I saw a very interesting point and want to share it here:
“The quality of AI’s output tells you something about the quality of your input.
Think of it like a detective solving a case. One clue (the suspect was in town that day) leaves hundreds of possibilities open. Two clues (they were in town and had a motive) narrows it down. Five independent clues might point to exactly one person.”
This is the part most people still miss. AI becomes genuinely useful when it reduces friction around the work, not when it tries to replace the work itself. The outcome first framing is exactly what makes the difference.
i found u on yt , i had no idea you are substack too..! i have followed you , and maybe i m delusional about it but i think oneday you'll follow me back as you will be impressed by work that i'm doing..!
writing is thinking ..! one must master the ART[ SKILL]of great thinking before even trying write any thing..!
I understand this approach of thinking about AI. And I genuinely believe the good AI or what I true mean is good use of it is essential. But what we often fail to mention in the various discourse about AI is it's environmental impacts. Just a little fact that in some locations, fighting wildfires were extremely tough because corporations used us so much of their water resources. And while it may seem that what's a little propmt against the gigabytes of slop but it does make a difference.
It is an extremely stressful thing to always think about the bigger consequences of what we do and it often serves us better in short term to just ignore it. But do we truly have no responsibility for the only planet that sustains us for lightyears?
In an age where individual attention is economy, individual effort to rebel and resist has a thousand times more impact than doing nothing at all.
That said I genuinely love you work and keep it up.
I totallyyyy agree with you and was about to comment the same thing. This guy is great and I too genuinely love it. I was secretly hoping that he would also address the environmental impact AI has, but he didn't. And most probably it was a conscious choice, which further saddens me.
I would like to address this further. It completely passed my mind, but I do have a perspective on this to offer. I would need to think a bit, and also flesh my ideas out a little more. Thank you for this feedback🫡
Idk gang did u write this with Ai because I can tell, something feels off this is not you I have been reading your work before something is just different
The amplify-thinking framing is the right one and also the hard one. Most people use AI to skip thinking rather than extend it. The output looks the same from the outside but the person who skipped is getting weaker while the person extending is getting stronger.
For my setup the test is: can I explain why the agent made the decision it made? If I can't, I don't trust it. That filter rules out a lot of automation that looks impressive in a demo. What does your actual ratio look like - tasks where you review AI output vs. tasks where you just let it run?
I saw a very interesting point and want to share it here:
“The quality of AI’s output tells you something about the quality of your input.
Think of it like a detective solving a case. One clue (the suspect was in town that day) leaves hundreds of possibilities open. Two clues (they were in town and had a motive) narrows it down. Five independent clues might point to exactly one person.”
please never delete this , this was such an interesting read !
🙌🔥
🔥🫡
This is the part most people still miss. AI becomes genuinely useful when it reduces friction around the work, not when it tries to replace the work itself. The outcome first framing is exactly what makes the difference.
i found u on yt , i had no idea you are substack too..! i have followed you , and maybe i m delusional about it but i think oneday you'll follow me back as you will be impressed by work that i'm doing..!
writing is thinking ..! one must master the ART[ SKILL]of great thinking before even trying write any thing..!
I understand this approach of thinking about AI. And I genuinely believe the good AI or what I true mean is good use of it is essential. But what we often fail to mention in the various discourse about AI is it's environmental impacts. Just a little fact that in some locations, fighting wildfires were extremely tough because corporations used us so much of their water resources. And while it may seem that what's a little propmt against the gigabytes of slop but it does make a difference.
It is an extremely stressful thing to always think about the bigger consequences of what we do and it often serves us better in short term to just ignore it. But do we truly have no responsibility for the only planet that sustains us for lightyears?
In an age where individual attention is economy, individual effort to rebel and resist has a thousand times more impact than doing nothing at all.
That said I genuinely love you work and keep it up.
I totallyyyy agree with you and was about to comment the same thing. This guy is great and I too genuinely love it. I was secretly hoping that he would also address the environmental impact AI has, but he didn't. And most probably it was a conscious choice, which further saddens me.
I would like to address this further. It completely passed my mind, but I do have a perspective on this to offer. I would need to think a bit, and also flesh my ideas out a little more. Thank you for this feedback🫡
This is exactly how I know, you are indeed a profound thinker 🤍
Idk gang did u write this with Ai because I can tell, something feels off this is not you I have been reading your work before something is just different
I wanted to do something a little different this week, and I prefer to write my newsletters by hand :)
The amplify-thinking framing is the right one and also the hard one. Most people use AI to skip thinking rather than extend it. The output looks the same from the outside but the person who skipped is getting weaker while the person extending is getting stronger.
For my setup the test is: can I explain why the agent made the decision it made? If I can't, I don't trust it. That filter rules out a lot of automation that looks impressive in a demo. What does your actual ratio look like - tasks where you review AI output vs. tasks where you just let it run?