. When you face a complex leadership challenge or a strategic knot, open your frontier model (Claude, GPT-4o, etc.) and say:

“Interview me about this problem until you have enough information to propose a framework or solution.”

This forces you to articulate your tacit knowledge, which the AI then structures into something actionable. It turns the monologue into a Socratic dialogue.

2. Build “Throwaway” Internal Tools

Stop looking for the perfect SaaS product for every niche problem in your team. If you have a messy recurring task—like organizing client feedback or synthesizing weekly reports—try “vibe coding” a solution. Use a tool like Replit or Cursor. Upload your messy data (anonymized if needed) and tell the agent:

“Write a script to organize this into a table based on sentiment.”

Don’t worry if the code is ugly. Don’t worry if you throw it away next month. The value is in the immediacy of the solution, not the longevity of the code.

3. Transform Meetings into Data

Meetings are usually where knowledge goes to die. They are ephemeral. But if you transcribe them (with permission), they become data. Don’t just ask for a summary. Feed the transcript to an agent and ask:

“Who should we have consulted on this decision that wasn’t in the room?”
“Create a decision matrix based on the arguments presented.”

This turns a passive event into an active, queryable asset.

Conclusion

The danger, as Hoffman notes, is the “secret cyborg”—the employee who uses AI to do their job in two hours and spends the rest of the week hiding. But the real win comes from the amplified team, where we share these “vibe coded” tools and prompts openly.

We are entering an age where your imagination is the only true constraint. If you can describe it, you can increasingly build it. The question is no longer “is there an app for that?” but “can I describe the solution well enough to bring it to life?”

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models

The Texture of Autonomy

There is a distinct texture to working with a truly capable person. It is a feeling of relief, specific and profound.

When you hand a project to a junior employee who “gets it,” the mental load doesn’t just decrease; it vanishes. You don’t have to map the territory for them. You don’t have to pre-visualize every stumble or correct every navigational error. You simply point to the destination, and they find their way.

I was thinking about this feeling—this specific brand of professional trust—when I read a recent observation from two partners at Sequoia regarding the current state of Artificial Intelligence:

“Generally intelligent people can work autonomously for hours at a time, making and fixing their mistakes and figuring out what to do next without being told. Generally intelligent agents can do the same thing. This is new.”

The phrase that sticks with me is “without being told.”

For the last forty years, our relationship with computers has been strictly transactional. The computer waits. We command. It executes. Even the most sophisticated algorithms have essentially been waiting for us to hit “Enter.” They are tools, no different in spirit than a very fast abacus or a hyper-efficient typewriter.

But we are crossing a threshold where the software stops waiting.

The definition of intelligence in a workspace isn’t just raw processing power; it is the ability to recover from failure without supervision. It is the capacity to run into a wall, realize you have hit a wall, back up, and look for a door—all while the manager is asleep or working on something else.

When Sequoia notes that “this is new,” they aren’t talking about a feature update. They are talking about a shift in the ontology of our tools. We are moving from an era of leverage (tools that make us faster) to an era of agency (tools that act on our behalf).

This changes the psychological contract between human and machine. If an agent can “figure out what to do next,” we are no longer operators; we are managers. And as anyone who has transitioned from individual contributor to management knows, that is a fundamentally different skill set. It requires clearer intent, better goal-setting, and the ability to trust a process you cannot entirely see.

We are about to find out what it feels like to have a digital colleague that doesn’t just listen, but actually thinks about the next step.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models

The Shipping Manifest

“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.

Categories
AI AI: Prompting Writing

AI as a Mirror, Not a Maker

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we move past the novelty phase of AI—beyond just asking a chatbot to “write a poem about a turkey” or summarize a meeting—and into actual thinking with these tools.

As a lifelong learner, I’m always on the hunt for workflows that help me synthesize information better. Most of the “AI for writing” advice I see online is pretty generic. But I recently came across a breakdown of how four high-profile writers are making effective use of tools like NotebookLM and Claude in ways that are much more sophisticated than simple text generation.

What jumped out at me is that none of these writers use AI to write for them. They use it to structure, challenge, and code.

Here are the four models that caught my eye.

1. The Triangulated Research Base (Steven Johnson)

Steven Johnson (Where Good Ideas Come From) has a workflow that solves a problem I face constantly: the messy “research phase.”

Instead of treating the AI as an oracle, he treats it as a connection engine. He creates a dedicated notebook (using Google’s NotebookLM) and uploads three distinct types of sources: a primary source (like a raw PDF or study), a secondary source (like a context article), and a multimedia transcript.

Then, rather than asking for a summary, he asks the AI to find the friction between them: “What themes appear in the interview transcript that contradict the historical account in the PDF?”

It’s less about getting an answer and more about finding the blind spots in your own reading.

2. The Diagnostic Editor (Kenny Kane)

This one really resonated with me because it mirrors the experiment I tried recently with my “Bubble Bath” post.

Kenny Kane uses Claude not to generate prose, but to act as a ruthless developmental editor. He uploads a messy draft and runs a “Diagnostic” prompt. He doesn’t ask “fix this,” he asks: “Where does the argument drift? Where does the energy drop?”

He even has the AI analyze his best writing to identify his specific “DNA” (sentence length, vocabulary choice) and then asks it to apply that same tone to his rougher sections. It’s using the AI as a mirror rather than a ghostwriter.

3. The Memo-to-Demo Shift (Dan Shipper)

Dan Shipper at Every is doing something fascinating that changes the definition of writing altogether. He argues that in the AI age, we shouldn’t just describe a concept; we should build a small app to demonstrate it.

If he’s writing about “Spaced Repetition,” he doesn’t just explain the theory. He asks Claude’s Artifacts feature to “Write a React component that lets a user test spaced repetition live in the browser,” and then embeds that little app directly into the essay. The writing becomes 50% prose and 50% software.

4. The Co-Intelligence Loop (Ethan Mollick)

Ethan Mollick focuses on breaking the echo chamber. Before he publishes, he spins up simulated personas—a skeptical VC, a confused novice, an expert in a tangential field—and asks them to critique his draft from their specific viewpoints.

It’s effectively a focus group of one.

How to Get Started

If you’re like me, seeing all these workflows might feel a bit overwhelming. My advice? Don’t try to overhaul your entire writing process overnight. Just pick one experiment to try this week.

Here are two simple entry points:

Experiment A: The “Blind Spot” Check (For Research)

If you are reading up on a topic, don’t just take notes. Open Google NotebookLM, create a new notebook, and upload your sources (PDFs, URLs, or pasted text). Then, ask this specific question:

“Based strictly on these sources, what is the strongest argument against my current thinking? What connection between Source A and Source B am I missing?”

Experiment B: The “Ruthless Editor” (For Writing)

If you have a rough draft sitting on your hard drive, copy it into Claude or ChatGPT and use this prompt (adapted from Kenny Kane’s workflow) before you do any manual editing:

“Act as a senior editor. Do not rewrite this text. Instead, analyze my draft and tell me: 1) Where does the argument lose energy? 2) Does the opening hook successfully promise what the conclusion delivers? Be critical.”

I’ve found that using the tools this way—as a partner for thinking rather than just generating—is where the real magic happens.

Which one will you try first?

Categories
AI Creativity Writing

Did You Really Program That?

The Fundamental Issue

I once found myself in a local restaurant filled with young professors and graduate students from a nearby university. They were clustered around a long table arguing about the nature of originality in a world where machines could now produce human-like text and code with a few keystrokes. I sat at a small table nearby, eavesdropping.

“I just don’t think it’s right,” said a woman with steel-rimmed glasses. “If you’re using AI to write your paper, you should be honest about it. It’s intellectually dishonest otherwise.”

Her companion, a man with unruly hair and a cardigan stretched at the elbows, shook his head vigorously. “But what about the code you’re writing? Aren’t you using GitHub Copilot? Isn’t that the same thing?”

The question hung in the air between them.

The Contested Border

The border between human creativity and machine assistance has always been contested territory. When the word processor replaced the typewriter, did writers suddenly become less authentic? When compilers made it unnecessary to understand assembly language, did programmers become less skilled? Each technological advancement seems to bring with it a fresh anxiety about the dilution of human agency, a sense that we are somehow cheating if we don’t do things the “hard way”.

I recently visited a friend who works at a technology startup in San Francisco. His office was a converted warehouse with exposed brick and polished concrete floors. The ceiling was high enough that you could fly a small drone inside without hitting anything. Software engineers clustered around monitors, wearing noise-canceling headphones and drinking coffee from biodegradable cups. My friend showed me a tool called Cursor, which allows programmers to describe what they want a program to do in plain English, and then generates the code automatically.

“It’s called ‘vibe coding,'” he explained, showing me the interface. “You sort of… gesture at what you want, and the AI figures out how to make it happen.”

I watched as he typed a simple instruction: “Create a function that calculates the Fibonacci sequence up to the nth term.” The AI responded with a dozen lines of code, neatly formatted and commented. My friend nodded approvingly and made a few small adjustments.

“Did you really program that?” I asked.

He laughed. “Define ‘program.’ I told it what I wanted. It wrote the code. I checked it and made a few tweaks. Is that programming? I don’t know. But I’m still responsible for the end result.”

Tools like Cursor and Windsurf are all the rage lately among software engineers as they provide truly dramatic productivity boosts to those writing code.

The Woodworker’s Tools

The discussion reminded me of a conversation years ago with a group of master woodworkers. They were craftsmen who built furniture by hand, using tools that hadn’t changed much in centuries. I asked one of them, a man with fingers gnarled by decades of work, what he thought about power tools.

“People think using hand tools makes you more authentic,” he said, running his palm along the grain of a maple board. “But the old masters would have used power tools if they’d had them. The point isn’t the tool. It’s what you’re trying to create, and whether you understand what you’re doing.”

He showed me a dovetail joint he’d cut with a table saw and jig. “Is this less authentic because I didn’t use a hand saw? The joint is still tight. The wood is still joined. I still had to understand the properties of the wood and how the joint works.”

Writers and programmers alike are wrestling with similar questions. When does technological assistance become a crutch? When does it become cheating? The novelist who uses a thesaurus is not accused of intellectual dishonesty. The programmer who uses a library of pre-written functions is not condemned for laziness. But something about AI assistance feels different to many people.

The Future of Creation?

Perhaps it’s the speed. A process that once took hours now takes seconds. Perhaps it’s the black-box nature of the technology. We cannot see how the AI arrived at its solution, cannot trace the path of its reasoning. We think they’re just dumb machines probabilistically predicting the next word. Or perhaps it’s simply that we are witnessing a fundamental shift in what it means to create.

My programmer friend has a different perspective. “The future of programming isn’t writing code,” he says. “It’s understanding problems and directing machines to solve them. The code is just an implementation detail.”

I wonder if writers will come to feel the same way. Will the future of writing be less about crafting individual sentences and more about directing AI to capture a particular voice or style? Will we come to see the arrangement of words as merely an implementation detail in the larger project of communication? How does this extend to other fields like film, movies and art?

The Disclosure Dilemma

The question of disclosure remains thorny. Should writers and programmers be required to disclose their use of AI assistance? Some argue that it’s essential for transparency and accountability. Others suggest that it’s no different from any other tool, and that the focus should be on the final product, not the process used to create it.

I think of the woodworker showing me his dovetail joint. “The wood doesn’t care how you cut it,” he said. “It only cares that the joint is tight.”

Perhaps the same is true of writing and programming. Many readers won’t care how the words were arranged, only that they resonate. The software user doesn’t care how the code was written, only that it works.

And yet, there is something deep within us that values the human touch, that finds meaning in the knowledge that another person’s mind and hands shaped the thing we’re experiencing. We want to know that somewhere in the process, a human being made choices, experienced frustration and triumph, poured their unique perspective into the creation.

As I left the restaurant I mentioned earlier the debate at the long table was still going strong. I caught a final snippet as I passed by: “It’s not about the tools,” someone was saying. “It’s about the intention.”

Perhaps that’s the heart of it. Not what tools we use, but how we use them, and why. Not whether we use AI, but whether we use it thoughtfully, with intention and understanding. Not whether we disclose its use, but whether we’re honest about our process, both with ourselves and with others.

There’s no question the AI tools are here and that they’re improving dramatically seemingly every day. They’re providing some powerful leverage to amplify our own skills – if we choose to use them wisely.

Note: this initial idea for this post was mine triggered by listening to a podcast interview with Dan Shipper of Every. I had help fleshing it out using Claude 3.7 from Anthropic. The post began with a couple of paragraphs I wrote. Then I used the following prompt: “You’re an expert writer and editor helping me with my personal blog. Write a 1000 word blog post in the style of John McPhee based on the following initial thoughts…” After that I rewrote portions of Claude’s response to add clarity and emphasis before sharing it here.

Note 2: all of this was done on my iPhone.