Tag: automation

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 Work

The Rungs We Leave Behind

“Companies, too, must prepare. To thrive they need not only to make the best use of ai, but also to find and nurture the best people to work with it. Some back-office workers will lose their jobs. But others with tacit knowledge of the business may be trained for new roles. The biggest mistake would be to stop hiring young people altogether. That would not only choke off the pipeline for future talent, it would rob businesses of AI natives. Instead, companies should rethink the type of work they offer young people—less grunt labour, more judgment and analysis; speedier rotations across the business so they gain insight that ai cannot have; piloting new roles and trying new approaches.”
— The Economist

There is a specific kind of quiet panic in boardrooms today. It isn’t just about the bottom line; it’s about the lineage of knowledge. For decades, the “entry-level” role served a hidden purpose. It wasn’t just about getting the spreadsheets done; it was about osmosis. By doing the “grunt labor,” a young professional absorbed the culture, the politics, and the subtle, unwritten rhythms of an industry—what we call “tacit knowledge.”

We often view AI as a replacement for the “boring stuff,” but we forget that the boring stuff was the soil in which expertise grew. If we remove the bottom rungs of the ladder because a machine can climb them faster, how do we expect anyone to reach the top?

The shift from “labor” to “judgment” is a profound psychological leap. We are essentially asking 22-year-olds to skip the apprenticeship of execution and move straight into the apprenticeship of discernment. This requires a radical empathy from leadership. We cannot simply hand a junior employee a powerful AI tool and expect them to know what “good” looks like if they’ve never seen “bad” up close.

The “AI native” brings a fluidity with technology that my generation might never fully replicate, but they lack the scars of experience that inform intuition. To thrive, companies must become teaching hospitals rather than just production factories. We need to create “judgment-rich” roles where young people are encouraged to experiment, to fail safely, and to rotate through the business at a pace that keeps them ahead of the automation curve.

The disruption is here. It is unavoidable. But there is a soulful middle ground: using AI to strip away the drudgery while doubling down on the human mentorship that transforms a “worker” into a “leader.” The goal isn’t just to make the best use of AI; it’s to ensure that when the AI provides an answer, there is still a human in the room with the soul and the context to know if that answer is right.

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 History Living

The Echo of the Roar

It is a strange sensation to look back exactly one century and see our own reflection staring back at us, sepia-toned but unmistakably familiar. We often think of the “Roaring Twenties” as a stylistic era—flapper dresses, Art Deco skyscrapers, and jazz. But beneath the aesthetic was a seismic technological shift that mirrors our current moment with an almost eerie precision.

In the 1920s, the world was shrinking. The radio was the “Great Disrupter” of the day. For the first time in human history, a voice could travel instantly from a studio in Pittsburgh to a farm in Nebraska. It was the democratization of information, a sudden collapse of distance that left society both thrilled and anxious.

“The radio brought the world into the living room; the algorithm brings the universe into our pockets.”

Today, we stand in the wash of a similar wave. If the radio brought the world into the living room, the internet—and specifically the generative AI of this decade—has brought the collective consciousness of humanity into our pockets.

The parallels in infrastructure are just as striking. One hundred years ago, the internal combustion engine was reshaping the physical landscape. The horse was yielding to the Model T; mud paths were being paved into highways. The very geography of how we lived was being rewritten by the automobile. In the 2020s, the “highway” is digital, built on cloud infrastructure and fiber optics, and the vehicle isn’t a Ford, but an algorithm. We are transitioning from physical labor to cognitive automation just as they transitioned from animal labor to mechanical muscle.

The Texture of Time

There is a specific texture to this kind of time. It is a mix of vertigo and acceleration. In 1925, the cultural critic might have worried that the “machine age” was stripping away our humanity, turning men into cogs on an assembly line. In 2025, we worry that the “algorithmic age” is stripping away our agency, turning creativity into a prompt.

But here is the insight that offers me comfort: The 1920s were chaotic, yes, but they were also a crucible of immense creativity. The pressure of that technological change forged modernism in literature, new forms of architecture, and entirely new ways of understanding the universe (quantum mechanics began finding its footing then).

We are not just passive observers of a repeating cycle. We are the navigators of the rhyme. The technology changes—from vacuum tubes to neural networks—but the human task remains the same: to find the signal in the static. To ensure that as the machines get faster, our souls do not merely get cheaper. We must decide, just as they had to a century ago, whether we will be consumed by the roar, or if we will learn to conduct the music.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models Investing

The Ledger of Curiosity

We often romanticize the “back of the napkin” idea. It is the symbol of spontaneous genius—the startup mapped out in a coffee shop, the ticker symbol hurriedly scribbled during a dinner party. But we rarely talk about what happens to the napkin afterwards.

Usually, it gets thrown away. Or lost. Or stuffed into a drawer, becoming just another artifact of a fleeting thought that had momentum but no direction.

In the first two parts of this experiment, I used Gemini 3 Pro to solve the friction of entry (transcribing my messy handwriting) and the friction of analysis (stress-testing the ideas against 10-K realities). But there was one final gap: Permanence.

An analysis that lives and dies in a chat window is barely better than one that lives and dies in a notebook. It is still ephemeral. To truly build a “Second Brain” for investing, the data needs to leave the conversation and enter a system.

“The goal of technology should be to stop us from losing the work we’ve already done.”

I tweaked my workflow one last time. I asked the AI to not just judge the stocks, but to format its judgment into a raw CSV block.

With a simple copy-paste, my handwritten scribble wasn’t just digitized; it was database-ready. It went from a piece of paper to a row in Google Sheets with columns for “Market Cap,” “P/E Ratio,” and “Primary Risk.”

Suddenly, I wasn’t just looking at a list; I was building a ledger. I can now track these ideas over months. I can see if the “Red Flag” the AI identified actually played out. I can measure my own batting average.

The goal of technology shouldn’t just be to make us faster at doing work. It should be to stop us from losing the work we’ve already done. By turning ink into data, we stop treating our ideas as disposable. We give them the respect of memory.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models Investing

The Digital Devil’s Advocate

There is a seduction in the handwritten note. When I scribble down a company name in a notebook, it is purely additive. It represents potential upside, a future win, a brilliant insight caught in ink. The notebook is a safe harbor for optimism because it lacks a “Reply” button. It doesn’t argue back.

But optimism is an expensive luxury in investing.

After my initial experiment—using Gemini 3 Pro to transcribe my messy list into tickers—I felt a surge of productivity. But productivity is not the same as discernment or understanding. I had a list of stocks, but I didn’t have a thesis. I just had digitized hope.

So, I took the next step. I didn’t ask the AI for validation; I asked for a fight. I fed the tickers back into the model with a specific directive: “Act as a contrarian hedge fund analyst. Find the red flags. Kill my enthusiasm.”

“I didn’t ask the AI for validation; I asked for a fight.”

The results were immediate and sobering. The “promising tech play” I had noted? The AI highlighted a massive deceleration in user growth hidden in the footnotes of their latest 10-Q. The “stable dividend payer”? It flagged a payout ratio that was mathematically unsustainable.

In seconds, the warm glow of my handwritten discovery was doused with the cold water of 10-K realities. And it was fantastic.

We often view AI as a tool for creation—generating text, images, and code. But its highest leverage application might actually be destruction. By using it to stress-test our assumptions, we outsource the emotional labor of being the “bad cop.” It allows us to kill bad ideas quickly, cheapy, and privately, before we pay the market tuition for them.

My notebook is still where the dreams live. But the digital realm is now where they go to survive the interrogation.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models Investing

From Ink to Insight

There is a distinct friction that exists between the analog world and the digital one. For years, analog notebooks have been the graveyard of good intentions—lists of books to read, article ideas to write, and companies to investigate, all trapped in the amber of my barely legible handwriting.

I recently found myself looking at one of these lists: a scrawl of company names I had jotted down while reading an article discussing possible companies for investment in 2026. Usually, this is where the work begins—taking my handwritten notes, typing them out one by one, searching for tickers, opening tabs, etc. It is low-value administrative work that often kills any spark of curiosity before it can turn into useful analysis.

“The barrier to entry for deep research drops to the time it takes to snap a photo.”

On a whim, I snapped a photo and uploaded it to Gemini 3 Pro. “Transcribe this,” I asked. “Give me the tickers.”

I expected errors. My handwriting is, to put it mildly, not easy to read (even for me!).

Instead, the AI didn’t just perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR); it performed contextual recognition. It understood that the scribble resembling “Apl” in a list of businesses was likely Apple, and returned $AAPL. It deciphered the intent behind the ink.

But the real shift happened when I asked Gemini to pivot immediately into research. Within seconds, I went from a static piece of paper to a dynamic analysis of P/E ratios, recent news, and market sentiment. The friction was gone.

This experience wasn’t just about productivity; it was about the fluidity of thought. We are moving toward a reality where the interface between the physical world and digital intelligence is becoming permeable. When the barrier to entry for deep research drops to the time it takes to snap a photo, our curiosity is no longer limited by our patience for data entry. We are free to simply think.

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 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.