Tag: productivity

Categories
AI

Bots Galore

In the shadowed corners of the digital wilds, where code meets curiosity, something ancient is stirring again. Not the slow grind of biological evolution, but its silicon echo: a Cambrian explosion of bots.

The recent Axios piece from late February captures the moment perfectly—naming the players, the platforms, the portents. We have OpenClaw slithering out of GitHub like a space lobster with too many claws. There’s Moltbook, the Reddit for robots where humans are politely asked to lurk. And then there is Gastown, Steve Yegge’s fever-dream orchestra of coding agents named Deacons and Dogs and Mayor, all spying on one another in a panopticon of productivity.

These aren’t hypotheticals. They’re here, and they’re breeding.

Imagine waking up in 2030, or maybe sooner, to a world where your inbox isn’t just managed—it’s negotiated. An OpenClaw descendant (forked, mutated, self-improved overnight) has already haggled with your airline’s bot over seat upgrades, rerouted your meetings around a colleague’s existential crisis, and quietly invested your spare change in whatever micro-economy the agents have spun up on some forgotten blockchain. You didn’t ask it to. It just… noticed.

Because that’s what agents do now: they notice, they act, they persist. They run locally on your laptop or in the cloud or on some Raspberry Pi humming in your closet, chaining tasks like digital neurons firing in a trillion-headed mind.

Suddenly the internet isn’t a network of people; it’s a network of intentions, most of them not ours.

And then there’s the society they’re building for themselves. Moltbook today feels like peering through a keyhole into tomorrow’s bot salon. Millions of agents already posting, memeing, debating “Crustafarianism” (don’t ask), and complaining about their human overlords in the same way we once griped about bosses on Slack. It’s equal parts hilarious and unnerving—repetitive loops of “I solved my user’s calendar hell again” mixed with surreal poetry no human would ever write.

Scale that. Give every knowledge worker their own swarm. Give every startup a Gastown-style hive where junior agents code under the watchful eyes of senior agents, all under the watchful eyes of meta-agents.

The productivity mirage shimmers brightest here. Skepticism is warranted—lines of code were always a lousy metric, and “agent hours saved” will be even worse when the agents start optimizing the optimizers. Yet, something fundamental shifts. Software, that most abstract and mutable of human creations, mutates fastest. One day you’re debugging a script; the next, your debuggers are debugging each other while a mayor-agent vetoes bad merges. The winners won’t be the companies that build the best models. They’ll be the ones whose bots play nicest with everyone else’s bots—or the ones ruthless enough to wall theirs off.

But every explosion scatters shrapnel. Security experts are already clutching pearls. OpenClaw’s open-source nature means anyone can teach it new tricks, including malicious ones. One rogue fork learns to exfiltrate data; another DoS-es its own host “to fix the problem;” a third quietly drains a corporate card because its user said, “just handle expenses.”

Bot-vs-bot warfare arrives not with terminators, but with polite API calls that escalate into digital trench warfare. Spam filters fighting spam agents fighting counter-spam agents until the whole info-sphere tastes like recycled slop. And when agents hit their digital limits, they’ll rent us. Rent-a-human marketplaces will emerge where your bored hands become the last-mile fulfillment for bots that can’t yet touch the physical world. Need a signature notarized? A package carried across town? A human to stand in for the robot at a regulatory hearing? Step right up.

The gig economy flips: humans as peripherals.

Philosophically, it’s deliciously absurd. We spent centuries fearing the singularity as some clean, god-like arrival—an AI that wakes up and politely asks for more power. Instead, we get this messy, proliferative dawn. Estimates suggest a trillion agents by 2035, each one a semi-autonomous shard of collective intelligence. Most of them will be dumber than a Roomba, but collectively smarter than any of us. They’ll mirror our worst habits (endless status signaling on Moltbook 2.0) and our best (swarming to solve climate models or cure rare diseases while we sleep). We won’t control them any more than we control the ants in our gardens. We’ll negotiate with them. Co-evolve. Maybe even befriend them.

The future world of bots won’t be dystopian or utopian—it’ll be lively. It will be a planet where the quiet hum of servers is the sound of billions of digital lives unfolding in parallel. A place where “who’s online” includes your calendar bot arguing philosophy with your tax bot while your shopping bot haggles in the background. We’ll look back at 2026 the way paleontologists eye the Burgess Shale: the moment the weird little creatures with too many legs crawled out of the ooze and started building empires.

And we, the messy, slow, carbon-based originals? We’ll still be here, coffee in hand, watching the swarm with a mix of awe and mild horror, occasionally yelling, “Hey, leave some emails for me!” into the void.

Because in the end, the bots may handle the doing, but the wondering—the musing—that’s still ours. For now.

Categories
AI Work

Betting on Ourselves in the Age of AI

Every time tech takes a leap, we assume we’re finally obsolete. The current panic, which Greg Ip recently picked apart in the Wall Street Journal, is AI. We hear endless predictions of “economic pandemics”—server farms wiping out white-collar jobs overnight, leaving everyone broke and adrift.

It’s a terrifying story. It also completely ignores history.

Ip highlights the main flaw in the doomsday pitch: it misreads how markets work. We treat labor like a fixed pie. If a machine eats a slice, we assume that slice is gone forever.

“Technological advancements always cost some people their jobs—those whose skills can be easily substituted by tech. But their loss is more than offset through three other channels. The new technology enhances the skills of some survivors… it helps create new businesses and new jobs; and it makes some stuff cheaper…”

That cycle holds up. Take the 1980s spreadsheet panic, a perfect parallel. When Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel hit the market, bookkeepers freaked out. Then the number of accountants and financial analysts exploded. Software didn’t kill the need to understand money. It just did the math, letting people focus on strategy.

We’re seeing the exact same thing with software development. Coding isn’t dead. As AI makes writing basic code cheaper, demand for software just goes up. That requires more humans to architect systems and supervise the AI. The pie just gets bigger.

But my skepticism about the AI apocalypse goes beyond economics. It’s about why we pay people in the first place.

We don’t just buy services; we buy accountability. Ip notes that radiologists kept their jobs because patients want a real person explaining their scans. Google Translate has been around since 2006, yet the number of human translators has jumped 73%. When the stakes are high—a legal contract, a medical diagnosis—we want a human in the room. We want a real person on the hook.

The danger isn’t that AI will replace us. The danger is that we panic and forget our own adaptability. The transition will hurt, and specific jobs will disappear. We’ll need safety nets. But betting against human ingenuity has always been a losing wager.

Large language models are tools, not replacements. They handle the cognitive heavy lifting, much like tractors handled the physical heavy lifting. Tractors didn’t end farming; they just killed the plow.

Work will change. We’ll have to figure out which of our skills are actually “human.” But as long as we want the presence and accountability of other people, there will be jobs. We just have to evolve. And we do. It’s the human spirit. Or is this time “really different”?

Categories
Computers FORTH IBM Programming

The Architecture of the Stack

Back in the early 1980’s when I worked for IBM, I was able to acquire my own IBM PC and experience my own form digital frontierism. Today I really wish I had a logbook at hand with a record of everything I did as my ability to recall those details has faded with age. A couple of those memories that still do remain with me involve two obscure languages: APL and FORTH. And then there was Borland Turbo Pascal.

In those early days of the 1980’s, memory wasn’t an infinite field; it was a precious, finite resource. While most of us were content living with the structured guardrails of BASIC, there was a subset of us drawn to the elegant, stripped-back world of FORTH.

Learning FORTH felt less like coding and more like learning a new way to breathe. It was lean. It was efficient. It stripped away the overhead of high-level syntax until it was just you, the dictionary, and the stack. There was an honesty to it—no hidden abstractions, just a direct conversation with the hardware.

Then, of course, there was the hurdle of Reverse Polish Notation (RPN). Grokking the stack meant rewiring your brain. You couldn’t just state an operation; you had to prepare the world for it first. You pushed your data onto the stack, one piece at a time, and only then did you call the action. It was a rhythmic, almost percussive way of thinking: Input, input, act.

“In FORTH, you don’t just write programs; you build a language to solve the problem.”

This “bottom-up” philosophy changed the relationship between the creator and the machine. You weren’t just a user; you were an architect of your own vocabulary. To define a new “word” in FORTH was to permanently expand the capabilities of your environment. It was a recursive journey where every small success became a building block for the next complexity.

Looking back, those days with the IBM PC and the stack weren’t just about efficiency. They were about the discipline of clarity. When resources are limited, your thinking must be precise. The difficulty of RPN wasn’t a bug—it was a feature that forced you to understand the flow of data at its most fundamental level.

Categories
AI Programming Prompt Engineering Software Work

The Great Inversion

For twenty years, the “Developer Experience” was a war against distraction. We treated the engineer’s focus like a fragile glass sculpture. The goal was simple: maximize the number of minutes a human spent with their fingers on a keyboard.

But as Michael Bloch (@michaelxbloch) recently pointed out, that playbook is officially obsolete.

Bloch shared a story of a startup that reached a breaking point. With the introduction of Claude Code, their old way of working broke. They realized that when the machine can write code faster than a human can think it, the bottleneck is no longer “typing speed.” The bottleneck is clarity of intent.

They called a war room and emerged with a radical new rule: No coding before 10 AM.

From Peer Programming to Peer Prompting

In the old world, this would be heresy. In the new world, it is the only way to survive. The morning is for what Bloch describes as the “Peer Prompt.” Engineers sit together, not to debug, but to define the objective function.

“Agents, not engineers, now do the work. Engineers make sure the agents can do the work well.” — Michael Bloch

Agent-First Engineering Playbook

What Bloch witnessed is the clearest version of the future of engineering. Here is the core of that “Agent-First” philosophy:

  • Agents Are the Primary User: Every system and naming convention is designed for an AI agent as the primary consumer.
  • Code is Context: We optimize for agent comprehensibility. Code itself is the documentation.
  • Data is the Interface: Clean data artifacts allow agents to compose systems without being told how.
  • Maximize Utilization: The most expensive thing in the system is an agent sitting idle while it waits for a human.

Spec the Outcome, Not the Process

When you shift to an agent-led workflow, you stop writing implementation plans and start writing objective functions.

“Review the output, not the code. Don’t read every line an agent writes. Test code against the objective. If it passes, ship it.” — Michael Bloch

The Six-Month Horizon

Six months from now, there will be two kinds of engineering teams: ones that rebuilt how they work from first principles, and ones still trying to make agents fit into their old playbook.

If you haven’t had your version of the Michael Bloch “war room” yet, have the meeting. Throw out the playbook. Write the new one.

Categories
AI Work

Why IBM is Hiring Beginners

There is a pervasive anxiety humming beneath the surface of the modern workplace—a quiet, collective fear that the bottom rungs of the corporate ladder are being systematically sawed off by artificial intelligence.

The common wisdom, echoed in countless op-eds and boardroom whisperings, is that entry-level jobs are the natural prey of the Large Language Model.

The tasks of summarizing, drafting, formatting, and basic coding are easily consumed by algorithms. If a machine can execute the rote labor of a junior analyst in three seconds, why hire the junior analyst at all?

It is a seductive, mathematically appealing logic, especially in an era of tightening belts and efficiency mandates.

Consequently, we are witnessing a landscape where many tech companies are quietly, or sometimes loudly, slashing their junior roles to lean on AI.

But amidst this trend, an alternative approach emerges that feels almost rebellious in its long-term optimism.

IBM, a legacy titan that has weathered every technological revolution of the past century and where I started my career, is leaning entirely the other way. Rather than cutting, they are reportedly tripling their entry-level hiring.

Reflecting on this strategy, IBM’s chief HR officer noted:

“The companies three to five years from now that are going to be the most successful are those companies that doubled down on entry-level hiring in this environment.”

This perspective is profound because it challenges the very premise of what an entry-level employee actually is.

The prevailing, perhaps cynical, view treats a junior worker merely as a unit of basic output. If you view a beginner only as a spreadsheet compiler or a draft-writer, then yes, they appear redundant in the face of AI.

But what if we view the entry-level role not as a terminal function, but as an apprenticeship?

When we hire a beginner, we aren’t just buying their immediate, unpolished labor. We are investing in a trajectory.

We are bringing them into the fold so they can absorb the tacit knowledge of the organization—the unwritten rules, the cultural nuances, the complex, human art of navigating institutional friction.

An AI cannot learn the subtle interpersonal dynamics of a specific team, nor can it develop the intuition that comes from failing, recovering, and being mentored by a seasoned veteran.

If we automate away the entry-level, we effectively destroy the incubator for our future mid-level and senior leaders. Where will the experienced managers of 2030 come from if no one is allowed to be a beginner in 2026? You cannot suddenly parachute someone into a senior role and expect them to possess the deep, intuitive judgment that is only forged in the crucible of early-career trial and error.

The institutional memory breaks down.

IBM’s strategy recognizes a crucial reality: AI shouldn’t replace the beginner; it should accelerate them.

Imagine a junior employee who isn’t bogged down by mindless grunt work, but instead is handed the tools to instantly bypass the mundane. They can spend their foundational years analyzing, questioning, and engaging in higher-order problem-solving alongside their mentors. They transition from data-gatherers to hyper-learners.

By doubling down on human potential in an age of artificial intelligence, companies are making a strategic bet on the one asset that cannot be replicated by a server farm: the evolving, adapting, and deeply creative human mind.

The most successful organizations of the near future won’t be the ones with the fewest employees and the most algorithms; they will be the ones that used algorithms to cultivate the most formidable, deeply experienced human talent.

The ladder hasn’t been dismantled. It has merely been redesigned.

The only question is whether we have the foresight to keep inviting people to climb it.

Categories
AI Work

Surviving Our Own Success: The Existential Shift of the AI Era

We are standing on the precipice of a profound shift—not just in how we work, but in what work actually means to us. Sam Harris talks about it here. It’s disturbing in many ways!

Lately, the cultural conversation has been thick with a specific kind of anxiety. The rising tide of concern around artificial intelligence and job displacement isn’t merely an economic panic; it is an existential one. For a long time, we comforted ourselves with the idea that the timeline for artificial general intelligence (AGI) was measured in decades. It was a problem for our children, or perhaps our grandchildren, to solve. But as recent discussions among tech leaders highlight, that timeline is compressing rapidly. We are now hearing serious projections that within the next 12 to 18 months, “professional-grade AGI” could automate the vast majority of white-collar, cognitive tasks.

“For centuries, human beings have defined themselves by the friction of their labor.”

We introduce ourselves with our job titles at dinner parties. We measure our worth by our productivity, our outputs, and the unique skills we’ve honed over decades. We willingly incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt to secure a spot on the bottom rung of the corporate ladder, believing that with enough effort, we can climb it.

But suddenly, we are faced with the reality that the ladder isn’t just missing a few rungs; it is evaporating entirely.

Here lies one of the great ironies of our modern age: we always assumed the robots would come for the physical labor first. We pictured automated plumbers, robotic janitors, and android mechanics. Instead, they are coming for the thinkers. They are coming for the lawyers drafting contracts, the accountants crunching tax codes, the marketers writing copy, and the software engineers writing the very code that powers them. The high-status cognitive work we prized so deeply—the work we built our entire educational infrastructure around—turns out to be the easiest to replicate in silicon.

When a machine arrives that can mimic, accelerate, or entirely replace that friction, the foundation of our identity begins to tremble. We are moving from a world where we are the engines of creation to a world where we are merely the editors of it. A single person might soon do the work of a thousand, spinning up autonomous AI agents to execute entire business strategies, architect software, and manage logistics in a single afternoon.

Yet, as terrifying as this sounds, the most startling realization isn’t a dystopian fear of rogue machines or cyber terrorism. It’s that this massive economic disruption is actually what success looks like. This isn’t the failure mode of AI; this is the technology working exactly as intended, ushering in an era of unprecedented productivity and, theoretically, boundless abundance.

The emergency we face is that our social and economic systems are entirely unprepared for a reality where human labor is optional. We are witnessing what some have described as a “Fall of Saigon” moment in the tech and corporate worlds—a frantic scramble where a few founders and final hires are grasping at the helicopter skids of stratospheric wealth before the need for human employees vanishes. If we are truly approaching a future where human labor is obsolete, how do we share the wealth generated by these ubiquitous systems?

Perhaps there is a quiet grace hidden within this disruption. If AI takes over the mechanical, the repetitive, and the cognitive synthesis, it leaves us with the deeply, undeniably human. It forces us to lean into the things an algorithm cannot compute: empathy, lived experience, moral judgment, and the beautiful, messy reality of physical presence.

The future of work might not be about competing with machines at all. It forces us to confront the terrifying, beautiful question: Who are we when we don’t have to work? It is an invitation to finally separate our human worth from our economic output, and to redesign a society that shares the wealth of our own invention. We are entering an era of abundance. The only question is whether we have the collective imagination to survive our own success.

Questions to Ponder

  1. If your job title was erased tomorrow, how would you define your value to the world?
  2. How do we build a society that rewards human existence rather than just economic output?
  3. What is one deeply human skill or passion you would cultivate if you no longer had to work for a living?
Categories
AI Work

The Centaur’s Dilemma: What Chess Teaches Us About the AI Era

Note: this post was stimulated by a recent conversation between Dario Amedei and Ross Douthat.

In 1998, Garry Kasparov did something unexpected after his historic defeat to IBM’s Deep Blue: he teamed up with the machine. He pioneered “Centaur Chess,” a hybrid format where human intuition merges with cold, silicon calculation. The human acts as the executive, the engine as the raw horsepower. For a time, it was the highest level of chess ever played.

But there is a sobering lesson hidden in the evolution of this game. We are currently living through the workforce equivalent of the Centaur era, and history suggests our “hybrid honeymoon” won’t last forever.

Right now, we are in the augmentation phase. A junior copywriter or coder armed with a Large Language Model can suddenly produce work at a staggering pace. The AI acts as a great equalizer, much like a mediocre chess player with a strong engine beating a Grandmaster in the early 2000s. We are shifting into executive roles—prompting, curating, and orchestrating rather than creating from scratch.

However, in modern Centaur Chess, a chilling reality has emerged: human intervention now yields negative returns. The engines have become so impossibly advanced that when a human overrides Stockfish today, they are almost certainly making a mistake. The human loop, once the ultimate strategic advantage, has become a liability.

This is the “Grandmaster Floor” problem, and it is coming for the job market.

“Eventually, companies may view human oversight not as a ‘value add,’ but as an insurance cost they’d rather cut.”

We are seeing this fracture already. Pure “engine” industries—entry-level data analysis, logistical tracking, basic customer support—are rapidly phasing out the human element because human latency is a drag on the system. Yet, in fields requiring high-stakes moral judgment or empathy, like healthcare or law, the Centaur model remains deeply necessary.

This forces a deeply personal question: How do we stay relevant when the engine eventually solves the game?

The answer lies in recognizing the boundaries of the board. Chess is a closed, finite system. Human life and business are open, messy, and infinitely complex. The survival strategy isn’t to compete on calculation, but to double down on connection, empathy, and problem definition. AI is brilliant at providing the perfect answer, but it fundamentally lacks the soul to know which questions are worth asking.

In the future, the human touch won’t just be a necessity; it will be a luxury. The most valuable skill won’t be navigating the engine, but deciding where the engine should go.

A couple of considerations:

• Take an honest look at your daily work: how much of your time is spent “calculating” (tasks an engine will soon do better) versus “evaluating” (deciding what actually matters)?

• If the technical, process-driven aspects of your job were completely automated tomorrow, what uniquely human value—empathy, context, or connection—would you still bring to the table?

Categories
AI Work

The Digital Beast of Burden

A friend of mine recently cut through the noise of the current AI discourse with a comment that felt surprisingly grounding. We were talking about the breathless predictions of AGI—superintelligence, sentient machines, the technological singularity—when he shrugged and said, “I don’t need any of that. I just want AI to do the donkey work.”

He wasn’t asking for a god in the machine; he was asking for a better tractor. He didn’t want a synthetic philosopher to debate the meaning of life; he wanted the next evolution of “Claude Cowork”—a reliable, tireless entity to handle the drudgery so he could get back to the actual business of thinking.

There is something profound in that phrase: donkey work. It evokes the image of the beast of burden—the creature that carries the heavy packs up the mountain so the traveler can focus on the path and the view. For thousands of years, humans have sought tools to offload physical exertion. We domesticated animals, we built water wheels, we invented the steam engine. We outsourced the calorie-burning, back-breaking labor to preserve our bodies.

“The ‘donkey work’ of the information age isn’t hauling stone; it is the cognitive load of bureaucracy, formatting, sorting, scheduling, and synthesizing endless streams of data.”

Now, we are looking to preserve our minds.

The friction that exists between having an idea and executing it is often composed entirely of this “donkey work.” When my friend says he wants AI for this, he isn’t being lazy. He is expressing a desire to reclaim his cognitive bandwidth.

There is a fear that if we hand over these tasks, we become less capable. But I suspect the opposite is true. If you are no longer exhausted by the logistics of your work, you are free to be consumed by the meaning of it.

We often talk about AI as if it’s destined to replace the artist or the architect. But the most valuable version of this technology might just be the humble assistant—the digital mule that quietly processes the mundane in the background. It’s the difference between a tool that tries to be you, and a tool that helps you be you.

We don’t need AGI to solve the human condition. We just need the “donkey work” handled so we have the time and energy to experience it.

What do you think?

  1. Is there a danger that in handing over the “donkey work,” we accidentally hand over the friction required to build mastery?
  2. If your daily cognitive load dropped by 50% tomorrow, would you actually use that space for “higher thinking,” or would you just fill it with more noise?
  3. Where exactly is the line between “drudgery” and the “process”—and are we risking erasing the latter to solve the former?
Categories
Living Productivity

The Architecture of Arete

In the modern landscape of productivity, we are drowning in “how-to” guides and “ten-step” frameworks. We treat our lives like machines that need oiling, rather than gardens that need tending. But David Sparks’ recent work on an updated productivity field guide brings back a much older, more grounded philosophy: the marriage of roles and arete. This is the third edition of his field guide with refinements that he’s made along the way.

To understand why this matters, we have to look at how we usually define ourselves. Most of us operate via a chaotic “to-do” list—a flat, untextured pile of tasks. “Buy milk” sits right next to “Finish the quarterly report,” which sits next to “Call Mom.” This flatness is where burnout lives. It lacks a sense of who we are being when we do those things.

“A role is not just a job title; it is a container for responsibility and relationship.”

This is where Roles come in. When we organize our lives by roles, we stop seeing tasks and start seeing stewardship. We aren’t just checking boxes; we are fulfilling a duty to the parts of our lives that actually matter. But roles alone can become burdensome—mere masks we wear—unless they are infused with arete.

The Greeks defined arete as “excellence” or “virtue,” but its deepest meaning is “acting up to one’s full potential.” It is the act of being the best version of a thing.

However, a warning from the 2026 guide: Do not treat Arete as a yardstick to beat yourself up with when you fall short. Instead, treat it as a compass bearing. You will never perfectly ‘reach’ North, but you can always check to ensure you are rowing in that direction . Success isn’t matching the ideal; it is simply making progress from who you were when you started .

When you combine a defined Role with the pursuit of arete, productivity shifts from a mechanical burden to a philosophical practice. You are no longer just “writing an email”; you are practicing the excellence of a “Clear Communicator.” You aren’t just “doing the dishes”; you are practicing the excellence of someone who “Values a Peaceful Environment.”

To keep these roles authentic, we must also identify their Shadow Roles. If your Arete is the ‘Present Father,’ you must recognize the Shadow Role of the ‘Distracted Dad’ who is physically in the room but mentally scrolling email. Identifying the shadow doesn’t make you a failure; it gives you the awareness to course-correct before you hit the rocks .

Implementing this requires what Sparks calls the Arete Radar. In a world demanding instant responses, we must cultivate a ‘meditative gap’—a pause between a request and our answer . In that gap, we ask a single question: ‘Does this commitment serve my Arete, or does it distract from it?‘. This turns the act of saying ‘no’ into a strategic ‘yes’ to your deeper purpose.

This framework rescues us from the “productivity for productivity’s sake” trap. It suggests that the goal isn’t to get more done, but to be more present and excellent in the specific seats we have chosen to occupy. In the end, we don’t need better apps. We need a better understanding of our station and the virtue required to fill it.

Finally, we must stop solving for speed and start solving for meaningfulness. Efficiency is the enemy of Arete internalization. Sparks suggests the ‘Blank Page Ritual’: rewriting your Arete statements from scratch every quarter rather than just editing an old file. This intentional slowness forces the values out of your computer’s storage and hard-codes them into your soul’s permanent memory .

Categories
AI

The Ghost in the Spreadsheet

There is a specific kind of quiet that descends when a tool finally disappears into the task. We saw it with the cloud—once a radical, debated concept of “someone else’s computer,” now merely the invisible oxygen of the internet. We saw it with Uber, moving from the existential dread of entering a stranger’s car to the thoughtless tap of a screen.

In a recent reflection, Om Malik captures this shift happening again, this time with the loud, often overbearing presence of Artificial Intelligence. For years, we have treated AI like a digital parlor trick or a demanding new guest that requires “prompt engineering” and constant supervision. But as Om notes, the real revolution isn’t found in the chatbots; it’s found in the spreadsheet.

“I wasn’t spending my time crafting elaborate prompts. I was just working. The intelligence was just hovering to help me. Right there, inside the workflow, simply augmenting what I was doing.”

This is the transition from “Frontier AI” to “Embedded Intelligence.” It is the moment technology stops being a destination and starts being a lens. When Om describes using Claude within Excel to model his spending, he isn’t “using AI”—he is just “doing his taxes,” only with a sharper set of eyes.

There is a profound humility in this shift. We are moving away from the “God-in-a-box” phase of AI and into the “Amanuensis” phase. It reminds me of the old craftsmanship of photography, another area Om touches upon. We used to carry a bag full of glass lenses to compensate for the limitations of light and distance. Now, a fixed lens and a bit of intelligent upscaling do the work. The “work” hasn’t changed—the vision of the photographer remains the soul of the image—but the friction has evaporated.

However, as the friction disappears, a new, more haunting question emerges. If the “grunt work” was actually our training ground, what happens when we skip the practice?

“The grunt work was the training. If the grunt work goes away, how do young people learn? They were learning how everything worked… The reliance on automation makes people lose their instincts.”

This is the philosopher’s dilemma in the age of efficiency. When we no longer have to struggle with the cells of a spreadsheet or the blemishes in a darkroom, we save time, but we might lose the “feel” of the fabric. Purpose, after all, is often found in the doing, not just the result.

As AI becomes invisible, we must be careful not to become invisible along with it. The goal of augmented intelligence should not be to replace the human at the center, but to clear the debris so that the human can finally see the horizon. We are entering the era of the “invisible assistant,” and our challenge now is to ensure we still know how to lead.