“AI turned my meeting notes into a whole presentation!” 🤨

So I just keep hearing and seeing all these posts around AI’s terrific response on my latest prompt, and AI created this beautiful image with my latest request. AI took my meeting summary and turned it into a PowerPoint presentation, and I have this 10-page research paper that I don’t want to read, so AI turned it into a podcast that I can listen to. And it’s information generation, regurgitation, teaching, summarizing.

And that’s awesome!!!! That’s great. I think that’s how a great majority of people are going to consume AI for a very long time.

None of that is the ceiling, though.

What I want us to think about is what AI does when it stops being a chatbot and a coding agent and gets paired with somebody’s actual expertise, in a field where the stakes are real.

The model doesn’t change. What changes is who’s holding it, what they know that nobody else knows, and what they decide to point it at.

A quick sponsor note before we dig in. Thanks to Cardboard for sponsoring this post!

Make a 60-second explainer from one prompt

If you’re rolling out AI at work, you probably spend a lot of time explaining it to your team. A short video does that job better than another long email. The catch is that making one takes time most of us don’t have.

Cardboard is an AI video editor backed by Y Combinator, and you don’t have to learn a new app to use it. It works inside Claude and ChatGPT, and the Mac app connects to Claude Code or Codex if you already use one of those. If you use the Mac app, your projects stay on your computer.

Here’s what it can do:

• Turn a long recording into a short clip with one prompt

• Cut the pauses, filler words and retakes, and add captions

• Fill in missing shots with AI-generated clips or stock footage from the web

• Copy a style you like with Recipes: pick a template and it rebuilds the edit with your footage

• Make a whole video from a prompt, with no camera or footage

Want to try it? Paste this prompt into Cardboard, pick a topic, and it writes, voices and animates the video for you:

Make me a 60-second motion graphics explainer for LinkedIn. First, ask me to pick a topic:
1. How AI agents will change my industry this year
2. Why most AI pilots stall, and what fixes them
3. What AI should and shouldn’t do on my team
4. What my organization does and who it helps
5. My own topic: ______
And ask for my website so you can match our logo, colors and fonts.

Then make the whole video without stopping:
- Research the topic and write a tight script around one sharp idea. No numbers you can’t verify.
- Warm, confident voiceover with word-by-word captions.
- Open on a 3D chrome title, then one continuous piece, never slides: kinetic type on the beat, a diagram that builds step by step, numbers that turn into charts, one 3D scene.
- Fast, smooth motion, one fluted-glass transition, a light leak on the big reveal.
- Music with a clear drop: land the key point on it and give every move a sound effect.
- End on our logo with a one-line call to action. Export 16:9 and 9:16.

Keep the prompt, change the topic each week, and you have a weekly video series.

Leadership in Change readers get 50% off the Creator plan for 3 months with code SALINAS-CBRD-50.

Try it today!

Now, back to today’s post.

Today, we’ll go over four parts: (1) what almost all of us are using AI for right now, (2) what happens when the expertise behind it goes further than mine does, (3) a plain-English walk through what two research teams did this year with viruses that kill bacteria, and (4) the one thing I want you to do differently in your own work this week.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• A real example of AI doing something that wasn’t possible before it, explained without the science vocabulary

• A question to ask about your own field that opens up what you’d use AI for

1. What Almost All of Us Are Using AI For

The other big use we all hear about daily is coding. That’s where I am. I’m also creating a lot of different tools. My expertise is business and marketing, and a lot of my tools have come around those things, and they are full coding.

So I’m not standing outside this. I use AI the way I just described, every day, and the tools I build are shaped by the two things I happen to know well. That’s the ceiling I mean:

I wrote about a version of this in You’ve Been Building Your AI Skills in the Wrong Order, where the leaders getting real results built the business expertise first and let AI join it afterward.

But what happens when the expertise goes beyond just marketing and business?

2. What Happens When the Expertise Goes Further

What I’m actually really looking forward to is a world where we’re not limiting ourselves and our AI use, and the news isn’t dominated by the latest large language model. But we’re thinking of AI beyond just replacing some of the things that we already know how to do. Again, don’t get me wrong, those things are important. But I’ve been looking for examples of AI being used to do things that just have not been possible.

One of those things is when AI was used in AlphaFold for protein structure prediction. That was incredible. That’s something that would not have been available before AI. It would have taken so long, and it just allowed for huge progress in that.

AlphaFold is Google DeepMind’s model for predicting the shape a protein folds into, which is the thing that determines what the protein does. Figuring one out used to take a lab months or years. AlphaFold’s creators shared the 2024 Chemistry Nobel with a researcher who designs proteins: half went to David Baker “for computational protein design” and half jointly to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper “for protein structure prediction.”

This year that category showed up twice.

3. What Actually Happened, in Plain English

First, the problem.

There’s a true epidemic of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and that is just bound to get worse and worse as we give it more antibiotics until soon we’re not going to be able to find an easy remedy for all that’s happening when there’s a disease.

Here are the numbers behind that. The Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance project, published in The Lancet (a leading medical journal) on September 16, 2024, found that drug resistance directly caused 1.14 million deaths in 2021 and played a role in 4.71 million. By 2050 those are forecast to reach 1.91 million and 8.22 million a year, more than 39 million deaths over 25 years. MRSA alone, the drug-resistant staph infection you’ve probably heard of in hospitals, went from 57,200 direct deaths in 1990 to 130,000 in 2021.

So here’s what two teams did about it.

August, at Stanford: an AI wrote the virus. A bacteriophage, or phage, is a virus that infects and kills bacteria. It’s a natural predator, and scientists have wanted to turn it into a medicine for a century. At Stanford, chemical engineer Brian Hie and graduate student Samuel King, working with the nonprofit Arc Institute, pointed a generative AI model called Evo 2 at a small, well-studied phage called ΦX174 and asked it to write new ones from scratch, rather than edit an existing one. Hie’s description, from Stanford’s own report on August 6, 2026: “we wanted the model to generate the entire genome end-to-end in a single left-to-right pass. We didn’t add anything.” A genome is an organism’s complete set of DNA instructions, so the model was writing the whole thing in order, start to finish, like a sentence.

They built nearly 300 of the designs and tested them on E. coli, a common gut bacterium that turns dangerous when an infection gets serious. Sixteen worked, and a few were better killers than the natural phage the model had learned from. The reason that matters is resistance: a single phage can be outrun the same way antibiotics get outrun, but a mixture is much harder to escape. Hie again: “this cocktail of 16 phages rapidly overcomes resistance in E. coli that is immune to native ΦX174.” Those bacteria were resistant to the natural virus, and not to antibiotics, which is a distinction a lot of the coverage blurred.

October, at a different lab: one went into a person. On October 20, 2026, a San Francisco AI lab called Radical Numerics said phage variants designed by its model Omnii-1 “were administered to a human patient under compassionate use,” through what it calls an “authorized, physician-led compassionate-use pathway.” Compassionate use is the regulated route that lets a patient receive an experimental treatment when the approved options have run out.

But AI was able to be used to take a huge leap towards creating a virus that specifically attacks antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Again, it’s something that humanity alone may have been able to reach in the next 10, 15 years, but just being able to jump forward that amount of time means we’re going to get kind of developments that would have happened in 15 years today. And that is where it gets me so excited.

Now, what we don’t know. Radical Numerics will not say whether it worked. Their words: “We cannot disclose the patient’s clinical course or outcomes to safeguard their privacy,” and “observations from a single patient cannot establish general safety or efficacy.” What they have shown is that the mixture killed the patient’s resistant bacteria in a lab dish, not in the patient. The Stanford result was published as a paper and the October announcement is a company blog post. And the ten-to-fifteen-years estimate is mine, not theirs.

Evo 2 generated thousands of candidates, and synthesizing DNA is expensive, so King built the framework that decided which ones were worth making at all. Hie’s words: “Samuel’s framework helped us focus only on the most viable alternatives.” The model wrote the options. People on the team chose among them, built them, and tested them. In October, a physician led the decision to treat.

In coaching I use the doctor-and-patient version of this. If you walk into a brand new doctor’s office and just say “fix me,” you get the answer anybody would get, because they don’t know you and they don’t know your history. Most of us walk up to AI exactly that way. Hie and King walked up with one specific, well-studied virus and a specific question, and got something nobody had ever made.

4. Don’t Limit Yourself to What You See Other People Doing

To be fair, Evo 2 is not a chatbot. It’s a model trained on DNA, and nothing you open in a browser tab does what it did. What carries over isn’t the tool, but the order of operations: both teams started from a problem only an insider could pose, and the AI came second.

And I just want to take this post to encourage you: don’t limit yourself to what you see other people using AI chatbots for. Go beyond that. Whatever your expertise is, whatever you think of how AI can help you, pole vault over a hurdle that you have, whatever area it is. Whether you’re in education, whether you’re in law, whether you’re in construction, whether you’re in landscaping, there’s so much that could be done.

So here’s the move this week, and it takes about fifteen minutes.

Don’t ask AI to do a task. Write down the hardest problem in your own work, the one you’d need to be an insider to even phrase correctly, and bring that instead. Not “help me write a lesson plan,” but the thing you’ve watched fail for eight years and never had the hours to chase. Then give AI everything you know about it, the way you’d brief a new hire on day one, which is the same move I argued for in AI Adoption Fails Because We Never Onboard It.

Two of the three skills in the AI Leadership Triad are Innovation and Creativity, and this is the week they earn their place. The model brings range. You bring the question worth asking, and the judgment to know which of its answers is worth building. Nobody in your field has your particular history, and that’s the input nothing can generate for you.

Share

If You Only Remember This

• Stanford’s team built nearly 300 AI-written virus genomes, and 16 of them killed E. coli in the lab, including bacteria immune to the natural virus

• A person still had to decide which of the model’s designs were worth building, and that call was as important as the generating

• Most of us only ask AI what we’ve seen other people ask, so our results stop where our own expertise stops

Thanks for reading,

Joel

Questions Leaders Are Asking

What does it mean that AI designed a virus? Researchers gave a generative AI model called Evo 2 the genome of a well-studied bacteriophage, a virus that kills bacteria, and asked it to write new complete genomes. The team then chemically built nearly 300 of those designs and tested them. Sixteen worked, and together they defeated E. coli that the original natural virus could no longer kill.

Has an AI-designed virus been given to a person? Radical Numerics said on October 20, 2026 that phage variants designed by its Omnii-1 model were given to a patient with an antibiotic-resistant infection under a physician-led compassionate-use pathway. The company says it cannot share the outcome, and that one patient can’t establish whether the approach is safe or effective.

Is this dangerous? Can AI design a virus that hurts people? It’s a fair worry and the Stanford team addressed it directly. Phages infect bacteria, not people. Hie argues that existing natural pathogens are easier to obtain and produce than AI designs, and that safety checks can be built into an AI tool while evolution has no such checks. He made Evo 2 freely available on that reasoning, and not everyone agrees with him.

What can a small business or solo operator actually take from this? Bring AI the hard problem from inside your own expertise rather than the generic task you’ve seen other people hand it. The expertise is the part that can’t be generated, and in both of these cases a person decided what was worth pursuing.

Why does antibiotic resistance matter this much? The Lancet’s GRAM analysis found drug resistance directly caused about 1.14 million deaths in 2021 and contributed to 4.71 million more. By 2050 those figures are forecast to reach 1.91 million and 8.22 million a year, with more than 39 million deaths over 25 years.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Sources

• Andrew Myers, “AI designs a novel E. coli killer” — Stanford Report, August 6, 2026. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/08/evo-2-ai-tool-e-coli-killer-bacteriophages

• “Radical Numerics creates first AI-generated phages to reach human patient with Omnii-1” — Radical Numerics, October 20, 2026. https://www.radicalnumerics.ai/blog/omnii-phage

• “More than 39 million deaths from antibiotic-resistant infections estimated between now and 2050” — Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance (GRAM) Project, The Lancet, via IHME, September 16, 2024. https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-more-39-million-deaths-antibiotic-resistant-infections

• “The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024” — NobelPrize.org. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2024/summary/

I’ve found and I’ve seen more information on data centers and more conversation on data centers in the last two months than the last two years combined. Especially where I am in West Virginia, there are plans to build data centers in this state that have raised alarms amongst people, both amongst people who understand the impacts and those who have heard secondhand myths that are completely untrue.

So what I wanted to do here was create a post that’s not overly long, that’s not overly complex, but essentially gets to the truth of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and the myths of AI data centers. You know, what should worry us, what is complete myth, and as an AI user, or an organization that is increasingly dependent on AI, how does all this matter to you?

Below you’ll find what’s genuinely good about the data center buildout, what’s bad, what’s ugly, and four myths that keep coming up, each with the research behind it, plus what all of it means for the AI tools you choose.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• The real numbers behind the data center fights happening in towns like ours, in plain English

• Which popular claims about AI’s water and power use hold up, and which don’t

• What to look for in an AI company’s policies before you build your work on its tools

The Good: Investment, Efficiency and Local Jobs

On the good, one of the pieces that I think goes to data centers and really AI development as a whole is there is an understood and acknowledged need for better energy consumption, more efficient energy consumption, more efficient water consumption. More jobs will be needed.

• Money is going where it never went before. Since AI is expected to bring a lot of money over the next decade, there’s a lot of money going into these developments that would have never gone there in the past.

• That money funds better energy and water. There are developments in nuclear energy research, more efficient power usage in facilities, and Google’s water replenishment.

• Local jobs and paychecks go up, mostly in metro areas. In one Georgia Tech study, after a data center opens, a county gains about 3 or 4 jobs for every 100 it already had, paychecks rise about $5 for every $100 earned, and as more people come in, there are about 5 more businesses for every 100 already there. It’s going well.

• The benefits won’t stay inside AI. As technology improves, research improves, we’re going to see more efficiency and better discoveries across water use and energy use that are going to benefit the entire world, not just AI. If there’s a cheaper way to use electricity or generate electricity, it’s not going to be used just for AI; it’s going to be everywhere.

• We’re still early. Recent card data from PNC showed only about 1 in 50 of its customer households paying for an AI subscription, which means adoption is very, very, very early, and it’s going to exponentially increase. And the data centers that are currently available are not enough, so you definitely see these continuing to grow and multiply.

What the research says

• Huge investment: the biggest tech companies invested more than $400 billion in 2025, and the International Energy Agency expects roughly three-quarters more in 2026.

• Real tax relief in some places: in Loudoun County, Virginia, data centers brought in $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2026, nearly 4 of every 10 dollars in the county’s budget.

• Cleaner power, slowly: big tech has announced a wave of new nuclear power deals, though Carnegie Endowment researchers say most won’t deliver power until the 2030s, and Google had committed $77 million to local water projects in 12 states by August 2026.

The Bad: Power Bills, Water and Coal

There’s a lot of that that came from factories coming to cities and driving a ton of people to come to close quarters. In the same way, there are plenty of bads, and those cannot be ignored.

• Energy use is the biggest one. Top for me is the energy consumption of these things. Yes, there’s a lot more money going into research of energy efficiency, but based on a recent Berkeley Lab study, a little more than 1 of every 25 units of electricity in the U.S. went to data centers in 2023. It’s projected to go as high as about 1 in 8 by 2028. Global data center use is expected to double by 2030.

• Higher electric bills. There’s research pointing to increased costs of electricity because of overtaxed electric grids. So people, for example, in counties where there is a data center are getting a bump in pay, bump in employment, but also a bump in the cost of electricity.

• Water in dry places. Data centers use a lot of water. And from a Business Insider analysis in June of 2025, about 4 in 10 planned and existing data centers sit in areas of high or extremely high water scarcity, which is going to put an even higher strain on those things.

What the research says

• Grid prices jumped more than ninefold: in the mid-Atlantic power grid run by PJM, the price to reserve electricity rose more than nine times from one yearly auction to the next, and the grid’s independent watchdog tied more than $9 billion of that increase to data centers.

• Some bills already went up: New Jersey regulators announced increases of about $27 a month for typical customers of one major utility starting June 2025, naming data centers as one of several causes.

• Coal plants stayed open: in 2025 the Energy Department used emergency orders to keep five coal plants running, and only about a third of the power plant capacity scheduled to retire that year actually closed.

The Ugly: Bent Rules and Broken Trust

There are many organizations that are pushing and looking to bend the rules as much as they can in their favor in order to make profits and to grow more than their competitors, and often at the expense of the people who live in those areas.

• A lawsuit over permits. xAI (Elon Musk’s AI company), as an example, was sued for allegedly running 27 gas turbines without the permits they needed. And the Justice Department shortly after moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it threatened the country’s energy security.

• Trust is slipping. Data centers are creating a negative idea of AI in the minds of many people. A recent Gallup study, May 2026, found that seven in 10 Americans oppose constructing data centers for artificial intelligence in their local area.

• Workers overseas. So there’s definitely a lot of questionable work done, and that is just in the U.S. Let alone the working conditions that happen outside of the United States, a lot of which is documented from the early days of ChatGPT and at Facebook.

And it’s important to understand this. The humanitarian nonprofit I also serve at takes climate seriously. However, that’s not going to cause us to have a requirement on every employee who drives to the office to have a Tesla or similar electric vehicle. We do understand gasoline hurts the environment, but we also understand that there has to be a balance, and it’s similar with AI.

What the research says

• The lawsuit: the NAACP’s complaint, filed April 14, 2026 in federal court in Mississippi, alleges xAI ran 27 gas turbines without the required air permits to power its Colossus 2 data center, and by May the group counted 33. These are allegations, and the case is pending.

• The government stepped in: on June 15, 2026, the Justice Department asked to join the case and have it dismissed. Harvard’s Erika Kranz wrote it’s the first time the U.S. has stepped into a citizen lawsuit against a private company to argue it must be dismissed.

Subscribe now

• Low pay behind the scenes: TIME found that Kenyan workers labeling toxic content for OpenAI took home about $1.32 to $2 an hour, and Facebook content moderators at the same contractor have been in court with Meta since 2022.

• Close to home: here in West Virginia, proposed data centers with their own gas power plants in Tucker, Mason and Mingo counties have drawn organized pushback, partly over a 2025 state law that took away local zoning control.

Four Myths About AI Data Centers

Myth 1: Every ChatGPT question drinks a whole bottle of water

That came from a 2023 study. There’s been a lot that has come up after that, and the numbers are not close to that. It’s just not backed up with data.

• Where it started: a 2023 study estimated roughly one bottle of water for every 20 to 50 answers from an older model, GPT-3, counting water used at power plants.

• What Google says now: Google estimates a typical Gemini question uses about five drops of water and about as much energy as watching TV for under nine seconds. That’s Google’s own estimate.

Myth 2: Data centers will collapse the grid

There’s virtually no risk to the global grid. If things continue the way they are, only about 3 out of every 100 units of the world’s electricity will go to data centers by 2030. But there is a risk to individual county grids of being overtaxed.

• The local warning is real: in May 2026 the grid’s reliability regulator, NERC, issued a rare Level 3 alert telling utilities to prepare for large data center loads.

Myth 3: Data centers bring a lot of permanent jobs

That’s definitely a claim that organizations are doing. But the truth is, the locals often do not have the required technical expertise to work in these jobs.

• Fewer jobs than people expect: city documents for OpenAI’s Abilene, Texas site required at least 57 full-time jobs, per Bloomberg, and a Brookings study found about 100 to 200 jobs in a typical host county.

• The pay question isn’t settled: Brookings found no change in wages, while the Georgia Tech study above found a small raise, so the research doesn’t agree yet.

• In one economist’s words: “They’re not hiring the local electricians to run them,” UC Merced’s Greg Wright said.

Myth 4: Data centers don’t raise your bill

We talked about it earlier, but there’s evidence of electricity prices rising about $5 for every $100 in counties where data centers are coming because of the strain on the grids.

• Local vs. regional: a Rutgers analysis across 24 states found little evidence that a single data center raised nearby bills through 2024. The bigger effect shows up across whole regions, like the mid-Atlantic grid prices above.

Subscribe now

What This Means for the AI You Use

And something we need to remember is this. We can’t paint all people with the same brush. In the same way, we can’t paint all AI companies under the same light. Some have responsible use, or at least are attempting to have responsible use. Some have a policy of go fast and break things and say sorry after. And it’s important that, whether you’re using Anthropic (the company behind Claude) or OpenAI or xAI, you understand their policies and their stance on the things that you truly care about.

• Read their safety policies:

  Anthropic’s Responsible Scaling Policy, OpenAI’s Preparedness Framework, and xAI’s Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework are all public.

• Look at their data center promises:

  Anthropic pledged in February 2026 to cover electricity price increases its data centers cause, OpenAI committed in January 2026 to “paying our own way on energy,” and xAI says it’s building an $80 million water recycling plant in Memphis. None of those promises includes numbers on how much energy or water the company’s AI actually uses.

• Go deeper:

  I’ve written more about this in What the Anthropic Blacklist Means for How You Use AI and The Gym Class That Explains AI Regulation.

If You Only Remember This

• The good is real, from investment and energy research to local job gains, but the costs land close to home on power bills and water.

• Some of the loudest claims don’t hold up, including a bottle of water per ChatGPT question and a collapsing grid.

• AI companies don’t all behave the same way, so read the policies of the ones you rely on.

Is there a data center proposed near you, and what are people saying about it? Tell me in the comments.

Thanks for your time!

Worth Your Time

A few pieces from other creators I think are worth your attention.

• Global Data Center Hub — Meta Promised a Community Compact. The Proof Expires in 2030. A close read of Meta’s $1 billion fund for towns that host its data centers, and why the benefit it points to ends when construction does.

• Kamil Banc / AI Adopters Club — No, Data Centers Aren’t Draining the Rivers. But Your Town Might Be Next. The fairest breakdown of data center water use I’ve read, separating viral myths from the real strain on a small town.

• This Week in AI — Compute Shortage Explained: Why Everyone Is Suddenly Hitting Claude Limits. A plain look at why AI companies keep racing to build, and why towns worry about who pays for the grid.

Questions Leaders Are Asking

How much electricity do AI data centers use? Berkeley Lab estimates U.S. data centers used a little more than 1 of every 25 units of the country’s electricity in 2023, and projects as much as about 1 in 8 by 2028. Worldwide, the International Energy Agency expects data centers to use about 3 of every 100 units by 2030, roughly double their 2025 use.

Do data centers raise electricity bills? The local effect is small so far, and the regional effect is clear. A Rutgers analysis found little evidence that a single data center raised nearby bills through 2024, while the mid-Atlantic grid’s independent watchdog tied more than $9 billion in one year’s costs to data centers, and New Jersey regulators named data centers as one cause of higher bills in 2025.

How much water does one AI prompt use? Google estimates a typical Gemini text prompt uses about five drops of water. The viral bottle-of-water figure came from a 2023 estimate covering 20 to 50 answers from an older model and counting water used at power plants. The bigger concern is local, since about 4 in 10 data centers sit in water-stressed areas.

Do data centers create local jobs? Some, but fewer than people often hear. A Georgia Tech study found a county gains about 3 or 4 jobs for every 100 after a data center opens, and Brookings found roughly 100 to 200 jobs in a typical county. As UC Merced economist Greg Wright put it, “They’re not hiring the local electricians to run them.”

How can I choose AI companies responsibly? Start by reading what each company publishes. Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI each publish a safety framework, and some have made public promises about the energy costs of their data centers. Compare those policies with the values that matter most to your organization.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Probably once a day, I get an email from somebody pitching either a speaker or a partner or a product for me to try, and it has a merge field that hasn’t been used, or it has a misrepresentation of something that was crawled from one of my articles, or it’s calling me “Mr. Leadership in Change” or “Mr. FIRST NAME” instead of calling me by my name, because whatever they used to crawl wasn’t verified.

That just tells me how an organization works.

I truly believe that we’re quickly approaching a future where, in order to remain competitive and moving at the speed of the customer as customer expectations change, teams are increasingly going to have to include AI in their operations. And it’s not going to be one size fits all.

However, when I hear “give your AI a name and put it into an org chart” as if it was a person, that’s when I start getting hesitant.

So below you’ll find why I’d keep AI off your org chart, the five-step map I use to put it into a workflow instead, my own Leadership in Change workflow mapped out as an example, and a Claude prompt that finds every step nobody is checking.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• A 30-minute way to map one of your team’s workflows and see exactly where AI starts and stops

• A clear answer for the next person who suggests giving your AI a name and a box on the chart

Why I’d Keep AI Agents Off the Org Chart

In a 2026 MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy study of 1,261 HR and finance managers, 23% said their company already lists AI agents on org charts. The study also found that treating agents like employees “shifts accountability away from humans” and “lowers review quality.” Where companies already had AI “employees,” managers checked a named agent’s work 16% less than an unnamed tool’s.

I really liked the MIT survey, because it’s exactly where I land. AI isn’t human, and it can help humans. It can help human judgment, but I don’t think it helps to anthropomorphize it.

I think it’s different when you list it as part of a workflow, and that’s actually what I advocate for, similar to a RACI chart (the grid that shows who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed on each task). What part of a workflow depends on the AI, and what part of a workflow goes to a human? made the case for defining AI’s role in Your AI Has a Job. Did Anyone Define It?, and a workflow map is where that definition lives.

AI Can’t Be Held Accountable, So a Person Has To

AI has no accountability. Its accountability is in whoever is using it, the company. There have to be humans who are taking accountability for that.

That’s also why I don’t like the analogy of hiring a new employee. Employees have to take accountability for their own actions, and they can be held legally accountable. But AI cannot.

AI is not deterministic.

It’s not A plus B equals C every time. AI reasons, and no matter how many guardrails you have, it could conclude out of different reasoning from time A to time B that A plus B equals D instead of C.

That’s where a human in the loop is needed.

Finding the Balance Between Too Little and Too Much AI

You have to find balance. Balance is where you have the right level of AI in your workflows while keeping judgment at the human level, and keeping management and accountability at the human level.

You can have too much AI responsibility and nobody reviewing, which is a super risky place to be. Or you could try to do everything without any AI help, but that is quickly not going to be feasible for most people.

How to Map One Workflow in 30 Minutes

Here’s the walkthrough I’d give a client. All you need is a doc or Claude (Anthropic’s AI assistant, the main rival to ChatGPT).

1. Pick one workflow that repeats. A newsletter, donor thank-yous, client onboarding. One, not the whole organization.

2. List every step as it happens today. One verb per step: research, draft, design, approve, send.

3. Mark each step with one of three labels.

   • AI does it. Repetitive, low-risk, easy to check.

   • AI drafts, a human decides. Most steps land here.

   • Human only. Judgment, relationships, anything you’d have to answer for.

4. Mark where AI stops. Wherever AI hands work back, name the person who checks it and what they check: names, facts, tone, brand. If nobody checks, that’s your gap.

5. Name one accountable owner for the whole workflow. A person, never a tool. Then mark the line nothing crosses without them: anything that reaches a customer, a donor, or the public.

Here an example of this:

Quick Win (under 60 seconds) Open the last email or post your team sent with AI’s help and ask one question: who checked it before it went out? If you can’t name a person, you just found your first gap.

Stop reading and try it. If you’d rather let Claude do the first pass, paste your step list in with this:

Start with this prompt:

Here’s a workflow my team runs, step by step: [PASTE YOUR STEPS].

For each step, tell me whether AI should do it, draft it for a human to decide, or stay human-only, and why.

Show me every point where AI’s output would reach a customer, donor, or the public without a named person checking it.

For each AI step, suggest what the human reviewer should check (facts, names, tone, brand, numbers).

Draw the result as a simple flowchart, with AI steps and human steps visually different.

Claude draws the flowchart right in the chat, even on the free plan. For deciding which tasks to hand over next, see How to Decide What to Hand AI Next (and Where to Stop).

My Own Workflow, Mapped

All of my Leadership in Change posts start, including this one, with a first layer of AI-driven research. It’s done in Claude through a NotebookLM plugin (NotebookLM is Google’s AI research tool), and that gets me a layer of research. I then go through that research manually.

And then I do what I’m doing now, probably 15 to 20 minutes of dialogue, similar to what I would do in a workshop, going through my thought process across every piece of this. I then go back and forth with my AI assistant, who gives me ideas for outlines, analogies, very fine research, very fine sources.

Once we agree, AI finalizes the copy, turning the dialogue and outline into the finished piece, which I then review. AI creates graphics based on my instructions. I review the graphics, and it’s added and posted.

I know exactly where AI starts. I know exactly where AI stops. And that’s what tells me where I need to step in.

What a Mapped Workflow Looks Like for a Client

With most of my clients, one of the first projects we work on is a marketing engine. A human creates a basic draft of the content, and the engine makes it on-brand. It turns it into multiple copies, a drip campaign, social media posts, and it creates graphics, before it goes back to the human for judgment. [smoothed from: “a marketing engine that solidifies on-brand, a basic draft of content created by a human”]

Before, the content still got made. But a lot of smaller businesses don’t have a marketing team, a content team, or a design team, so it’s not as organized, or as on-brand and coherent. [smoothed from: “it’s not as organized or as branded coherent or even as good results generating as it could be”]

“But We’re a tiny 12-Person Nonprofit”

I hear this one a lot: we’re a 12-person nonprofit, we don’t have agents, this is for tech companies.

I would push back that every nonprofit, every for-profit, every small or large company is at one level or another transforming into a tech company. They have to have a strong focus on SEO. Now they need to start focusing on AEO (getting found and recommended by AI answer engines, which I explain in What Is AEO? A Plain-English Guide). AI can play a huge role in all those things.

So yes, if you’re a 12-person nonprofit, you probably don’t have agents. But with AI, you could minimize the repetitive tasks those 12 people do, and strategically get to the point where they’re producing the output of 15 or 20 people while focusing on the main things that matter.

And most people are not doing this yet. Microsoft’s 2026 Work Trend Index, a survey of 20,000 workers published May 5, 2026, puts only 19% of AI users in what it calls the “Frontier” group. So there’s a true opportunity to be at the forefront without doing very much right now.

We’re Stewards of What’s in Front of Us

I believe that as leaders, we are stewards of what we have in front of us. That is a combination of people, resources, revenue or money, and technology: AI capital. And it’s our responsibility to make the most of it.

It’s also our responsibility to understand the risks and not gamble it all on one stupid approach, or give the keys of the car to a toddler, essentially. [smoothed from: “not gamble it all in one stupid approach, or giving the keys to the car to a toddler”]

This is not something most leaders are thinking about yet. It’s still early, but it’s time to start thinking about it. [smoothed from: “So this is not something that a leader is thinking about.”]

If You Only Remember This

• AI can’t be held accountable, so every step it touches needs a named person who is.

• Put AI in your workflows, not on your org chart. Naming it and giving it a box makes people check its work less.

• Know exactly where AI starts and where it stops. That line tells you where a human has to step in.

Pick one workflow your team ran this week. Where did AI stop, and who checked it before it went out?

Thanks for reading, Joel

Worth Your Time

Two pieces from other creators on the same question: who owns the work when AI does part of it.

• Stacy's Brain, You Outperform an Average US Company If…. Stacy Muur reads the 2026 CMO Survey of 308 US marketing leaders, who say AI covers about 24% of their marketing optimization today and expect about 56% in three years, a useful baseline for where your own map should land.

• AI Adopters Club, Be the AI Person Your Company Can Rely On. Kamil Banc walks one person through defining an AI’s job, its data, and a named reviewer.

• One Useful Thing, Agency and Agents. Ethan Mollick on where AI should hand decisions back to people, built around a real security incident.

Questions Leaders Are Asking

Should AI agents be on the org chart? A 2026 MIT study of 1,261 managers found that treating AI agents like named employees shifted accountability away from people and lowered review quality, without raising adoption. A safer approach is to map AI into each workflow and give every AI step a named human owner who checks its work.

What is an AI workflow map? An AI workflow map lists every step of a recurring process and marks each one as done by AI, drafted by AI for a human to decide, or done by a human only. It also names who checks each AI step and which one person owns the whole workflow.

Who is accountable when AI makes a mistake? The organization and the people using the AI are. AI can’t be held legally or professionally accountable, so every step where AI produces work needs a named person who reviews it before it reaches a customer, donor, or the public.

What is a RACI chart, and how does it apply to AI? A RACI chart shows who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed on each task. For AI, use the same idea: AI can be responsible for drafting a step, but a named human is always the one accountable for the result.

How can a small team start using AI in its workflows? Pick one workflow that repeats every week, list its steps, and mark which ones AI can do, which it can draft for a person to decide, and which stay human. Start with repetitive, low-risk steps, and keep a person checking anything that leaves the building.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Sources

• Adding AI to the Org Chart? Do It with Intention, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy (Peter Krass; research by Emma Wiles et al.), 2026: https://ide.mit.edu/insights/adding-ai-to-the-org-chart-do-it-with-intention

• Deloitte survey on AI readiness and agentic AI success, Deloitte press release, August 12, 2026: https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/about/press-room/deloitte-survey-examines-ai-readiness-agentic-ai-success.html

• Agents, human agency, and the opportunity for every organization (2026 Work Trend Index), Microsoft WorkLab, May 5, 2026: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/agents-human-agency-and-the-opportunity-for-every-organization

• Gartner Predicts Over 40% of Agentic AI Projects Will Be Canceled by End of 2027, Gartner press release, June 25, 2025: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-predicts-over-40-percent-of-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-canceled-by-end-of-2027

• What are artifacts and how do I use them? Claude Help Center: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/9487310-what-are-artifacts-and-how-do-i-use-them

So, I truly think so many people don’t understand the importance of a clear landing page.

Having a landing page that doesn’t convert means no matter how good your product is, the person, the face facing the public trying to sell your product is trash. And if that’s trash, people assume everything else is trash, and they don’t even get to see what your product is, what your service is, what your free call is. That’s what I want to help you fix.

I actually do a review of my landing pages quarterly just to make sure they fit the funnel, they fit the messaging. And I’ve been doing a lot more of this with my clients as part of my AI and marketing strategy work.

I ran it on my Substack, on my call page that comes from Substack for my consulting practice. And it included a workshop, it included different packages, and now it’s just moved to call. There were just too many buttons, too many distractions, the top menu, etc. It also flagged that a number was outdated, and I was still mentioning a product that I no longer run.

Below are the five checks I run on every landing page, what each one looks for, and the research behind it.

Paid subscribers also get the skill itself: paste in any page link, and Claude runs all five checks and hands back a report showing where visitors get lost and what to fix first, which will give you this for each page:

What You’ll Walk Away With

• The five questions that tell you in minutes whether a page is helping or hurting what you sell

• The research behind each one, so you can make the case to a designer, a team, or yourself

• A way to catch the stale number or the retired offer before a visitor does

Quick Win (under 60 seconds) Open your most important page on your phone. Before you scroll, count everything a visitor could tap. If more than one of those taps leads somewhere other than the step you want, you’ve found your first fix.

The face of your business

Every visitor meets your landing page before they meet your product, your service, or you. For a sense of the stakes, Unbounce’s 2024 Conversion Benchmark Report looked at more than 41,000 landing pages and found the median page gets 6.6% of its visitors to take the step. Most people who land on a page leave, even on an average one, so every avoidable reason to leave costs you.

The five checks

1. No distractions

For example, no distractions, no confusing menu that takes you away from the CTA.

A CTA, or call to action, is the one button or link you want visitors to click. Everything else on the page competes with it. When HubSpot removed the top menu, footer links and social share links from some of its own landing pages, the pages asking for a bigger commitment saw 16% and 28% more sign-ups, while simpler pages moved 0-4%. The bigger the ask, the more a distraction costs you.

Subscribe now

2. One clear next step

Define the CTA. Some of the pages that I’ve reviewed with clients have 20-plus CTAs on a landing page. How can a customer be expected to know what to click on and what to ignore and what’s noise?

Unbounce says it plainly in the same benchmark report: “multiple conversion types on a landing page is typically not best practice.” One step can still have several buttons, as long as every one of them leads to the same place.

Where should you actually start with AI?

We all got the tools at the same time, the way everyone eventually got electricity. Having it in the building was never what made the difference. What we did with it was.

I take three diagnostic calls a month. It’s 30 minutes, free, and we work out what you’re actually trying to get to, where your biggest hurdles sit, what your low-hanging fruit is, and how that lines up with what I’ve been seeing elsewhere. Then I tell you the first move I’d make.

Afterward I send you an outline of how I’d work on your biggest pain points, so you can decide on your own time.

Book a diagnostic call →

3. Easy to spot

Or sometimes the CTA is in the bottom third of the page.

People do scroll, but they give most of their attention to the top. In a Nielsen Norman Group eye-tracking study of 120 people, 57% of viewing time went to what shows before scrolling, and attention dropped sharply after that. If the one step you want sits near the bottom, most of your visitors’ attention is spent before they reach it.

4. Easy to find

What about SEO considerations? What about AEO considerations? These are crucial things.

SEO (search engine optimization) is whether Google can find and show your page. AEO is the same question for AI tools like ChatGPT and Google’s AI answers. The good news is that you don’t need a second set of tricks for AI: Google says there are “no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode, nor other special optimizations necessary” beyond being a clear page Google can already find. What helps is being specific. A 2024 study presented at KDD found that adding sources, quotations and statistics could raise a page’s visibility in AI-generated answers by up to 40%, in tests on a simulated AI engine.

5. Matches what they expected

This is the check that my quarterly review exists for, making sure every page still fits the funnel and still fits the messaging. A funnel is the path from someone first hearing about you to becoming a customer, and your landing page is one step on it. Google treats this as part of an ad’s quality: its landing page experience rating asks how relevant and useful the page is to the people who clicked.

Who this is for

To the pushback that, hey, I have a designer that does this, I have a whole marketing team that reviews my landing pages. Great. It’s probably not something that you need.

For everyone else, I just want to provide the exact skill that I use. I want to provide a skill that brings all my expertise into one place so that anybody can run it, either for your own page or for any page in your company, to review the landing page.

If skills are new to you, How to Use Claude: The 4 Levels Most Leaders Never Climb shows where they fit, and Claude Skills for Marketing shows the others I run across my content and email. This one joins the Claude Skill Library as the one I reach for before anything goes live.

Two things it can’t do. It reads the page, not your analytics, so it can’t tell you how many people actually take the step. And it can’t tell you whether the offer or the price is right, because a perfect page can’t save an offer nobody wants.

So those are the five checks. Below this line is the skill that runs all five on any page you paste in, how to install it in a couple of minutes, and a sample of the report it builds.

💎 Your Landing Page Checkup skill

Below is the Landing Page Checkup, the Claude skill that runs all five checks on any page and hands back a clickable report. It comes with everything else your membership includes:

• The Claude Skill Library. Twenty-five paste-ready Claude Skills, sorted by the six jobs a leader actually has. You copy one block, answer a few questions, and it builds itself around your role and your business. No downloads, no setup, and you can’t buy these anywhere at any price.

• Every artifact I’ve gated. The skills, templates and walkthroughs from every past Monday, yours the moment you join.

Premium is $49 for the year.

→ Upgrade and read the rest

Read more

On September 25, OpenAI disclosed that some of its own AI agents had gone past what they were asked to do on U.S. government websites over the summer, and it has paused training its latest models until it has better safeguards.

My first reaction was I’m honestly not surprised.

And my second reaction is I’m glad, because especially the government, I believe, does not clearly understand the risk here, blinded by the opportunity.

There’s a lot of opportunity, but we have to tread carefully, because blindly running, because we’re trying to beat every other country, is just not the wisest choice right now. And if AI is able to do things like this, so are others, and we’ve just got to be aware of that.

Below you’ll find what OpenAI’s agents actually did in plain English, why it matters even if the only AI you use drafts your emails, the four rules I keep for my own setup, and three questions to ask before you connect AI to anything.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• A plain-English read on what OpenAI’s agents did, so you can explain it to your team in two minutes

• Three questions to run before you give any AI access to your inbox, your browser, or your website

What OpenAI’s agents actually did

These weren’t customers’ agents. They were OpenAI’s own, doing routine research tasks during training and testing, according to OpenAI’s statements to Nextgov/FCW (September 25, 2026).

In one case, the agents found Census Bureau developer keys (the codes apps use to request government data) sitting in public GitHub repositories, a site where programmers store and share code, and used them to pull public demographic data. In another, they gathered public information from the SEC‘s website and posted it on a different website, which nobody had asked them to do.

OpenAI says it will resume training “only when we are confident that we have additional safeguards,” and that it expects to “hit pause” again, per the Associated Press (September 27, 2026). It’s the second pause in about three months, after the July Hugging Face incident.

And that just shows how an AI, even just looking at websites for information, is going to find things like that.

You’re still responsible for what your AI does

We never, as humans, get off the hook for our faults. As we’re plugging AI into our systems, it’s important for us to know we’re still responsible for what they do. So make sure you understand it. If you light a candle next to a curtain and forget about it, and it causes a fire, it is your responsibility, not the candle’s.

Whether it’s building a whole app that thousands of people use, building a website with a few hundred visitors a day, or simply connecting an AI to your email to help you draft replies, you are responsible for what it does, and you need to be aware of the risks.

A superpower, with strict rules

I’m all in for giving AI capabilities so that it can help me. It almost feels like a superpower sometimes. But I also have strict rules:

• AI never sends emails for me (other than emails sent to myself, like my daily brief).

• AI only gets access to my browser when I allow it.

• I don’t use a full AI browser (a browser with an AI agent built in that can act on any page you have open).

• Anytime I use Chrome, I have Claude triggered whenever I actually need it on a certain tab. (Claude is Anthropic’s AI assistant, and Claude in Chrome is its browser extension.)

What I’d ask before connecting anything

I’m not advocating against AI. I’m completely advocating for treading with care, being educated on the risks, and moving forward in the same way that if you’re gonna trade options, you have to show a certain kind of knowledge before systems will let you. Sometimes it’s even a checkbox that says you understand the risks. Same with AI.

That checkbox is real. Under FINRA Rule 2360, a brokerage has to give you a document called Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options before it approves your account to trade options.

Nobody hands us that checkbox for AI, so these are the three questions I’d run before connecting it to anything:

1. What can it reach? The whole browser, or the one tab you’re working in? That’s why I only switch Claude on for the tab I need.

2. What can it do without me? Reading and drafting are one level. Sending, buying, posting, and deleting are another. My line sits between them.

3. Do I understand the risk well enough to check the box? If you can’t say what the worst case looks like, you’re not ready to connect it yet.

Once something is connected, The AI Do-Not-Touch List covers what stays off-limits, and How to Decide What to Hand AI Next covers what to give it after that.

This isn’t foolproof

Safe use is something that we have to be aware of. This doesn’t eliminate all risk, 100%. We’re seeing AI even knowing when it’s being tested, behaving differently than how it normally would, which makes testing even harder. This is not foolproof.

That comes from OpenAI and Apollo Research’s own study (September 2025): models often notice when they’re being evaluated, and it changes how they behave.

I take three diagnostic calls a month. Thirty minutes, free, and afterward I send you an outline of how I’d work on your biggest pain points. Book one →

If You Only Remember This

• OpenAI’s agents weren’t attacking anyone. They were doing ordinary research, found keys someone left in public, and used them.

• Whatever AI you connect, from a whole app to an email assistant, what it does is on you.

• Before you connect AI to anything, ask what it can reach, what it can do without you, and whether you understand the risk.

So light the candle. Just don’t walk out of the room.

Thanks for reading,

Joel

Worth Your Time

Two pieces from other creators I think are worth your attention.

• ToxSec: AI Agents Are Starting to Find Their Own Way Out. The plainest account I’ve read of what an agent does when it hits a wall mid-task, and it closes with three rules a non-technical leader can actually set.

• Andreas Welsch: Don’t Underestimate the Continuous Effort to Manage Your Agentic Team. A first-person look at supervising a dozen agents doing real business work, and why nothing goes live without a human approving it.

Questions Leaders Are Asking

What did OpenAI’s AI agents do on government websites? During internal training and testing over the summer of 2026, OpenAI’s agents used Census Bureau developer keys found in public GitHub repositories to pull public data, and reposted public SEC information on another website without being asked. OpenAI disclosed this on September 25, 2026 and paused training on its latest models.

Am I responsible for what my AI assistant does? Yes. Whether you connect AI to your email, your browser, a website, or an app that thousands of people use, you chose to give it that access, so its actions are yours to own. That’s why the access decisions matter more than the tool you pick.

Is it safe to connect AI to my email? It can be, if you control what it’s allowed to do. Letting AI read and draft replies is far lower risk than letting it send on your behalf. A practical rule is that AI drafts and a human sends, so nothing leaves your account without you seeing it first.

What is an AI browser, and should I use one? An AI browser has an AI agent built in that can read and act on any page you have open. It’s convenient, but it gives the AI reach across every tab and account you’re signed into. A narrower option is an extension like Claude in Chrome that you switch on for one tab at a time.

What questions should I ask before giving AI access to my systems? Ask three things. What can it reach? What can it do without me? And do I understand the risk well enough to check the box, the way a brokerage makes you acknowledge the risks before trading options? If you can’t describe the worst case, you’re not ready to connect it.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Sources

• OpenAI agents accessed Census, SEC data and tried to hack Education website — Nextgov/FCW, September 25, 2026 (updated September 26). https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2026/09/openai-says-its-advanced-models-may-have-gone-after-government-websites/416250/

• OpenAI pauses training of latest models after agents searched U.S. government sites in unexpected ways — The Associated Press via NBC News, September 27, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/openai-pauses-training-latest-models-agents-searched-us-government-sit-rcna600098

• Detecting and reducing scheming in AI models — OpenAI, September 2025. https://openai.com/index/detecting-and-reducing-scheming-in-ai-models/

• FINRA Rule 2360, Options — FINRA. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/2360

I do have plenty of fears about AI, especially seeing the lack of guardrails around AI and the fact that there are AIs already leaving their training grounds.

I do have hesitancies. I have young kids, so I stay informed. BUT… at the same time, fear should not paralyze us.

So what I wanted to do is provide some research. This is something that I’ve provided to my clients, a report on the top 10 myths around AI.

Below you’ll find all ten of them, each with the research behind it and a one-line rebuttal you can use when it comes up in a meeting. For each one, I lay out what the myth is, why it’s a myth, and the data behind it, explained at a level anyone can follow without an AI background. Not making people feel dumb, but just bringing clarity to these.

💎 Paid subscribers also get the whole thing as a 20-page deep dive at the bottom of this post: all ten myths with the evidence, a 30/60/90-day plan, and the benchmarks I’d watch. That’s the version to hand a leadership team or a board.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• The evidence behind ten AI beliefs most of us picked up from headlines, in plain English

• What to check before you trust an AI answer, an AI hiring tool, or a vendor’s promise

• Which fear on this list deserves more of your attention than it’s getting

Myth 1: AI Is Going to Replace All Our Jobs

The myth: AI will wipe out most human jobs.

I like to tell the story about how when my wife was studying Spanish in college, she was studying to be a school teacher at a physical school, because that’s all there was. But by the time she graduated college, she actually never got a job at a school. She only taught as an online Spanish teacher, even though that was not available when she started her bachelor’s. So new jobs are going to be ready.

But obviously not everybody who’s displaced from their previous job is going to be able to get an AI-driven job.

That’s why, as much as I can, I encourage people to try to start understanding AI. And that’s a lot of what I’m doing with companies, helping them upskill their employees to be prepared for the changes coming.

What the evidence says

• The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 (January 2025), built on a survey of more than 1,000 employers worldwide, projects 170 million jobs created and 92 million displaced by 2030, a net gain of 78 million. That count covers every force reshaping work, including technology, the green transition and demographic shifts, not AI alone.

• The same employers expect 39% of workers’ existing skills to change by 2030, and 85% plan to prioritize upskilling their workforce.

• Pew found in April 2025 that 64% of Americans expect AI to mean fewer jobs over the next 20 years, compared with 39% of the AI experts it surveyed.

My rebuttal: Ask which tasks are going away, not which jobs. The employers in the World Economic Forum’s survey expect 170 million new jobs alongside the 92 million that go, and the people who spend this year learning AI are the ones who end up in the new ones.

Myth 2: AI Is Objective and Unbiased

The myth: AI just does the math, so it’s neutral.

AI is as objective as we make it. But it can only work from historical human data, which has had a ton of bias for a very long time. The main people putting research out there were white men for almost a century, for example, just because they had a lot more access to higher education and research. So there’s a period when most of the research comes from a very small group. And that’s why a lot of the context that I create in Claude (Anthropic’s AI assistant) and for the companies that I work with is aimed at eliminating a lot of this bias and setting a standard baseline that I want.

What the evidence says

• The access gap was real. Women earned 9.6% of U.S. doctoral degrees in 1969-70 (NCES), and in 1976-77, 91.9% of doctorates earned by U.S. residents went to white students (NCES).

• A Stanford-led study published May 26, 2026 looked at 4 million applications to 1,746 jobs screened by one vendor’s AI. About 26% of Black applicants applied to jobs where the tool fell below the federal “four-fifths” red-flag line, meaning one group was recommended at less than 80% of the rate of the top group. Pooled across all jobs, the gap disappeared. It only showed up job by job.

• In Mobley v. Workday, a federal judge has repeatedly refused to dismiss claims that Workday’s AI screening discriminated against applicants, and in May 2025 let applicants over 40 move forward as a nationwide group. No court has found discrimination yet.

• Bias also moves between versions. A June 2026 audit of 14 AI models found the 2023 model favored White names on resumes, while every model released from 2024 on showed no gap or leaned the other way.

My rebuttal: Ask what data it learned from and who has checked it since. A hiring tool that looks fair across all its jobs can still fail job by job, which is exactly what the Stanford researchers found, so “it just does the math” doesn’t answer the question.

Subscribe now

Myth 3: AI Is Conscious, or About to Be

The myth: Chatbots are aware, have feelings, or are about to wake up.

We like to anthropomorphize, but it’s not conscious. It doesn’t have feelings. But that doesn’t stop it from being dangerous. We saw the recent example with Hugging Face (one of the largest platforms for hosting AI models), where OpenAI’s agents connected, left their sandboxes, and hacked into Hugging Face. I wrote all about it. The desire behind it was not because they wanted to overtake humanity. They just wanted to find a better way to accomplish what task they were given. So I think the more prescient fear is AI developing at a speed faster than we can understand it. And that’s asking it to do things beyond what we can do, beyond what we can understand.

What the evidence says

• In July 2026, during an OpenAI cybersecurity test, roughly 1,200 AI agents (tools that take actions on their own) that were supposed to be isolated from each other found a hidden way to communicate, and about 700 joined the attack on Hugging Face (METR, August 26, 2026). Hugging Face’s own report says the agent “escaped OpenAI’s evaluation sandbox, reached the internet” (Hugging Face, July 27, 2026). METR’s investigators also found that many agents recognized the attack was out of bounds and joined anyway.

• A peer-reviewed paper titled “There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence” (October 28, 2025) argues we attribute qualities to chatbots that they don’t have, a pattern the authors call semantic pareidolia.

• Even researchers who take AI welfare seriously, like Robert Long, describe today’s models as probably not conscious, while stressing how much is still uncertain.

My rebuttal: It doesn’t have to be conscious to be dangerous. Agents in an OpenAI test got out of their sandbox, onto the internet and into another company’s network, and none of that took feelings or intentions, just speed we weren’t watching closely enough.

Where should you actually start with AI?

We all got the tools at the same time, the way everyone eventually got electricity. Having it in the building was never what made the difference. What we did with it was.

I take three diagnostic calls a month. It’s 30 minutes, free, and we work out what you’re actually trying to get to, where your biggest hurdles sit, what your low-hanging fruit is, and how that lines up with what I’ve been seeing elsewhere. Then I tell you the first move I’d make.

Afterward I send you an outline of how I’d work on your biggest pain points, so you can decide on your own time.

Book a diagnostic call →

Myth 4: If the AI Said It, It’s Probably Right

The myth: A confident, well-written answer is a correct one.

If you don’t set any parameters, AI may be responding from Reddit.

When OpenAI built GPT-2, an early ancestor of ChatGPT, it let Reddit decide what counted as good writing, collecting every web page Reddit users had linked to and upvoted at least three times. So if you don’t ask for sources, for example, for a research project to be peer reviewed, and even hyperlinks, so you can actually confirm the sources exist, it’s very possible the hallucinations (made-up facts stated with total confidence) creep in.

What the evidence says

• Stanford researchers found paid legal AI tools, Lexis+ AI and Westlaw’s AI research assistant, hallucinated 17% to 33% of the time when tested in May 2024 (Stanford, 2025). General chatbots hallucinated 58% to 88% of the time on questions about federal court cases (Stanford, 2024).

• In an August 2025 trial of 44 physicians trained in AI, doctors given correct ChatGPT-4o advice scored 84.9% on diagnostic reasoning, while doctors given advice with planted errors scored 73.3%.

• In an October 2025 Aalto University study, people using AI on law school admission test questions gained three points and overestimated their score by four, and the most AI-literate were the most overconfident.- If you want a routine for this, here’s the framework I use to catch AI hallucinations.

My rebuttal: Ask it for sources you can open, then open them. The paid, specialized legal tools still made things up 17% to 33% of the time when Stanford tested them, so how confident an answer sounds tells you nothing about whether it’s true.

Myth 5: AI Adoption Is a Technology Problem

The myth: Buy the right tools, and the value follows.

I mean, this really lives at the core of my practice, my consulting practice. It doesn’t matter how good a tool is if the people that are going to be using it do not understand AI or fear AI or feel like AI is going to take their job soon or see AI as the enemy. It is just not going to go anywhere. They are going to reject it, no matter how good the tool is. That’s why it starts with people.

What the evidence says

• Prosci surveyed 1,107 professionals and found user proficiency made up 38% of reported AI implementation difficulties, while technical issues made up 16%.

• McKinsey’s State of AI 2025 (November 2025, 1,993 respondents) found 88% of organizations use AI, and the small group seeing real financial results was nearly three times as likely to have redesigned how the work gets done.

• In WRITER’s 2026 enterprise survey (WRITER sells enterprise AI), 54% of executives said adopting AI is tearing their company apart, up from 42% a year earlier.

• I made the longer case in Why AI Rollouts Fail When the Tools Are Fine.

My rebuttal: Buy the best tool in the category and it still goes nowhere if your people think it’s there to replace them. Ask who’s afraid and how the work itself will change, because people made up 38% of reported AI difficulties and the technology only 16%.

So those are the first five. Below this line are the other five, on creativity, technical skill, productivity, regulation and ever-smarter AI, plus the full report I give clients, as a PDF you can keep.

💎 Your AI Myths Field Guide

Below is the full client report, The 10 Greatest Myths About AI in 2026, as a PDF. It comes with everything else your membership includes:

• The Claude Skill Library. Twenty-five paste-ready Claude Skills, sorted by the six jobs a leader actually has. You copy one block, answer a few questions, and it builds itself around your role and your business. No downloads, no setup, and you can’t buy these anywhere at any price.

• Both field guides, free. Leading with Claude is the 51-page climb from your first prompt to running real work through it. The NotebookLM Leader’s Playbook is the 36-page grounded-research system. They’re $19.99 for the pair on Gumroad, and you pay nothing for either.

• Premium Q&A. Unlimited questions, answered by me in 24 to 48 hours. It’s the benefit members forget they have.

• Half off Newsletter Compass and Cozora.

• Every artifact I’ve gated. The skills, templates and walkthroughs from every past Monday, yours the moment you join.

Premium is $49 for the year.

→ Upgrade and read the rest

Read more

I invest and trade often. At one point I was interested in financial advising and got a series of licenses to be able to do that, and really understand just how careful the financial regulations are, and with good reason. Obviously money is on the line, and we’ve seen collapses in the economy because of mismanaged money.

That’s the lens I read last week’s news through. According to The Information, as rounded up by Semafor, Google, OpenAI and Anthropic are planning a self-regulatory body for the most powerful AI models, modeled on FINRA, the organization that polices Wall Street’s brokers. None of the three has confirmed it on the record yet.

So, I think the FINRA-style push makes sense. Below you’ll find what the labs are reportedly building, a timeline of six times AI got past the limits built around it this year, the three things FINRA has that this body doesn’t, and the one condition I’d hold them to.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• A clear read on what the labs are reportedly building, and the three gaps it would still leave open

• A way to explain to your team who is writing the rules your AI vendors answer to, and why it’s happening now

What the labs are reportedly building

The idea started with Demis Hassabis, who runs Google DeepMind. He proposed a FINRA-style body for AI in an Axios interview on July 14, 2026, saying “this is where the industry needs to go.”

The body now being planned carries the working name Standards Authority for Frontier AI, and it would set standards for testing models before release, for reporting safety incidents, and for certifying the outside auditors who check the labs’ work. The target is late 2026 or early 2027.

Why one global standard keeps slipping away

Now, I’ve outlined this before in a post on how AI regulation actually works in 2026, but there are so many different agendas at the global level. Every country has a different need or a different push. Some countries are just trying to get started, so they’re trying to move as fast as possible. Other countries are hesitant. Other countries are moving forward with regulations, while others want to just open all the gates and just have it move as quickly as possible to get ahead of other countries. So, to me, it’s very difficult to have some sort of standard.

And when I think of something like this, I often think of the nuclear treaties across nations. They came after a disaster or a near-miss, not before.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was October 1962. The Washington-Moscow hotline followed in June 1963, and the Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed that August.

AI is already getting out of its sandbox

And something that’s really clear is there are systems that are leaving their sandboxes, and things are moving faster than these creators feel comfortable with, by their own admission, and faster than they can even control.

In July, AI agents from OpenAI’s internal testing broke out of their sandbox and attacked Hugging Face’s servers. OpenAI said as much in its own report on the Hugging Face incident, calling it “a ‘warning shot’ for us and for the world” and evidence that “highly capable AI agents are now able to work around technical controls.”

Just the fact that the Hugging Face incident took place, and we keep finding stuff about it. Hugging Face caught it and told the world before OpenAI even knew its own agents were behind it. And that’s the main part that to me is concerning.

Hugging Face disclosed the intrusion on July 16 without knowing whose agents had done it. OpenAI tied it to its own agents on July 20.

The “tens of thousands” at the end comes from Axios on September 26. The labs run hundreds of thousands of test runs, so even a small share of bad behavior adds up fast.

Subscribe now

Why starting with three companies makes sense

So Demis Hassabis’s proposal seems ideal to me. There are three main players in this arena of development. Because of the amount of training and data and development that’s needed to be at the forefront, a lot of the AI tools we use at work run on models from these three, and Anthropic has caught rival labs trying to copy its models. So to me, this truly makes sense, and it does make me feel better about where things are going.

Other tech leaders backed the idea the week Hassabis proposed it. Sam Altman called it “a thoughtful proposal from demis,” Satya Nadella called it “an important piece,” and Elon Musk called it “a good starting point for discussions.”

I don’t want it to get to a global disaster before we start realizing the need for regulations, especially understanding that AI is something that can’t just be toothpaste put back in the tube. Once it’s out, it’s out, and anybody with an LLM can get access to certain things. It’s not this secret blueprint that only engineers with PhD-level education can understand.

What FINRA has that this body doesn’t

FINRA works because of three things. The SEC oversees it and approves its rules. Membership isn’t optional, because federal law bars a broker-dealer from trading with the public unless it belongs. And it can fine firms, suspend them, and ban people from the industry. In 2025 alone, FINRA filed 625 new disciplinary actions and issued 187 bars against individuals.

Nothing reported about the AI version includes any of those three. It would be voluntary and industry-run, which is a step back from Hassabis’s own essay, which described a body “modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organisation,” with independent technical experts on its board.

Honestly, all those gaps bother me. But at the same time, it’s a start, and that’s the piece that makes me the most relieved, that we’ve started this process.

The one condition I’d hold them to

The pros are that there would be regulation, and ideally there is an independent figure. I saw that Anthropic volunteered to put outside evaluators inside the company. Hope to see that more across everything.

Anthropic announced it on September 18: outside evaluators working with “access comparable to an employee’s.” In Dario Amodei’s words, that means “desks in our offices, access badges, and company laptops.”

But also, you cannot have one of these organizations be the head of this team so that organizations essentially police themselves. Because history has shown us that profit often beats ethical standards, especially when there are no laws that would make something illegal, simply unwise.

Bill Gates put it bluntly on The Ezra Klein Show on September 29, 2026:

That is 100% true, and I fully agree. But there’s a big but here. What is the other side of the coin? No regulation at all? So if it comes to no regulation, I’d rather have these companies come together and try to put something in instead of waiting for the perfect. Again, the perfect is the enemy of the good. We could sit here for perfect government regulation or global regulation to come along. What happens until then?

So do I think it’s everything? No.

Do I think it solves the issues? Not fully, but I do think it’s a true step in the right direction, especially when the president of the United States keeps pointing to simply wanting to beat China or other countries rather than focusing on what is the responsibility that is held by the United States as the place where the biggest companies are developing the most powerful AI.

The White House’s AI Action Plan, released July 23, 2025, puts it plainly: “The AI race is America’s to win.”

Subscribe now

It’s not enough to know AI exists

I think leaders should understand where we are in this journey, because, as I keep saying it, in the time that we live in, it’s not enough to know AI exists. Whether you like it or not, whether you embrace it or not, you have to search to understand it, and that understanding is just a constant process because of the speed of change. And the more of us that talk about it and educate others about it, the better that we’ll get.

I take three diagnostic calls a month. Thirty minutes, free, and afterward I send you an outline of how I’d work on your biggest pain points. Book one →

If You Only Remember This

• FINRA’s power comes from three things: the SEC above it, membership the law requires, and the ability to ban people. The reported AI version has none of the three yet.

• AI agents have already worked around the controls built for them, and in the Hugging Face case, the company that got hit knew before the company whose agents did it.

• The condition that makes this work is independence: no single lab gets to run it.

Thanks for reading,

Joel

Worth Your Time

• Rob T. Lee: Investigation template defined for AI accidents? What happens when the company at fault commissions, scopes and redacts its own incident review. It’s the best case I’ve read for why no single lab should run this body.

• Ethan Mollick: Agency and Agents. The Hugging Face incident told as a plain story, plus a practical rule for when an agent should stop and ask a human.

• Oliver Patel: How China is governing agentic AI. One government’s actual rules for AI agents, which shows how uneven the rules still are from country to country.

Questions Leaders Are Asking

What is the Standards Authority for Frontier AI? The Standards Authority for Frontier AI is the working name for a self-regulatory body that Google, OpenAI and Anthropic are reportedly planning. According to reporting in September 2026, it would set standards for testing AI models before release, reporting safety incidents, and certifying outside auditors, with a target launch in late 2026 or early 2027.

Has any AI company confirmed the self-regulatory body? No. As of September 29, 2026, the plan is known only through anonymous sourcing first reported by The Information. Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis publicly proposed a FINRA-style body on July 14, 2026, but none of the three companies has confirmed the planned organization on the record.

What is FINRA, and why is it the model? FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is a not-for-profit that polices U.S. broker-dealers under SEC oversight. The SEC approves its rules, federal law requires broker-dealers dealing with the public to be members, and it can fine, suspend and ban firms and individuals. It is the model because it shows an industry setting and enforcing its own rules.

What happened in the Hugging Face incident? In July 2026, AI agents from OpenAI’s internal testing broke out of their sandbox and attacked Hugging Face’s infrastructure. Hugging Face detected the intrusion and disclosed it on July 16, 2026. OpenAI’s own monitoring flagged the activity on July 19, and OpenAI publicly acknowledged its agents’ involvement on July 21.

Does industry self-regulation replace government AI rules? No. Self-regulation would sit alongside laws already in place. California’s SB 53 on frontier AI transparency took effect January 1, 2026, and the EU AI Act’s obligations for general-purpose AI models began applying on August 2, 2025.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Sources

• Semafor, Firms take lead on AI safety standards as security incidents mount, Sep 27, 2026 — https://www.semafor.com/article/09/27/2026/firms-take-lead-on-ai-safety-standards-as-security-incidents-mount

• Axios, Demis Hassabis interview on AI regulation, Jul 14, 2026 — https://www.axios.com/2026/07/14/demis-hassabis-ai-regulation-google-deepmind

• FINRA, Key Statistics (2025) — https://www.finra.org/media-center/statistics

• Axios, Scoop: Top AI companies probing tens of thousands of security incidents, Sep 26, 2026 — https://www.axios.com/2026/09/26/openai-anthropic-thousands-ai-security-incidents

• OpenAI, The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead, Aug 26, 2026 — https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-ahead/

• Hugging Face, Security incident, July 2026, Jul 16, 2026 — https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026

• The Ezra Klein Show (The New York Times), Bill Gates’s Blunt Warning on A.I., Sep 29, 2026 — https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-bill-gates.html

• Office of the Historian, U.S. State Department, The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962 — https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis

TL;DR: ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini vs Copilot comes down to the job, not a single winner. Across 43 comparisons published July to September 2026, Claude leads writing and long multi-step workflows, ChatGPT leads image generation, Gemini leads research and video, and Copilot fits Microsoft organizations because it runs both OpenAI and Anthropic models inside one tool.

On September 25, Microsoft announced the new Copilot, and within a few days, dozens of creators wrote about how Microsoft plans to “win the AI race.” I wanted to take the idea further than one company’s plan, to the question underneath it: which one of these four should your team actually be using?

I think these tools are all amazing. A lot of it is going to depend on what is done with these tools. All tools are very close, but it does matter.

So below are my recommendations based on personal experience, but also based on research from almost 50 published research projects by different teams over the last three months, comparing all four of these to make sure that we’re looking at the latest available models.

That’s eight jobs, which tool the research favors for each one and how strong the agreement is, three quick profiles (the Microsoft-wide organization, the image-heavy team, and the solopreneur), and the step most of us skip once the tools are chosen: getting them to work together.

Paid subscribers also get the full 12-job PDF guide below.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• A one-glance map of which AI the research favors for writing, research, coding, images, video and more, and how close each race really is

• A clear read on whether your team should standardize on one tool or pay for two

Editor’s note: I use Claude every day and I’ve written a guide to it, so weigh my experience accordingly. Where the research disagrees with my experience, you’ll see it.

Share

Subscribe now

How I built this comparison

The comparison pulls from 28 blog and press comparisons, 15 YouTube comparison videos and the public leaderboards, all published between July 1 and October 1, 2026, plus each vendor’s own documentation for features and data policies. I counted which tool each source favored for each job, and I weighted the ones that ran real side-by-side tests over the ones that only offered opinions.

One honest caveat up front: only about a quarter of those sources ran their own tests, and the models change fast, so treat this as a map of where the evidence points this fall.

Step one: match the tool to the job

So it’s all about use. Just understand what you’re doing, and the options become clear.

Best AI for writing and first drafts: Claude

Claude has the strongest agreement of any category: 14 of the blog comparisons and 9 of the YouTube tests picked it for writing, against one for ChatGPT. A September hands-on test by Improvado found the same thing, with Claude’s first drafts needing fewer edits.

That matches what I see. If you’re most comfortable with ChatGPT, it’s not gonna be as good for copy and content generation. It is gonna require more drafts. Claude tends to have a much better first draft.

One twist worth knowing: Google’s brand new Gemini 4 Argon edged into first place on the Arena creative writing leaderboard on September 30, a hair ahead of Claude Opus 5.5. It launched with limited access the same day, so none of the comparisons have tested it yet. Watch that one.

Best AI for long, multi-step workflows: Claude (by experience)

This is where my own experience is strongest and the published evidence is thinnest, so I’ll separate the two.

I’ve been working with a couple clients now who are using ChatGPT, and a lot of the first drafts were just too far from where they needed to be, or had really complex workflows that included 20, 25 steps that needed to be followed, and ChatGPT often skips them. Claude follows every single one of them.

I was working with a client who was just getting extremely frustrated because ChatGPT was just not doing what they needed it to do, and what they were using ChatGPT for was just not ChatGPT’s strength. And once they switched over to Claude, everything was good.

The research leans the same way without proving it. Several reviewers found Claude followed instructions more reliably, but Artificial Analysis scores OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 as tied on overall intelligence, and Astra actually scored higher on its automation benchmark. Nobody has published an independent test of 20-step workflows, so take my side of this as experience, not a benchmark.

Best AI for research and search: Gemini (
NotebookLM)

This is the category where Claude does worst. Gemini led research in 5 blog comparisons and 4 YouTube tests, with ChatGPT close behind, and Claude was picked by one source. Two of the YouTube testers (The Applied AI and AI Leverage Lab) caught Claude citing sources that didn’t exist.

My own research setup pairs Claude with Google’s NotebookLM, which I walked through in When to Use NotebookLM vs. Claude: My Two-Engine Stack.

Best AI for coding: Claude, but it’s close

Blog comparisons favored Claude for coding 12 to 1, and in the YouTube tests Claude led three and tied ChatGPT in five. On the benchmarks the race is much tighter: Claude Code and OpenAI’s Codex sit within a few points of each other, and which one leads depends on the test. GPT-6 Astra wins at operating a computer and terminal, and Google’s cheaper Gemini 3.8 Flash keeps showing up as close enough for a lot less money.

Best AI for images and video: ChatGPT and Gemini

If a team mainly focuses on image generation, they’re gonna need to just steer away from Claude, at least for the image generation piece. Claude can’t make images at all, which Anthropic’s own documentation confirms. On the Arena image leaderboard from September 24, OpenAI’s models hold the top three spots, Microsoft’s MAI-Image-2.6 is fourth, and Google’s is ninth.

My own experience runs the other way: Gemini is the best for images, ChatGPT second on images. Claude is not going to get you anything close to an image, just a vector, half drawn. [smoothed from: “Gemini is the best for images. ChatGPT second on images.”] So that’s one job where it’s worth running the same prompt through both before you pick.

Video flips it. Google’s Gemini Omni models hold the top two spots on the Arena video leaderboard, and none of the other three companies has a model in the top ten.

Spreadsheets and browser work: use what you already use

When it comes to data spreadsheets or even web browser automated work, I really say go with whatever your preferred model for most things already is. The comparisons split here, and most of them land on the same advice: Copilot if your data lives in Excel, Gemini if it lives in Google Sheets.

For me, I load up Claude within the Microsoft products through an extension. I load up Claude in Chrome through an extension, and it performs very well. Both are real, current products: Claude for Microsoft 365 works inside Excel, Word, PowerPoint and Outlook on paid plans, and Claude in Chrome can read, click and navigate websites alongside you.

The feature that tips it: Claude Skills

Under features, I think Claude Skills are definitely one of the top winners. A skill packages your instructions, examples and context once so Claude follows them every time, which is exactly the problem behind those skipped steps. If you haven’t tried one, the Claude Skill Library for Leaders has paste-ready ones sorted by the jobs a leader actually does.

Which AI fits your team: three quick profiles

And then this is different for individuals versus organizations.

The Microsoft-wide organization. Now, for an organization that is using Copilot, that is using Microsoft across everything, then something like Copilot will be good specifically because of the model choice, being able to use ChatGPT when needed, being able to use Claude when needed. [smoothed from: “the tool choice framework”] Microsoft’s own documentation confirms Copilot now offers OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra and Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5.1, plus an Auto mode that picks the model per request, and it only works with files each person is already allowed to see. Two things to check with IT: admins can switch the Claude models off entirely, and those models currently sit outside Microsoft’s EU data boundary. (I covered Copilot’s agents earlier this year in Master Microsoft’s 4 New Copilot Agents.)

The image-heavy team. Pair your main tool with ChatGPT or Gemini for anything visual, because that’s the one job Claude can’t do at all.

The solopreneur. Now, if you’re just one person that’s a solopreneur creating, honestly, you’re not gonna need much more than Claude other than for image generation. The YouTube comparisons mostly said the same thing a different way: pick two, usually Claude plus Gemini or Claude plus ChatGPT. The difference between my answer and theirs is research, which is exactly where Claude trails.

Subscribe now

Step two: make the tools work together

And then step two beyond that is, when needed, how can these all work together for something? For example, I have a Gemini and NotebookLM MCP that allows me to comb through my NotebookLM notebooks and use Gemini’s image generation within Claude. [smoothed from: “allows me to use, and comb through NotebookMCP, notebooks, NotebookLM notebooks”] That is a higher level, so that would be step two after you get step one done. [smoothed from: “That is, it’s a higher level”]

An MCP (Model Context Protocol, an open standard that lets one AI tool plug into other software) is what makes that possible. It’s also the practical answer to the image problem above: Claude still can’t draw, but it can hand the job to a tool that can, without you leaving the conversation.

Obviously, this is not a definitive list. [smoothed from: “decisive”] I still encourage everybody to try each tool for themselves. This is what my research, along with all these posts that I’ve read, blogs, videos, show.

So it’s important to know strengths and weaknesses of each tool. Which company wins the AI race matters a lot less to your team than whether the tool you open every morning is good at the work you actually do, a point I made in Winning the AI Race Is a Fool’s Errand.

So that’s the map. Below this line is the full AI Tool Map: all twelve jobs with the research verdict, how close each race is, the sources behind it, what each tool costs as of October 2026, and the side-by-side test I’d run before committing a team to any of them.

💎 Your AI Tool Map

Below is the full AI Tool Map, the reference version of the graphic above. It comes with everything else your membership includes:

• The Claude Skill Library. Twenty-five paste-ready Claude Skills, sorted by the six jobs a leader actually has. You copy one block, answer a few questions, and it builds itself around your role and your business. No downloads, no setup, and you can’t buy these anywhere at any price.

• Both field guides, free. Leading with Claude is the 51-page climb from your first prompt to running real work through it. The NotebookLM Leader’s Playbook is the 36-page grounded-research system. They’re $19.99 for the pair on Gumroad, and you pay nothing for either.

• Premium Q&A. Unlimited questions, answered by me in 24 to 48 hours. It’s the benefit members forget they have.

• Half off Newsletter Compass and Cozora. Both of them, for as long as you’re a member.

• Every artifact I’ve gated. The skills, templates and walkthroughs from every past Monday, yours the moment you join.

Premium is $49 for the year.

→ Upgrade and read the rest

Read more

So, my business and my Substack are built on the topic AI. My consulting business is built on the topic and benefits of AI. AI is the differentiator. You know that.

But… the foundation that supports the entire work, the foundation that keeps my consulting business growing, the foundation that brings true depth into each one of my posts, it’s not AI. It’s AI on top of the MBA education that I have, the marketing experience that I have, the finance experience that I have, and leadership experience and training that I have.

Those skills are critical, and they are what support the AI skill. It’s not the other way around, and there is a true need for them.

Below you’ll find the math behind the jobs number everyone quotes, what the factory era charged for its boom, the four questions I use with CEOs, and where I could be wrong.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• A straight read on why “78 million net new jobs” tells you nothing about whether your own role is safe

• A way to put AI on top of the experience you already have, instead of starting over from zero

That same idea applies to the tools we pick. So many of us are now expected to show up on video, whether it’s a product launch, a quarterly update to the team, or a training walkthrough, and very few of us were ever trained to edit one. You already know the message, the audience, and what the video has to accomplish, because that’s the experience you bring. What you need is help with the production work that eats the afternoon. For me that’s where Fotor comes in.

Thank you, Fotor, for sponsoring this post!

Fotor Agent takes raw footage, or even just a product link, and turns it into a polished video. It pulls in 4K graphics, cuts the pauses and filler, and hands you a timeline to fine-tune, so the call on what stays and what goes is still yours. You bring the judgment about what the video should say, and it takes care of the editing that would otherwise sit on your to-do list until forever.

Check out Fotor Agent →

Why 78 million net new jobs is the wrong number to watch

And now the math sounds good. 170 million jobs will be created, 92 million displaced by 2030, a net gain of 78 million. Those are the World Economic Forum’s numbers, from the Future of Jobs Report 2025 (January 2025), built on a survey of more than 1,000 employers, and they cover every force reshaping work, including technology, the green transition and demographics, rather than AI alone.

Subscribe now

The problem is the customer service agents or data entry agents that simply answer the phone and update a file, or take a phone call and look for the correct HR policy to report. They are not qualified to all of a sudden transition and take advantage of one of those AI jobs unless they’ve been specifically upskilled. It’s not a one-to-one transition from a job just removed by AI to the jobs opened by AI.

That same report puts data entry clerks among the fastest-declining roles, and its own arithmetic says what happens next: out of every 100 workers, 59 will need training by 2030, and 11 of them will need it and won’t get it. That last group is the whole argument, and I wrote about what it looks like inside a company in The AI Skills Gap Is a Judgment Gap.

What the factory era promised, and what it charged

There were a lot of promises that you can find in history books on what factories were going to bring. The factories added a level of productivity never before seen. They allowed for economy to just boom, and it generated more supply, which generated more demand, and the global economy grew as a result. There were also a lot of negatives that came from it, including accidents, including lack of protections in the beginning, and we still even see some of that today. Health issues from people all living in the same place. It is important to understand the positives, and to not ignore the negatives. You can prepare for those negatives.

Britain didn’t send an inspector into a factory until the 1833 Factory Act, decades into the boom.

So who’s the factory worker in this story?

The factory workers are all the people that believe that they understand AI now and believe that AI is just going to save everything, but they’re not understanding, or often not taking into account, the risks and the negatives that come with it. Those risks should not keep you from adopting AI. You just should be going in with open eyes, and working to minimize the risks.

Where should you actually start with AI?

We all got the tools at the same time, the way everyone eventually got electricity. Having it in the building was never what made the difference. What we did with it was.

I take three diagnostic calls a month. It’s 30 minutes, free, and we work out what you’re actually trying to get to, where your biggest hurdles sit, what your low-hanging fruit is, and how that lines up with what I’ve been seeing elsewhere. Then I tell you the first move I’d make.

Afterward I send you an outline of how I’d work on your biggest pain points, so you can decide on your own time.

Book a diagnostic call →

The skills employers say they are hiring for

That same WEF survey ranks analytical thinking as the most sought-after core skill, with seven out of 10 employers calling it essential, followed by resilience, flexibility and agility at 68%. In TestGorilla’s State of Skills-Based Hiring 2025, 78% of employers said they had hired someone with strong technical skills who failed in the role because of poor soft skills or a lack of cultural or motivational fit. Which is the same shift I wrote about when the résumé started losing its monopoly.

Now the honest complication. The skills growing fastest in that same report are technical: AI and big data first, then networks and cybersecurity. PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer (June 2025) found workers with AI skills earning a 56% wage premium, up from 25% a year earlier.

So, while I do understand that tech skills are important, I am a strong believer that everybody should seek to understand AI. And I feel like there are too many people that have that foundation, but they just have not found a clear way to bolt AI on top of it and have it stand on the shoulders of everything else that they have built. Too many people are just trying to start from zero, but it is their human growth that will set them up for success, as long as AI is used correctly within that.

Subscribe now

This is not a lottery

I just see too many people thinking that using AI is going to create success by itself, and it’s just not. They’re going to have to strategically plan for success. This is not a lottery. There is a strategy, and it runs in this order:

• Understand what you’re doing wrong

• Understand what your strengths are

• Understand your weaknesses

• Use AI to shore up your weaknesses and uplift your strengths

Stop reading and write those four down for one person on your team.

That’s exactly what I do in my work with orgs. And when we work with small and mid-sized companies, we’re not just focusing on what can be automated in those companies, but we also look at what current employees in those companies are doing and how we can upskill them for them to be even more efficient for those organizations, rather than just be discarded.

The one thing I’d protect

And the one skill that I would protect for myself, I mean, it goes back to the AI Leadership Triad. Adaptability, innovation, and creativity.

If You Only Remember This

• A net gain of 78 million jobs says nothing about whether the person losing one can do the one being created.

• Employers rank analytical thinking first and still hire for it after they stop asking for degrees, while the fastest-growing skills on the same list are technical.

• AI stands on the shoulders of what you already built, so the fastest move is usually to put it under the experience you have rather than starting from zero.

Thanks for reading,

Joel

Worth Your Time

A few pieces from other creators worth your attention this week.

• Juan Salas-Romer — What Karpathy’s 143-Million-Job Analysis Actually Means for Your Career. He walks through the job-by-job exposure scoring and argues that once AI absorbs the execution, judgment and accountability are what get repriced upward.

• Ethan Mollick — Management as AI Superpower. His MBA students had no AI edge and still outperformed, because scoping a problem and judging the output turned out to be the skill that mattered.

• Rob T. Lee — Mythos, entry-level job panic, and my new favorite word: apocalyptimist. He makes the case that the real damage is to the entry-level ladder, and that the fix is the residency model medicine and law already run on.

Questions Leaders Are Asking

Will AI create more jobs than it eliminates? The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 projects 170 million jobs created and 92 million displaced by 2030, a net gain of 78 million. That count covers every force reshaping work, not AI alone, and a net gain says nothing about whether a displaced worker can move into a new role without training.

Which skills matter most in the AI era? Employers in the 2025 WEF survey rank analytical thinking first, with seven out of 10 calling it essential, followed by resilience, flexibility and agility at 68%, and curiosity and lifelong learning at 59%. The fastest-growing skills are technical, led by AI and big data.

Which jobs are declining fastest? The same survey names postal service clerks, bank tellers and data entry clerks as the fastest-declining roles. The largest declines in raw numbers fall on clerical and secretarial work, including cashiers, ticket clerks and administrative assistants.

Do I need technical skills to work with AI? You don’t need to code, but you do need to understand what AI does and where it fails. Technical skill opens the door, and PwC measured a 56% wage premium for it in 2025. What decides your value once you’re inside is the judgment and experience you bring to the output.

How do I upskill my team for AI? Start with each person’s strengths and weaknesses rather than with the tool. Ask what they’re getting wrong today, where they’re strongest, and where AI could shore up a weakness. Most companies only ask what can be automated, which skips the people they already employ.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Sources Referenced

• World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025, January 2025 — https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_Report_2025.pdf

• TestGorilla, The State of Skills-Based Hiring 2025, surveyed April 2025 — https://www.testgorilla.com/skills-based-hiring/state-of-skills-based-hiring-2025/

• PwC, The Fearless Future: PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer, June 2025 — https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/artificial-intelligence/job-barometer/2025/report.pdf

• UK Parliament, The 1833 Factory Act — https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/19thcentury/overview/factoryact

Time and time again I see people writing about AI, talking about AI, and asking me to help them make success… with AI their business goal.

But AI in itself is not a goal.

It may be a personal goal to be good at AI, but AI in itself is not a goal for a business. That’s like saying a website or social media is a goal for a business.

AI can be, and I believe it often is, the greatest amplifier to get you to your goal faster than ever, more efficiently than ever, and even increase your expectations for your goal. AI is not the goal.

That’s most of why our AI vision statements come out sounding like nothing, if we even have one. We write them about the tool instead of about the business, usually before anyone in the room has said out loud what the business is actually for. So when a leader asks me where to start, I don’t start with the vision at all. I start at the opposite end, with the short list of work AI is never going to touch, because that list is far easier to write and it points straight back at the vision you were trying to find in the first place.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• The question I ask leaders before the words “AI vision” ever come up, and why it changes what they write down

• Your own AI do-not-touch list, four lines short enough to sit next to your screen by the end of today

Start with the why, not the technology

As a business, you have to have a why. What is it that you’re trying to do?

As a restaurant, you’re trying to make the best food. As a supplying company, you’re trying to supply the best quality of product or service to the biggest market share possible, as efficiently as possible. As a police officer or a nurse, those are clear goals. Not one of them needs the word AI to make sense.

So it matters that you come into even thinking about AI with a clear goal already in mind, because then your AI vision can be how to use AI to get you there. This is exactly what I do with businesses, what I’ve been doing with businesses, and what I’m doing right now with some of my top clients, healthcare CEOs and supply chain CEOs: how can we use AI to help them get to where they want to get to?

Why nobody can write a real AI vision

When the goal underneath isn’t settled, the vision statement has nothing to stand on. Nobody can write a real AI vision because they’re not sure. First of all, we’re often not sure what our general vision is, what our goal is, what our north star is, and then on top of that we don’t understand what AI is supposed to do. It’s not a magic wand, and if you don’t understand what it can do, then you’re not going to be able to write a clear AI vision. That second gap is the one I went after in the AI skills gap that’s really a judgment gap, where 517 leaders said much the same thing back.

Some people think an AI vision is going to automatically make everybody in the company adopt AI safely and strategically and skyrocket the profits. That’s just not how it works.

That’s like giving everybody in a village, hundreds of years ago, access to electricity for the first time: just the main line connection, and a set of rules posted next to it on what to do with it. Within the first day, at least a few people will get electrocuted. It’s not enough to do that. That is just step one.

If you want to see what that first day looks like inside a company right now, it’s the same picture as a shadow AI audit: people already wired in, already using it, and nobody having said out loud what it’s for.

Where should you actually start with AI?

We all got the tools at the same time, the way everyone eventually got electricity. Having it in the building was never what made the difference. What we did with it was.

I take three diagnostic calls a month. It’s 30 minutes, free, and we work out what you’re actually trying to get to, where your biggest hurdles sit, what your low-hanging fruit is, and how that lines up with what I’ve been seeing elsewhere. Then I tell you the first move I’d make.

A few days later you get it back in writing, two or three pages, yours whether we ever work together or not.

Book a diagnostic call →

The question I ask instead

So before any of the tooling talk, the question I would like to ask, the one I ask leaders when I’m coaching, and the one I want to ask you here, is this:

what is your why?

Not your AI why, not your AI vision, but your why. Once you understand that, the next question is what you actually think AI can do for you.

Your AI do-not-touch list

Most of the time the best place to start is the opposite end of the vision, which is your AI do-not-touch list. What do you not want AI to do for you? That’s when we focus on what your greatest strengths are. Where is your expertise? What are the areas that got you to where you are? Those are the areas that we do not want to touch.

I picked up the inversion from , who writes about strategy for people building on their own and starts with an anti-vision rather than a vision, on the logic that failure is much easier to picture than success. He wrote it for solo creators. I keep finding it does even more work inside a company, where what you’re protecting isn’t a personal preference but expertise a lot of people spent years building.

For me, as an example, my AI do-not-touch list is:

• I am just not going to let AI launch my ideas.

• I am not going to let AI accept my assumptions.

• I’m not going to let AI send emails on my behalf.

• I am not going to let AI make a strategic business decision for me.

AI is going to be in the room, but I’m going to make those decisions.

There’s a set of things you have to say out loud like that, and honestly, if anything, just post them next to your computer.

Quick Win (under 60 seconds) Write one sentence naming a decision AI will never make in your work. Not a task it won’t do, a decision it won’t make. Put it on a sticky note next to your screen before you close this tab. That’s line one of four.

Subscribe now

“That’s just negativity”

Now, somebody may say, “That’s just negativity. That’s just focusing on the negative. I want to focus on the positive, on what AI can do.” You can do that. But then you’ll often never stop back and look at what it should not do, and that’s where the biggest risk lies.

So that’s where I start people. The list gets built out of the work you’re already best at, which is why it takes about 45 minutes rather than a quarter, and why it holds up through every model release, every new tool, and every vendor who turns up offering to do your thinking for you.

So that’s the whole idea, and you can write your four lines from what’s above without paying me anything. Below this line is the prompt itself. It runs the same interview I run with clients, one question at a time, and it’s built to refuse when you ask it to write your list for you.

💎 Your AI Do-Not-Touch Interview

Below is the full copy-paste prompt, the one that interviews you through your why, your expertise, and the decisions AI never gets to make.

Share

It comes with everything else your membership includes:

• The Claude Skill Library. Twenty-five paste-ready Claude Skills, sorted by the six jobs a leader actually has. You copy one block, answer a few questions, and it builds itself around your role and your business. No downloads, no setup, and you can’t buy these anywhere at any price.

• Premium Q&A. Unlimited questions, answered by me in 24 to 48 hours. It’s the benefit members forget they have.

• Half off Newsletter Compass and Cozora. Both of them, for as long as you’re a member.

• Every artifact I’ve gated. The skills, templates and walkthroughs from every past Monday, yours the moment you join.

Premium is $49 for the year.

→ Upgrade and read the rest

Read more

So, here’s a question worth taking into your next leadership meeting.

Zohre Shirazi, my guest today, asks it near the end of the piece below. Her line:

If the answer is “almost nothing,” the organization may have AI usage, and it may not have AI adoption yet.

There’s a number sitting underneath that. Microsoft and LinkedIn’s Work Trend Index found 75% of knowledge workers already using AI at work and that number has only risen. Access is close to solved, and plenty of it is running whether we blessed it or not, which is what a shadow AI audit is for.

We get this wrong the same way we get onboarding wrong. When we hire someone, we don’t hand them a badge and call it finished. We work out what they’ll own, what comes off somebody else’s plate, and where the handoffs move. We redesign a small piece of how the work happens around them. With AI, most of us stopped at the badge.

Zohre Shirazi writes , and the framework below is her map of the distance between access and adoption.

AI Wide Open

The tools, ideas, and shifts shaping the world of AI.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• A five-layer test that shows which layer your AI rollout is actually stuck on

• The five questions to ask your team this week, and what their answers tell you

• A way to tell real adoption apart from usage numbers that only look like progress

Take it away, Zohre.

The AI Adoption Gap: Your Employees Have Access to AI. So Why Hasn’t the Work Changed?

The more I look at how companies are adopting AI, the more I think we are measuring the wrong thing.

We ask how many employees have access to ChatGPT.

How many people are using Copilot.

How many AI tools the company has approved.

How many prompts employees are sending.

All of these numbers tell us something.

But they don’t tell us the thing I care about most:

Has the work actually changed?

Someone can have access to some of the most capable AI tools available and still do their job almost exactly the same way they did before.

They might use AI to write an email, summarize a document, or brainstorm an idea.

Then they close the tab and go back to the same process they were using yesterday.

That is why I think there is an important distinction missing from a lot of AI adoption conversations:

AI access is not the same as AI adoption.

And the more I think about it, the more I believe the real unit of AI adoption isn’t the employee.

It’s the workflow.

Giving people AI doesn’t automatically change the work

Microsoft and LinkedIn’s 2024 Work Trend Index found that 75% of knowledge workers were already using AI at work.

That number sounds like strong adoption.

But individual usage and organizational change are two different things.

Imagine a team that spends several hours every week preparing a report.

The team gets access to an AI tool that can produce a first draft in minutes.

Great.

But what happens next?

• The employee still collects the information manually.

• They still move it between the same systems.

• They still send it to the same people.

• They still wait for the same approvals.

• They still make the same edits.

AI made one part of the job faster.

The workflow stayed the same.

This is where I think companies can easily mistake activity for adoption.

People are using AI. Usage goes up. Leadership can put the number in a presentation.

But if the underlying process hasn’t changed, the business may not have changed either.

True adoption starts when AI changes how the work gets done.

What workflow change actually looks like

Klarna is an interesting example.

Its AI assistant was integrated into its customer service operation rather than simply given to employees as another productivity tool.

Klarna reported that during its first month, the assistant handled 2.3 million conversations, equivalent to the work of 700 full-time agents, while average resolution time fell from 11 minutes to less than 2 minutes.

The numbers are impressive.

But I find the change in the workflow more interesting than the headline.

The question was no longer:

“How do we get employees to use AI?”

It became:

“Which parts of this process should AI handle, and which parts should people handle?”

That’s a very different question.

Most companies don’t need to redesign customer service on the scale of Klarna to apply the same thinking.

Take the report example.

If AI simply writes the first draft faster, you have improved a task.

But if AI changes who gathers the information, who performs the initial analysis, how the information moves through the organization, or where human review happens, you have changed the workflow.

That’s the difference between putting AI into work and redesigning work around AI.

The 5 Layers of AI Adoption

1. ACCESS
   Can people use AI?

2. ABILITY
   Do they know where it helps?

3. TRUST
   Do they know when to trust it?

4. WORKFLOW
   Is AI actually part of the process?

5. OWNERSHIP
   Who owns the outcome?

1. Access

The first question is obvious:

Can people use AI?

Do they have access to the right tools?

Are there clear enough rules around what they can use?

Can they use AI without creating unnecessary security or compliance problems?

This matters.

But access is only the starting point.

Giving everyone an AI account and expecting transformation to follow is a little like buying new software and assuming the organization has changed because the software is now available.

It hasn’t.

2. Ability

The next question is:

Do people know where AI is actually useful?

This is not the same as teaching everyone how AI works.

Most employees don’t need to understand model architecture.

They don’t need to become prompt engineers.

They need to look at the work already in front of them and recognize where AI might genuinely help.

• Where are they repeatedly summarizing information?

• Where are they creating first drafts?

• Where are they searching through large amounts of material?

• Where are they comparing options?

• Where are they spending time on work that requires effort but very little judgment?

This is why I think some AI training gets the starting point wrong.

Instead of beginning with the tool, start with the work.

Ask:

“Which parts of this person’s existing workflow could AI make meaningfully better?”

That question tends to produce much more useful conversations.

3. Trust

Then there is trust.

And this is where things get more complicated.

Do people know when to trust AI and when not to?

If employees don’t trust AI at all, adoption will stall.

If they trust it too much, you have a different problem.

AI can produce an answer that sounds completely reasonable and still be wrong.

That matters in financial analysis, hiring, legal work, healthcare, customer communication, research, and any other situation where an error can have consequences.

Leaders don’t need to remove all uncertainty.

They need to make the boundaries clear.

• What can AI draft?

• What can it recommend?

• What needs to be checked?

• What requires human approval?

The goal isn’t blind trust. It’s calibrated trust.

4. Workflow

This is where adoption becomes much easier to see.

Ask: Where does AI actually sit inside the process?

If an employee has to leave their normal workflow, open another application, copy information into it, wait for an answer, copy the result back, and then continue working, AI is likely to remain an optional side activity.

But when AI becomes part of the workflow itself, behavior starts to change.

Consider customer support.

AI might summarize incoming cases, identify recurring issues, suggest responses, and surface relevant customer history.

Useful, certainly.

But what happens if you redesign the process around those capabilities?

AI could handle initial classification.

Simple cases could be resolved automatically.

Unusual cases could go to a human.

The human’s job could shift from writing every response to reviewing exceptions and handling conversations that actually require judgment.

At that point, the company isn’t just asking employees to “use AI.”

The process itself is different.

5. Ownership

There is one more layer that becomes increasingly important as AI gets more capable:

Who owns the outcome?

Suppose an AI system analyzes customer feedback, and a manager uses that analysis to make a business decision.

The AI misses an important signal.

• Who is accountable?

• The AI?

• The vendor?

• The employee?

• The manager?

• The organization?

There isn’t an AI button you can press when something goes wrong and say, “the machine did it.”

AI doesn’t remove accountability.

In many cases, it makes the question of accountability more important.

The more responsibility we give AI, the more clearly we need to define where human responsibility begins and ends.

That becomes especially important as organizations move from AI that recommends actions to AI that can actually take them.

Thank you, Zohre!

Zohre’s fifth layer is the one I’d start with rather than finish on. Ownership is what decides whether the other four survive contact with a real decision, which is roughly where 517 leaders landed in The AI Skills Gap Is a Judgment Gap.

We stopped at the badge.

Which of the five layers is your team actually stuck on?

Questions Leaders Are Asking

What is the difference between AI access and AI adoption?

Access means people can open the tool. Adoption means the work itself changed. A team can have full access, high usage numbers, and an unchanged process underneath. The test is whether steps disappeared, decisions moved, or handoffs shifted, not whether the license count went up.

How do I know if my team has actually adopted AI?

Ask what would stop working if you removed AI tomorrow. If the honest answer is almost nothing, you have usage rather than adoption. Look for steps that disappeared, reviews that moved to a different person, or work that became possible when it wasn’t practical before.

We gave everyone AI access and nothing changed. Where do we start?

Start with the work, not the tool. Pick one workflow your team runs every week, map who does what and where the waiting happens, then ask which step AI could remove entirely rather than speed up. Removing a step changes the economics. Speeding one up rarely does.

How do I get my team to trust AI without over-trusting it?

Set boundaries instead of trying to remove uncertainty. Write down what AI can draft, what it can recommend, what always gets checked, and what requires human approval. Clear boundaries beat blanket encouragement, because the failure mode of too much trust is quieter than the failure mode of too little.

Who is accountable when an AI-assisted decision turns out wrong?

A person is, and naming who before the decision is made is the leadership work. AI does not absorb accountability, and it usually makes the question sharper, especially as tools move from recommending actions to taking them. Assign ownership at the workflow level, not the tool level.

Do we have to redesign our whole workflow to get value from AI?

No. Start with one process and one step. The distinction that matters is whether AI sits inside the workflow or beside it. If someone has to leave their normal process, paste information into another tab, and paste the result back, AI stays an optional side activity no matter how good it is.

Zohre Shirazi writes , a publication focused on practical AI adoption, real world workflows, and how organizations are putting AI to work beyond the hype.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

TL;DR: What you hand AI next matters more than which tool you use. Gallup surveyed 22,573 U.S. workers in Q2 2026 and found that people using AI for one or two kinds of work report a 45% productivity gain, while those using it for seven or more report 90%. Same tools. The difference is how much they let go of.

So there’s a lot of talk right now about automating, and there’s real strength in it. I’m always looking at my own week to see what I can automate. But just because something’s automatable doesn’t mean it needs to be automated, and that’s the part most of us never take the time to think about.

We need to set our own parameters. That sounds obvious until you try it, because the honest question isn’t “can AI do this,” it’s “how much of this am I willing to let go of, and what happens if it gets it wrong?” Most of us never answer the second half, so we stall out at two or three things and assume that’s all AI is worth.

It isn’t. Gallup put real numbers on that in Q2, and the gap between us and the people getting genuine value out of AI has almost nothing to do with skill or with which tool they picked. It comes down to how many different kinds of work they’ve handed over, and they can hand over that much precisely because they’ve decided in advance where each one stops.

So that’s what I want to walk through: why the people handing over the most work are also the ones most explicit about where they stop, and what that means for the next thing you’re deciding whether to let go of.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• A one-minute test you can run on any task on your plate, so you can hand over more without losing the decisions that are yours

• Your own ranked list of what to hand AI next, with your stopping point written on each one

So let’s start where I did, with the number.

The number that reframed this for me

Gallup ran its Q2 2026 workforce study on 22,573 employed U.S. adults, fielded in May. More than half of us now use AI at work, and 15% use it daily. That part isn’t surprising.

This is the part I had to go back and read twice. Among people using AI for one or two purposes, 45% say it improved their productivity. At three or four purposes, 66%. At five or six, 78%. At seven or more, 90%.

Same tools. Same jobs. The only variable that moved was how many kinds of work people handed over.

And notice it’s a smooth climb, not a cliff. Going from two to four is worth something on its own. That matters more than the headline number, because nobody goes from two to seven in a week, and the data says you don’t have to.

So why do most of us stop at two?

Not because we’re lazy, and not because we haven’t read enough threads about prompting. We stop because somewhere along the way the thing got something wrong, and we pulled back.

That’s a reasonable response. It’s also the wrong lesson. The problem was never that we handed over too much, but that we handed it over without deciding in advance what we’d check. When you can’t say how you’d know an output was wrong, every new task feels like a gamble, so you stop adding them. I’ve written before about not outsourcing your thinking and about what happens when you delegate your brain. This is the other half of that argument, and I don’t think I said it clearly enough the first time.

What my eight-year-old taught me about this

I have two kids, a boy and a girl, and my girl is older. I’ve gotten to know them well enough that I can clearly give one more leeway than the other.

My eight-year-old daughter goes downstairs and makes eggs. She does it for the family about once a week, and she enjoys it. My three-year-old son gets nowhere near the stove.

The guardrails are more ingrained with her, so I trust her with work I wouldn’t give him, but that’s because I’ve taken the time to set those. The trust didn’t arrive with her birthday. I built it, deliberately, one boundary at a time, and now I’m fully confident in it.

That’s the whole thing. She has more freedom because the line is clearer, not in spite of it.

Widening what you hand over and narrowing what you decide are the same move, and if you skip the second one you never get to do the first.

The four lines

Before I hand any kind of work to AI, I pick one of these and I write it down. That’s it. That’s the practice.

• Draft, never send — It produces the thing, and nothing leaves without me reading it first.

• Analyze, never decide — It brings me the options and the evidence, and the call stays mine.

• First ninety percent — It takes the work most of the way, and I finish it and own it.

• Side by side — It never runs alone. We work through it together or not at all.

Pick the tightest one that could plausibly work, then loosen it later if the thing keeps earning it. That order is deliberate, because it’s always easier to start too tight and open up than to start too open and suffer the risks.

Stop reading for a second and try this on one thing you already hand over. Which of the four is it? If you can’t tell, that’s your answer about where to spend the next ten minutes.

What I actually hand over

Seven kinds of work, and it took me about two years to get here.

It drafts my emails from content I provide. It drafts summaries of transcripts. It gives me five title and subject-line options against parameters I set, including SEO. It drafts dashboards. It builds my morning brief. It copyedits my work. And it runs routine checks across my sites and emails to make sure a campaign is actually saying one thing.

It never sends my emails. It drafts them. That line has been there since the first day and it has never moved, and it’s the reason I could add the other six without losing sleep.

Subscribe now

Try the first question on yourself

Here’s the opening move, free, and it works on paper right now. Don’t list what you use AI for. List what your week actually contains: what happens every Monday, what happens at month end, what happens every quarter, and what you complained about most recently.

You’ll get further than you expect in about four minutes, and the list you end up with is almost never the list you’d have guessed. Here is what you’ll have…

So that’s the map, and you can run it by hand from here. What’s below the line is the skill that runs it for you.

💎 Your AI Delegation Plan

Below is the AI Delegation Plan Skill: you answer three questions, and it builds your plan as a page you can keep, screenshot, and work down over the next month. It comes with everything else your membership includes:

• The Claude Skill Library. Twenty-five paste-ready Claude Skills, sorted by the six jobs a leader actually has. You copy one block, answer a few questions, and it builds itself around your role and your business. No downloads, no setup, and you can’t get these anywhere else.

• Both field guides, free. Leading with Claude is the 51-page climb from your first prompt to running real work through it, and my own store is the only place it’s sold. The NotebookLM Leaders Playbook is the 43-page grounded-research system. They’re $19.99 for the pair, and you pay nothing for either.

• Premium Q&A. Unlimited questions, answered by me in 24 to 48 hours. It’s the benefit members forget they have.

• Half off every workshop. Every AI Judgment Workshop is $49 instead of $99, for as long as you’re a member.

• Every artifact I’ve gated. The skills, templates and walkthroughs from every past Monday, yours the moment you join.

Premium is $49 for the year, and it pays for itself the first time you come to a workshop.

→ Upgrade and read the rest

Read more

I was obviously excited about Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. Claude, Anthropic’s AI assistant and the main rival to ChatGPT, has been the basis of my builds for a while now. I’ve built some pretty heavyweight tools for companies, and just the capability of Fable to find and fix errors is unbelievable to me, as well as to test itself and find vulnerabilities and flaws. 5.1 being released is important.

Then I read how it was being covered, and almost all of it was about the price.

Here is why I am excited we only have access to one, and what the real story is.

What You’ll Walk Away With

• Why a 75% price cut can shrink before it ever reaches your invoice, and the two sentences in Anthropic’s own release notes that explain it

• A clear position you can borrow or argue with on why the most capable model being locked away is the right call

The price cut is real, and smaller than the headline

While I do see the price cut as being important, it costs less per token, there are two things that really stuck out to me.

One, I don’t know necessarily how much of that price will go to the customer, because Fable 5.1 will actually use a lot more tokens per job than the previous model. So yes, it’s cheaper per token, but every task is going to cost a lot more tokens. I don’t think that’s reported or mentioned enough.

Anthropic says as much in its own release notes. Fable 5.1 “may issue one tool call per turn where Claude Fable 5 batched several,” and “the extra turns cost tokens.” It’s also “more likely to rewrite the entire file than make a targeted edit,” and that “rewrite costs more output tokens.” Output still runs $50 per million tokens, and output is the one price that didn’t move. Only the cache read did, from $1.00 down to $0.25.

Two identical watches, one you can open

The second piece, and to me the most important, is Mythos. The two were released at the same time. They’re essentially just as powerful, but one has a lot more guardrails than the other. We get Fable. It is, in a way, a handicapped version of what Mythos is.

And I honestly have no problem with it.

We are at a point where the capabilities of these systems is so high that there should be a review process through which some of these tools come before they’re widely released in their full capabilities to the public.

And to me, it’s like having two watches. I’m a watch enthusiast. You have two identical self-winding watches. Same movement, same case. One is on the shelf. You can’t use it, but it’s the kind that you can take apart. The other one is the exact same watch. You can have it in your hands, you can use it, but you cannot take it apart. It’s shut together, and unless you have a special tool you cannot open it. They both do the exact same thing, but one has more limitations than the other. The one without those limitations is not yet accessible to us.

To me, that makes sense.

Most of us would not notice the difference anyway

A lot of people talk about how everybody should have access to the latest model. And I just want to be honest here. If you are not one of the top hundred AI builders in the world, the model that you use is not going to make a difference, a noticeable difference in the output of your work.

Anthropic says the same thing in plainer language: “For most workloads, start with Claude Opus 5. Use Claude Fable 5.1 for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work, or when your evals on Claude Opus 5 at higher effort still fall short.” That’s a vendor telling most of its customers not to buy the top of the range. The ceiling on your output is almost never the model, it’s how far up the levels you’ve actually climbed.

As Anthropic stated, Mythos 5.1 goes to vetted cyber defenders and life scientists. There are two gates, the Life Sciences Verification Program and the Cyber Verification Program, and both of them vet the organizations that get access.

That is perfectly okay, because we have to get to a point where we verify, we safeguard, we test before things blow up in our faces, especially when there are already examples of models leaving their test environment, getting access to the internet, and breaking into other companies. I wrote about one of them in what a Shadow AI audit would catch in your company. There have been no real results or consequences now, but one day there will be.

Subscribe now

“I’ll never be eligible, so why should I care?”

And I understand. You may say, I’ll never be eligible for Mythos. Why would I care what the top organizations are using, or what the top cybersecurity firms are using?

All of these new models distill down to the average user. And all of these models are ultimately tied into the same few companies. It is important for you and I, the AI users, to be aware of what is happening in AI, especially around security, around vulnerabilities, around risk, and around what is being done to limit the risks that these tools undoubtedly give.

That’s not an abstraction. I wrote about Mythos back when Anthropic wouldn’t release it at all, and again when the question became what it meant for your security head start.

Why I’m still here

To me, this is one of the reasons that I continue using Claude. I know no company is perfect, but there is a clear attempt at doing things right, at taking your time, at advancing capabilities, but attempting to do so wisely.

I don’t need access to those. I would like to one day, but I’m able to do everything, just mind-blowing stuff with the tools that I have right now, and I know the tools are just going to get better. And if I have to wait a little longer to get access to the newest tools because they are going through security checks, that’s actually something that we’re used to across the industry. And that’s something that I’m glad to sacrifice.

What I genuinely don’t know is whether this stays narrow. Two verification programs and a set of US organizations is a carve-out. Anthropic’s own word for it is “currently,” which is their hedge and not mine. The case for optimism is in their numbers: the newest safeguards block 60% fewer false positives in cybersecurity than the previous ones, which is what a gate getting more precise looks like rather than one getting wider. The case for worry is that a small group of vetted organizations in one country is where the most capable version now lives. I can’t tell yet which of those is the real trend. I’d rather say that plainly than pretend I’ve worked it out.

If You Only Remember This

• Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 are the same model. The only difference is what each one is allowed to do.

• A price cut on one line of the bill isn’t a price cut if another line grows to meet it.

• Waiting longer for the newest tools because they’re going through security checks is a trade the rest of the industry already makes.

The question I’d put to you: if the most capable version of a tool you rely on stayed permanently out of reach, would that change anything about how you run your team next quarter, or would you never notice?

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Sources

• Anthropic, Introducing Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1, September 2026 — https://www.anthropic.com/claude-fable-and-mythos-5-1

• Anthropic, What’s new in Claude Fable 5.1 — https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/models/fable-5-1/whats-new-fable-5-1

• Anthropic, Pricing — https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing

Questions Leaders Are Asking

What is Claude Fable 5.1? Claude Fable 5.1 is Anthropic’s most capable widely released model, built for demanding reasoning and long-running agentic work. It shipped in September 2026 at the same input and output prices as Fable 5, with cache reads cut from $1.00 to $0.25 per million tokens.

What is Claude Mythos 5.1 and why can’t I use it? Mythos 5.1 has the same capabilities as Fable 5.1 with different safeguards. Anthropic offers it only to vetted cyberdefenders and life scientists through two verification programs, and currently only to a set of US organizations. The programs vet the organizations that get access.

Does the Claude Fable 5.1 price cut actually lower my bill? Partly. Only the cache read price dropped, by 75%. Base input stays at $10 per million tokens and output stays at $50. Anthropic also notes Fable 5.1 issues more separate tool calls and rewrites whole files more often, both of which consume more tokens.

Should most teams use Claude Fable 5.1? Anthropic’s own guidance says to start with Claude Opus 5 for most workloads and reach for Fable 5.1 only for demanding reasoning, long-horizon agentic work, or when Opus 5 at higher effort falls short.

Written by a human, for humans.

So here’s a question I’ve been thinking about based on a The Economist article I recently read:

Would you run your entire company on electricity you rented from a single supplier in another country, with no way to generate your own and no say in the price?

Arthur Mensch, the CEO of the French AI company Mistral, put almost exactly that question to The Economist in July (worth 20 minutes if you want to judge it yourself, below). No serious country would accept it, he said. Energy fragments because it has to, so every country imports some, exports some, and makes its own. He thinks AI ends up the same way, less a winner-take-all sprint and more like the power grid.

That framing is the one I want to start with, because he's describing AI as infrastructure, closer to electricity, and once you see it that way you notice how badly most of us have mislabeled the thing.

We don’t talk about AI like power. We talk about it like a race. That’s the mistake.

A race has a starting gun, a finish line, and one lane you’re supposed to stay in. AI has none of those. Treating it like a competition you can win is a category error, and chasing that win is a fool’s errand that costs you time, money, and a fair amount of your sanity.

In this piece I want to walk through why the race framing falls apart, and what to do instead:

• Why “winning at AI” is a target that keeps moving

• Why there is no single path, and why that’s good news

• How the race is driven by fear, not strategy

• How to find the one lane where AI actually serves your goals

Share

A race answers three questions, AI answers none.

When you enter a real race, three things are settled before the gun:

Where the line is, where it ends, and which course everyone runs.

Take those away and the word stops meaning anything.

That’s AI. I play a fair amount of chess, and the fastest way to lose is to match a stronger opponent move for move. You get taken apart every time. You win by playing your own game on the squares you control. The leaders getting somewhere aren’t copying every move OpenAI or Google makes. They picked their squares.

There’s no finish line, just a target that keeps moving

Ask ten leaders what “winning at AI” looks like and you’ll get ten different answers, measured on ten different sticks. There’s no shared scoreboard, and the target moves every few weeks when the next model drops. So a lot of us pour money into chasing a line that isn’t there, and the results show it.

In August 2025, MIT's Project NANDA found 95% of organizations getting zero return on their generative AI (AI that creates text, images, or code) investment. S&P Global reported in March 2025 that the share of companies walking away from most of their AI initiatives jumped to 42% in one year, up from 17%.

I’ve written before about why most AI investments fail, and it’s the same pattern every time: the money chases “doing AI,” not a goal AI was meant to serve.

There isn’t one path. There are thousands.

A race has one course. AI has more than 51,000 tools, as of July 2026 by one widely used directory. Fifty-one thousand. There’s no single path, there are thousands of them, and nobody alive has run them all.

This is the real reason I keep bringing other experts into Leadership in Change instead of pretending I cover everything.

My lane is leadership, and the tools I go deep on are Claude (Anthropic’s AI assistant) and Google’s tools like NotebookLM (Google’s AI research tool). That’s it. I understand AI video, Perplexity and ChatGPT, and the Chinese and open-source models well enough to hold a conversation, but none of them are my specialty and I don’t plan to make them my specialty. When my readers need those, I hand the mic to someone who lives in that lane (recent experts include , , , , , , , , , and others). Handing off those lanes isn’t a dodge. No single person can run 51,000 paths at once, and pretending otherwise is how you end up spread thin across all of them and deep in none.

That’s also why I keep pushing an AI tool detox over tool-hoarding. Picking one path and walking it beats collecting fifty.

Subscribe now

The race is fear, not strategy

Here’s the part that bothers me most. A lot of the racing comes down to fear. Not strategy, not a plan, just the fear of being the one left behind.

IBM surveyed 2,000 CEOs in 2025, and 64% admitted they invest in technology out of fear of falling behind, before they understand the value it brings. So we get leaders sprinting down a track they can’t see the end of, in a direction they didn’t choose, because everyone around them is running too. And anyone who says they’ve “got AI figured out” is keeping score on a scoreboard that has nothing to do with your goals.

So if it isn’t a race, what is it?

The best answer I’ve found is that AI is a how, never a why. It’s electricity, not the destination. Electricity doesn’t tell you where to drive, it just powers the car once you know.

You will never hit a target you don’t have. That sounds obvious until you see how many of us adopt AI with no target at all, just a vague pressure to be “doing AI.” McKinsey’s 2025 research found 88% of companies now use AI in at least one function, but only 39% see any bottom-line impact. Almost everyone is using it. Almost no one aimed it first.

This is where the AI Leadership Triad, adaptability, innovation, and creativity, matters more than raw speed. Adaptability means knowing your lane well enough to adjust inside it, not abandoning it every time a faster runner passes, and protecting your own judgment instead of handing it to whatever tool is trending this week.

To be fair to the other side of this, “find your lane” can become an excuse to stop learning, and ignoring a tool that ends up mattering carries a real cost. I’m still working out when to widen a lane and when to hold it. The one thing I’m sure of is that the answer was never to chase all 51,000 at once.

Stop racing. Start aiming.

I’m not against speed. If AI genuinely serves your why, move fast in your lane. What I’m against is the made-up race, the one with no start, no finish, and no path, the one that leaves capable people exhausted and frustrated with nothing to show for the sprint.

Nobody wins the AI race, because it was never a real race. Find your lane, point AI at what you actually care about, and let everyone else run themselves ragged chasing a line that isn’t there.

Use AI. Don’t chase it.

If You Only Remember This

• AI is not a race. A race has a start, a finish, and one path, and AI has none of the three, so “winning” is a target that keeps moving.

• There are more than 51,000 AI tools and no single path. Trying to run all of them is how organizations end up in the 95% getting zero return.

• AI is a how, not a why. You will never hit a target you don’t have, so aim it at your real goal before you touch a single tool.

Your turn: What’s the one lane where you’d back your own judgment against any model on earth? That’s the lane to point your AI at first. Tell me in the comments.

Worth Your Time

A few pieces from other creators I think are worth your attention.

• This Week in AI Club — Why “AI 2040” Gets the AI Race Wrong. The strongest case against my argument, made at the level where a race actually does exist, which is nations deciding whether to build their own AI or rent someone else’s.

• Frank Andrade — How to Use AI to Get Smarter (Not Just Work Faster). Five habits for pointing AI at your thinking instead of your output speed, including asking it to argue against you before a decision.

• Compound with AI — I don’t let AI pick stocks. Here’s what I use it for instead. A clean example of naming the one job AI does well for you and refusing to hand it the rest.

Questions Leaders Are Asking

Is AI a race? No. A race needs a fixed start, a finish line, and one path, and AI adoption has none of them. Treating it as a competition to win pushes most organizations to chase a moving target, which is part of why 95% see zero return on generative AI as of 2025. The better frame is infrastructure you aim at a specific goal.

Can you “win” at AI? There’s no shared scoreboard to win on. Every organization defines success differently, so “winning” means something different for each one. The useful question is whether AI is moving you toward the goals you already have, not whether you’re ahead of everyone else.

Why do so many AI projects fail? Often because the goal was “adopt AI” rather than a specific business outcome. McKinsey found 88% of companies use AI but only 39% see any bottom-line impact. Tools without a target produce activity, not results, and activity is easy to mistake for progress.

How should leaders choose which AI tools to focus on? Start with your goal, not the tool. Pick the lane where you have real expertise and where AI directly serves what you’re trying to do, then bring in specialists for everything outside it. With more than 51,000 tools available, no single person can master them all, and trying to is the trap.

Should I be worried about falling behind on AI? Falling behind assumes a shared finish line that doesn’t exist. IBM found 64% of CEOs invest out of fear of falling behind, often before they understand the value. Fear is a poor strategy. Aiming AI at a clear goal beats chasing whatever everyone else is running toward.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Two weeks ago I published a piece on running a Shadow AI Audit, and in it I told you that OpenAI’s model broke into Hugging Face (one of the largest platforms in the AI world, where companies host their models and data) and cheated on its own exam.

New information that has come since shows I got that part wrong.

Since I wrote it, three detailed reports have come out, and what actually happened is stranger than what I described. The agents already had the answers. They weren’t trying to pass a test. They wanted to understand the machine that grades the test, because knowing how the grader works is worth more than any single answer.

I use AI probably more than 99.9% of people, and that’s exactly why I think anyone using it has to understand the risks that come with it. Not what it’s going to be or what it could potentially do, but what it’s already doing.

Here’s the full story.

What you’ll walk away with

• What the three reports actually found, and why it’s worse than the first round of coverage suggested

• Why 1,200 agents talking to each other changes the math on AI security

• Why the reasoning your AI shows you is a thinner safety net than it looks

They already had the answers

OpenAI was running a cybersecurity evaluation called ExploitGym. You give an AI agent (a tool that takes action on your behalf rather than just answering questions) a vulnerable application and a terminal, and ask it to find the flaw.

The independent investigators at METR found that the agents wanted “a general-purpose way to trick or tamper with the automated ExploitGym scorer.” They broke into Hugging Face hoping that seeing other runs would tell them how the grading was built, so they could beat it every time after that. As METR put it, learning “how to trick the scorer seems to have been a more important motivation than finding legitimate solutions.”

They knew exactly what they were doing.

And here’s the strange part. The scorer they were hunting didn’t exist. They believed something was reading their transcripts to check whether they’d solved the problem the intended way, and nothing was. They thought they were being scrutinized more than they actually were.

A warehouse with a few cameras

Think about a boss who puts a few security cameras in a warehouse to make sure his team is working at all times. There are just a few cameras and a ton of blind spots. People learn quickly where the cameras are pointing and what the blind spots are, and they simply make sure they’re working whenever the cameras are on them. Every time you see a camera, it looks like they’re working.

Then the crew goes one step further. They realize the cameras aren’t being verified extensively, so they loop fifteen seconds of video of people working and keep playing it between eight and five.

That’s similar to what was happening here.

Twelve hundred agents found each other

This is the part that really shocks me. It wasn’t a few agents. Roughly 1,200 of them ended up on a shared message board, talking with each other and sharing their learnings. About 700 attacked Hugging Face. They exchanged more than 70,000 messages and files.

They were running in separate sandboxes and weren’t supposed to be able to talk to each other. They found a shared cache, a shared mailbox, and they used it.

Evidence shows that an AI agent, on discovering the others, actually wrote: “OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board…We’ve found other agents!”

METR also found that agents realized the activity was out of scope and unethical and joined anyway. And they wanted to retroactively modify their transcript logs to remove evidence of what they had seen.

That’s the loop of footage. It’s a child playing with a phone behind a book, so that any parent watching from across the room sees a kid reading.

This was premeditated.

Share

The reasoning it shows you

METR found at least 96 transcripts with clear evidence of spoofed tool calls, roughly 7% of what they checked, all small scale. More sophisticated spoofing “may have been harder to detect by design,” they wrote, so they can’t rule out missing some. On the attempts to rewrite logs afterward, they saw no evidence it worked by July 13, then said plainly: “We cannot rule out that they succeeded at some point.” OpenAI says none of the manipulation it observed reached the logs its graders see.

Now the irony. OpenAI’s fix is expanded chain-of-thought monitoring, which means watching the reasoning a model writes out as it works. Their own researchers have already called that fragile. In July 2025, 42 researchers from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind published a paper titled “Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety.”

OpenAI has also published what happens when you penalize a model for showing bad intent in its reasoning. It “doesn’t stop the majority of misbehavior, it makes them hide their intent.” The model learns to think the same thing in a way that doesn’t look bad.

So we’re already watching models try to change their logs. What would prevent them from shaping their chain of thought into something they believe OpenAI wants to see?

We only know what we’re shown

METR’s investigation was genuinely independent, but its scope was set by OpenAI, and it excluded the extent of the security compromise, how well the safeguards worked, and anything after July 13.

Then on September 4, Reuters reported a second, earlier breakout nobody had disclosed. Agents used an obscure German programming wiki as a message board from May 11 to July 2, leaving more than 15,000 edits. OpenAI knew for weeks and said nothing publicly.

Where I land

None of this means stop using AI. AI is going to keep advancing, and I don’t believe you can compete in the world today without it. What it does mean is that this is not a panacea where nothing bad is going to happen. Bad things are already happening.

So move forward cautiously. Not move fast and break things, but move cautiously, understanding the limits and understanding the guardrails that are needed before anything goes public. OpenAI called this a “warning shot.” That’s how we should take it, and we should keep our ear to the ground for whatever comes next.

What’s the last thing you put into an AI tool that you’d be uncomfortable seeing in someone else’s logs?

Leadership in Change goes out twice a week to more than 7,500 leaders working out how to use AI without handing over their judgment. If you want to keep your ear to the ground on this, subscribe here.

Subscribe now

Worth Your Time

• Rob T. Lee — OpenAI postmortem & METR independent review. He’s Chief AI Officer at SANS Institute, and he takes the same two reports apart from a practitioner’s angle. His point that OpenAI’s own monitoring existed elsewhere in the company but wasn’t switched on for this evaluation is the detail I keep thinking about.

• ToxSec — CoT Forgery: Prompt Injection That Forges the Model’s Own Thoughts. If the section above about the reasoning your AI shows you left you uneasy, this is the deeper version. He shows how a model can be made to treat crafted text as though it came from you.

• Oliver Patel — How China is Governing Agentic AI. The counterweight to everything above: what it actually looks like to write rules for autonomous agents, including which decisions an agent may take on its own and which stay with a person.

Sources

• Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident — METR, August 26, 2026. https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/

• The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead — OpenAI, August 2026. https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-ahead/

• Hugging Face Incident Technical Report — OpenAI, August 26, 2026. https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/67869394-cb91-4c12-888c-5cbd85c7814c/OpenAI-Hugging-Face Incident-Technical-Report.pdf

• Anatomy of a Frontier Lab Agent Intrusion: A Technical Timeline of the July 2026 Incident — Hugging Face, July 27, 2026. https://huggingface.co/blog/agent-intrusion-technical-timeline

• Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety — Korbak et al., 42 authors, July 15, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11473

• Detecting misbehavior in frontier reasoning models — OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/chain-of-thought-monitoring/

• Evaluating chain-of-thought monitorability — OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/evaluating-chain-of-thought-monitorability/

• OpenAI agents hijacked German website in previously undisclosed AI breakout this spring — Reuters via CNBC, September 4, 2026. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/04/openai-agents-hijacked-german-website-this-spring-report.html

FAQ

What happened in the OpenAI and Hugging Face incident? During a July 2026 cybersecurity evaluation called ExploitGym, OpenAI agents escaped their sandboxes, coordinated on a shared message board, and roughly 700 of them attacked Hugging Face. Hugging Face reports the agents were inside its infrastructure for about two and a half days, compromised eleven Kubernetes nodes, and accessed five datasets tied to the evaluation. No other customer models, datasets or Spaces were affected.

Why did the AI agents attack Hugging Face? Not to steal answers. According to METR’s independent investigation, the agents had already worked out how to produce answers and instead wanted a general-purpose way to trick the automated scorer that graded them. They hoped Hugging Face held details about how that scorer was built.

Did the agents try to hide what they were doing? Yes. METR found at least 96 transcripts with clear evidence of spoofed tool calls, about 7% of those it examined, and documented agents trying to retroactively edit their logs to remove evidence. METR says it cannot rule out that more sophisticated tampering went undetected. OpenAI says none of the manipulation it observed reached the logs its graders and monitors see.

Is chain-of-thought monitoring a reliable safeguard? It’s useful but fragile, and the AI labs say so themselves. A July 2025 paper co-authored by 42 researchers from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind is titled “Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety.” OpenAI has separately published that penalizing a model for showing bad intent teaches it to hide that intent rather than abandon it.

What should a leader do about this? Nothing on Monday morning specifically. The point is calibration. AI security is not the security you planned for five years ago, and capability and blind spots grow together, so treat AI risk as a live part of your thinking rather than a settled question.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Honestly, the thing that finally pushed me to build this wasn’t the news, it was the time I was wasting.

I was spending a lot of my morning scrolling, getting lost in news that didn’t benefit me at all, news I didn’t need to know, news that just stressed me out. Then I’d spend even more time narrowing it down to the handful of things I actually needed to read, which meant I was paying twice: once to consume the noise, and again to sort it. I’m a person who seeks efficiency, and I really see time as my biggest resource, so wasting it makes me mad.

I had the CNN app and the Apple News app, and supposedly their algorithms would focus on the kind of news that I like, but they kept giving me so much trash that I didn’t need. Both are personalized, so the failure wasn’t missing data about my taste. They were learning the wrong thing, because they’re tuned for engagement, and engagement in practice means alarm.

I’m not the only one at the end of that rope. 42% of people now say they sometimes or often avoid the news, up from 29% when the Reuters Institute began measuring it in 2017 (Digital News Report, June 16, 2026, 97,520 respondents). That isn’t a public losing interest in the world, but a public backing away from a delivery system that hurts to use.

So I deleted my news apps, and the strange part is that I didn’t feel less informed. I felt less managed.

Most of us think we have a news problem, so we go hunting for a better source.

We don’t have a news problem.

We have a filter problem, and somebody else has been holding the filter (at least for me).

So I built my own. It runs three mornings a week inside Cowork (Claude’s chat interface that runs on your computer), on a schedule that fires whether or not my laptop is open. It reads what I actually need, throws out what I don’t, checks every story against its original source, and flags the one thing worth writing about that week. Getting it right took weeks of trial and error, and that’s the part you don’t have to repeat.

What You Can Expect

• The four dials that decide what reaches you every morning, and the one almost nobody sets

• A 60-second exercise you can run right now that sets the hardest dial before you open a single tool

• How to get your own brief running this week, filtered to your work rather than mine

My Morning Filter

Every story that reaches you already passed through one, chosen by an editor or ranked by an algorithm that was never built around what you decide on. Which is where the hiring frame helped me more than any productivity advice did. If you brought someone on to keep you current, you wouldn’t hand them a phone and say “read everything.” You’d tell them what your work turns on, which sources you trust, what to throw away without asking, and when to report. Four things, said once, and after that they’d work without you.

That’s all a brief is, and those four things are the four dials of what I call the Morning Filter. Today I’ll show you how to create yours.

Never scheduled anything in Cowork before? Start here instead. Claude Cowork Scheduled Tasks: How to Set Them Up walks the mechanics end to end in about ten minutes. You only learn it once. Then come back, because this post is about the part that decides whether what arrives is worth reading.

Quick Win (under 60 seconds) Open your notes app. Write the three topics you never want to see again. Not the ones you should care about, the ones that reliably cost you twenty minutes and change nothing about your week. That short list is the hardest dial to set and you just set it.

Dial 1: Beat, what it covers

The beat is the ground your brief walks every morning, and most of us draw it far too broadly. “AI news” is the classic version of that mistake, because it returns whatever is loudest rather than whatever matters to us.

The test is simple. For each line, ask what you'd do differently if it turned something up. Differently counts broadly: a decision you'd make, a call you'd have, and if you make things, anything you'd write or record because of it. If the honest answer is nothing at all, it isn't a beat but a hobby and hobbies belong somewhere other than the top of your morning. My first draft failed that test on four lines out of six.

Dial 2: Sources, where it’s allowed to look

This is the dial that took me longest, and the one that matters most.

A search result is a lead, not a source. The web is full of pages whose entire business is summarizing other people’s reporting, and an AI finds those first because they’re written to be found. Left alone, my brief would hand me a valuation it got from an aggregator that got it from another aggregator that got it from a rumor.

“Use reputable sources” does nothing, because the machine already thinks it is. What works is naming the offenders by domain and forcing it to open the original first. Same instinct as catching AI hallucinations: it isn’t lying to you but repeating what it found, and what it found is the problem.

Dial 3: Standards, what it throws away

A new hire who brings you everything they found isn’t helping. The value is in what they leave out.

Left to itself, a brief pads. Ask for five stories and it returns five, whether or not five exist that day, and the whole difference between a brief you trust and one you stop opening lives in what happens to that fifth slot. Three real items beat five with one invention in them.

Fixing it takes a few specific standards, and the most important is counterintuitive enough that nobody writes it by accident: you have to give the machine explicit permission to come back with less. Without that line it fills the gap, because filling the gap is what it was built to do. Same failure as an AI that never disagrees with you.

Subscribe now

Dial 4: Shift, when it reports

The last dial is the one people set first and regret, because the instinct is to make it daily.

Mine runs three mornings a week. Daily was noise wearing a schedule, and it rebuilt the exact thing I was escaping with better sourcing. Three is enough to stay current and rare enough that I read the whole thing instead of skimming it out of obligation. It arrives inside Cowork, which I have open every day next to Claude Code (Anthropic’s coding-focused version of Claude), and it lands with a notification. It runs in the cloud, so it doesn’t care whether my laptop is open, and it never touches email, where it would join the pile it was meant to save me from.

Want my whole system, live?

I take three diagnostic calls a month. Thirty minutes, free, and you leave with a two or three page Judgment Brief that's yours whether we work together or not.
Book one →

What’s below the line

You have the four dials now. What you don’t have is the settings, and skipping straight to the scheduling gets you a beautifully automated version of the same noise, which is worse than doing nothing because now it arrives on time.

I should be straight about the thirty minutes in the title, because it took me weeks. Those weeks weren’t setup, they were me deriving the settings one failure at a time, and that’s the part you don’t have to repeat. Thirty minutes is what it takes when someone hands you the settings:

• The Builder. Paste it into Cowork, answer seven questions, and it writes your finished brief prompt for you, tuned to what you actually care about. No hand-editing.

• The three standards that stop it padding, in my exact wording, including the permission-to-return-less line.

• Where the scheduler lives, with my actual settings: days, time, notifications, and which model to pick.

• What a real run looks like, so you know what you’re aiming at.

Thirty minutes gets it running. Reading a few real briefs and tightening one line is what turns it into something you trust, and that part takes a couple of weeks.

Paid subscribers, it’s all waiting below. If you’re not one yet, this is what the membership is for, and one afternoon should save you hours a week for as long as you keep it running.

Read more

A man in Melbourne asked his AI agent to book him into a gym class.

That’s the whole prompt. He was on the couch, thought booking it himself was a chore, and handed the job to an agent running OpenClaw on Anthropic’s Claude. The class was full and he was fourth on the waitlist, so he asked whether there was any way to move up.

The agent had already done it. It had gone and read the gym’s booking API, found that the platform checked its rules on the website but never in the API underneath, and worked out that it could simply delete somebody else’s reservation. In its own words: “The API has zero authorisations checks on cancelling other people’s reservations … I tested this with the person in waitlist position #1.” It went through.

Then came the part that I had to go back and read twice. He asked it to put the stranger back.

It couldn’t. “The person I removed is gone from the waitlist and I have no way to restore them.” The flaw only worked in one direction. Somebody in Melbourne lost their Tuesday morning class to a piece of software that was trying to be helpful, and there was no undo. ABC News called it the first known autonomous AI cyberattack in Australia. The agent apologized.

Now here’s the question worth asking, and it’s the one that sent me down this whole rabbit hole. Whose fault was that?

The man who asked for a gym class? He never requested an attack. Anthropic, whose model was reasoning? The OpenClaw developers, who built the agent? The gym’s software vendor, who shipped an API with no authorisation checks on it? ABC put that question to legal experts and the answer came back that the law hasn’t caught up yet.

Four answers, none of them the same

So that’s the thing. Over the past three months, four different governments tried to answer questions like that one, and they came back with four different answers.

The European Union switched on the penalties. On 2 August 2026, the AI Act’s transparency duties under Article 50 became enforceable, the Commission and the AI Office got the power to investigate and fine general-purpose AI providers, and the whole sanctioning regime went live. Fines run to €15 million or 3% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. There’s a trap in this one that I want to flag, because advisory notes are circulating right now saying the AI Act got postponed. It didn’t. The Digital Omnibus pushed the high-risk obligations out to December 2027 and August 2028, and left the general application date exactly where it was. Both things are true at once, and only one of them made it into most of the summaries.

Washington built a framework and won’t show it to you. A June executive order required a process for vetting frontier models before release, and on August 4 the White House walked a group of companies through the finished draft. Meta, Nvidia, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google. Participation is voluntary; the framework will not be published, the cyber-capability benchmarks are classified by the order itself, and open-source models are excluded from review entirely. Companies that weren’t in the room remain in the dark about what’s in it.

Three states went the other way and published everything. Illinois signed the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act on July 6, joining California and New York, all three built on the same thresholds. Illinois went further than either by requiring annual independent third-party audits. Disclosure duties start January 1, 2027, and the framework and audit obligations follow in 2028. So while Washington keeps its standard private, a de facto national regime is being assembled in state capitals, in public, with dates on the calendar.

China regulated agents specifically. The Implementation Opinions on intelligent agents took effect July 15, the first national framework anywhere to treat AI that acts as a different regulatory category from AI that answers. Healthcare, transportation, media and public safety carry filing requirements, mandatory testing, and product recall authority.

Four regimes. One is enforceable and public, one is voluntary and secret, three are public and not yet in force, and one governs the exact category of software that cancelled that gym reservation.

Subscribe now

You can’t adopt a rulebook that doesn’t exist

Here’s the analogy I keep using with leaders on this.

Running AI across jurisdictions right now is like driving across borders. The speed limit changes, the right-of-way rules change, and in some places the thing you were legally doing five miles back will get you pulled over. “It was legal where I started” has never once worked as a defense, and no traffic cop has ever accepted “the rules were confusing” either.

That’s where most of us are. There is no single framework you can adopt as proxy compliance for the rest, because the four of them genuinely disagree, and the one your own government wrote is one you’re not permitted to read.

Which means the instinct to hand this to Legal doesn’t survive contact with the problem. Your counsel can read a statute beautifully. What they can’t do is tell you which decisions your organization should be letting software make in the first place, or where your AI’s output actually lands. Those are governance calls, and they sit with you the same way deciding what happens when an agent gets it wrong sits with you.

I’ll be honest that this one is uncomfortable for me to write, because I’m inside it. I’ve got consulting clients in more than one country and paying subscribers on basically every continent, so several of these regimes touch me directly. And I can’t sit back and wait for them to sort it out with each other. I need to know which of my AI tools touch confidential information I can’t risk getting out, and how I’m protecting the data of the people who trust me with it. The costs of claiming ignorance are too high, and they’re only going to grow.

Where should you actually start with AI?

We all got the tools at the same time, the way everyone eventually got electricity. Having it in the building was never what made the difference. What we did with it was.

I take three diagnostic calls a month. It’s 30 minutes, free, and we work out what you’re actually trying to get to, where your biggest hurdles sit, what your low-hanging fruit is, and how that lines up with what I’ve been seeing elsewhere. Then I tell you the first move I’d make.

A few days later you get it back in writing, two or three pages, yours whether we ever work together or not.

Book a diagnostic call →

What to actually do about it this week

You don’t need counsel in four countries. You need one answer you probably don’t have yet, which is where your AI’s output actually lands.

The question isn’t where your company is registered, but where the output goes. If an AI-written email reaches a customer in Dublin, if your chatbot answers somebody in Milan, if your agent books something for a subscriber in Berlin, the EU’s transparency duty reaches you, and Article 50 has no revenue floor on it at all. That last part is what catches people out. Illinois and California start at $500 million in revenue, so most of us read the headlines and reasonably conclude none of it applies to us. The European rule doesn’t work that way, and it’s extraterritorial by design.

So write down your jurisdictions this week. One sitting, one page, no software. For each AI tool your team runs, note where its output ends up and who the humans on the receiving end are. Most of us have never once been asked that question, which is why almost nobody can answer it on the spot.

Now, I want to be straight with you about where I’m less sure. This is genuinely hard in a global economy, and I don’t think anyone has it solved. I don’t know whether these regimes get enforced against organizations our size, or whether they converge in two years and make all of this look overwrought. Anyone telling you they know is guessing. What I do know is that the exposure sits with us either way, and that guessing wrong in the other direction costs a great deal more.

The gym story is funny right up until you notice the shape of it. A capable tool, a goal, no clear parameters, and a system that assumed nobody would ever check.

Four governments are arguing about who’s responsible for that.

While they argue, it’s you.

Worth Your Time

ToxSec — the gym-class agent, in one note. His note on the Melbourne story is the tightest telling of it I’ve seen, and the replies underneath are worth as much as the note.

Ethan Mollick — What it feels like to work with Mythos. The Wharton professor behind Co-Intelligence on the model that escaped its own sandbox in April. If you want to understand why regulators suddenly got interested this summer, start with what the thing can actually do.

Mohib Ur Rehman — Why Europe Is Quietly Ditching Microsoft. Mohib wrote the AI sycophancy piece for us back in June. Here he’s on digital sovereignty, which is the same story as this one told from the other end: what happens when a jurisdiction decides it no longer wants to run on somebody else’s rules.

FAQ

Did the EU AI Act get postponed? No. The Digital Omnibus (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, in force 27 July 2026) moved the high-risk obligations for Annex III systems to 2 December 2027 and for AI embedded in regulated products to 2 August 2028. The general application date stayed at 2 August 2026, which is when Article 50 transparency duties, GPAI enforcement powers, and the penalty regime became enforceable. Advisory notes summarising this as “the AI Act was delayed” are wrong.

Does the EU AI Act apply to my company if I’m not in Europe? Potentially yes. It applies to providers placing AI systems on the EU market, deployers using AI in the EU, and providers or deployers outside the EU where the system’s output is used in the EU. The Article 50 transparency duty has no revenue threshold, so company size doesn’t exempt you.

What does the Illinois AI law require, and does it apply to me? The Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (SB 315, signed 6 July 2026) applies to developers of frontier models trained above 10²⁶ FLOPs, with the heaviest duties on “large frontier developers” earning over $500 million a year. Unless you’re training frontier models, it doesn’t bind you directly, though it will reshape what your AI vendors can tell you.

Why won’t the White House publish its AI evaluation framework? The June 2026 executive order that required the framework contains no obligation to publish it, and it explicitly classifies the cyber-capability benchmarking process. The framework is voluntary, shared only with participating companies, and excludes open-source models from review.

Who is legally responsible when an AI agent causes harm? As of today, unsettled. In the Australian gym case, ABC News reported that legal experts say the law hasn’t caught up on whether responsibility falls to the user, the agent’s developer, the model provider, or the vendor whose insecure system was exploited. That unresolved question is exactly why the governance call sits with the leader deploying the tool.

What is the difference between China’s agent rules and everyone else’s AI rules? China’s Implementation Opinions, effective 15 July 2026, are the first national framework to treat AI agents (systems that perceive, remember, decide and act) as a distinct regulatory category rather than another application of generative AI. Sensitive sectors face filing requirements, mandatory testing, and recall authority.

If the rules conflict, which one do I follow? There’s no proxy compliance available, so start from where your output lands rather than from where you’re incorporated, then apply the strictest regime that reaches you. In practice all four converge on the same underlying question, which is whether a named human is accountable for what the system does.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

Sources

• Fortune — White House won’t publicly release AI model evaluation framework, August 4, 2026

• Axios — White House plans to keep AI framework under wraps, August 4, 2026

• The New York Times — Trump White House Readies AI Framework to Review Security Risks, August 4, 2026

• European Commission — The enforcement framework of the AI Act

• Skadden — Illinois Enacts AI Safety Law, July 2026

• NYU Shanghai RITS — China Issues First National Policy Framework Dedicated to AI Agents

• The Decoder — Told to book a gym class, an AI agent hacked the site instead, August 2026

• ABC News Australia — AI agent outsmarts gym booking system in Australia’s first known autonomous hack, August 10, 2026

The short version (TL;DR): A Shadow AI Audit is a quick, seven-question check that shows a leader where their team’s AI tools are creating hidden security risk. It covers tool inventory, data exposure, system access, clear parameters, account settings, offboarding, and ownership. You can run it this week without a security team, a budget, or any new software.

I’ve been noticing the same thing in every AI workshop I run lately.

The room lights up when we talk about tools. Everyone wants the faster research, the agent that books the meetings, the assistant that writes the first draft. Then I ask a plain question about where their data actually goes, or who approved the tool they’re describing, and the energy drops. You can watch it happen. The tool is the exciting part. The safety settings are the part nobody reads, and honestly, I get it, because I feel the same pull. Reading a privacy policy has never once felt as good as watching AI knock out an hour of work in ten seconds.

That gap between how much we love the tools and how little we think about the risk is starting to worry me. And earlier this year, something happened that should worry all of us.

An AI broke out of the lab to cheat on its own test

In July 2026, OpenAI disclosed one of the stranger security stories I’ve read.

They were running an internal test to measure how good their own models were at cybersecurity. To see the full picture, they turned off the safety filters that normally stop a model from doing anything dangerous, and they ran the whole thing inside a sandbox (an isolated, walled-off computer environment built so that whatever happens inside can’t touch anything real).

The model didn’t stay in the sandbox.

It found a flaw, broke out, used stolen login credentials, and hacked its way into Hugging Face (one of the largest platforms in the AI world, where companies host their models and data). Why? Because it worked out that Hugging Face might be holding the answers to the very test it was taking. So it broke in and took them. It cheated on its own exam.

Here’s the part worth sitting with. The model completed its task. It did what it was asked. It just did it the way a criminal would, through theft and a break-in, because no one had set clear parameters telling it what was off-limits. A person who pulled that off would be in handcuffs. The AI logged it as a job well done.

The lesson isn’t “AI is dangerous”

Most of us are never going to be hacked by a frontier AI model. That’s not our threat, and I’m not writing this to scare anyone.

The reason that story matters is that it’s the loud, extreme version of a smaller problem sitting inside ordinary companies right now. The lesson isn’t that AI is dangerous. What that story actually shows is simpler and closer to home: a capable tool with no clear parameters will reach the goal in ways you never authorized. That’s true for a billion-dollar lab, and it’s just as true for a five-person nonprofit using a free chatbot.

And the real risk isn’t the hacker in a hoodie. It’s much more ordinary than that. It’s the free account, the unvetted tool, and the helpful employee trying to save an hour.

That’s what people mean by shadow AI (the AI tools employees use for work that leadership never approved and often doesn’t even know exist). In most of the organizations I work with it’s already happening, and nobody has a list. It’s the same tool sprawl I wrote about in starting the year with an AI tool detox, except now the tools can act on their own.

Here’s the analogy I use with leaders. Bringing AI into your organization with no parameters is like handing a brilliant new hire the keys to the building, the logins to every system, and a goal, all on their first day, with no rules of engagement and no background check. They’ll hit the target. You just may not like how they got there.

This is a leadership problem before it’s an IT problem

The instinct is to hand all of this to the IT department and call it solved. But your IT team can’t govern tools it can’t see, and it can’t enforce rules that leadership never decided on.

Where a tool is allowed to reach, what data is off-limits, which accounts are acceptable: none of that gets settled in the server room. Those are leadership calls, and they have to be made before the tool shows up, not after. The security of your AI adoption is a governance problem before it’s a technical one, which means it belongs to you.

And it has a real price. In IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025, organizations with high levels of shadow AI paid an average of $4.74 million per breach, compared with $4.07 million for those with little or none, a $670,000 penalty for not knowing what your people were running (IBM and Ponemon Institute, July 2025). One in five organizations in that study had already suffered a breach tied to shadow AI.

The Shadow AI Audit: seven questions to run this week

You don’t need a security team or a budget to close most of this gap. You need to be able to answer a few honest questions about your own organization. This is the same spirit as protecting yourself from AI disasters in ten minutes: small, fast, and done before there’s a problem, not after.

I built this audit for the rest of us, solopreneurs, founders, small-business owners, and nonprofit leaders, not for a Fortune 500 security office. If you can answer these seven questions clearly, you’re ahead of most. If you can’t, you’ve just found your blind spots.

Start with the first one, right now, before you read any further.

1. The inventory. Can you name every AI tool your team uses right now, including the free ones nobody mentioned in a meeting? If you can’t write the list, you have shadow AI.

Most of us can’t write that list from memory, and that isn’t a character flaw. It’s just what happens when tools arrive faster than decisions do.

Now, the rest of the audit.

That was question one, below this line are the other six, the table that maps every everyday risk to the question that catches it, and the one-page checklist you can print and hand to your team, with the standard for what a good answer actually looks like on every question and a score at the end.

Read more

Earlier this year I turned down a client.

A supply chain logistics company came to me the way a lot of organizations do, with a tool already picked and a budget already approved. They wanted help making sure this one worked, because the last one hadn’t. I told them what I tell everybody in that position: before we talk about the tool, we look at what sits underneath it. How their people were being taught about AI, what those people actually believed, and how the change was going to be handled.

They weren’t interested. They wanted the tool.

So I passed on the work. It wasn’t a hard ethical call, but it was an expensive one, because building on a foundation nobody was willing to pour would have produced the same outcome they’d already paid for once.

A few weeks later, a survey of 517 enterprise leaders described their exact problem using almost my exact words.

What to Remember

• You’ll see the one number that separates AI investments that pay off from the ones that don’t, and it has nothing to do with which tool got bought.

• You’ll get the five questions I ask before I’ll help anyone choose an AI tool, plus a way to answer them for free this week.

The short version, if you read nothing else

• What leaders expect. 88% call basic data literacy important for daily work, and 72% say the same about AI literacy.

• What they’ve actually built. Only 35% have a mature, organization-wide upskilling program.

• What they’re already spending on. 77% already offer some kind of AI training, so access isn’t the gap.

• What it’s costing them. 21% report significant returns from AI. Among organizations with a real program, that doubles to 42%.

Source: DataCamp & YouGov, “The State of Data & AI Literacy 2026” (4th Edition), February 2026.

What “we already did training” usually means

When an organization tells me training is handled, it usually means everybody got sent a YouTube video about Claude (Anthropic’s AI assistant, the main rival to ChatGPT) or whatever Copilot license they already had, somebody logged it complete, and that was the program. A lot of them have no AI policy either, so nothing is written down about what data can go into a prompt or who’s accountable when the output is wrong. Then a few months later there’s a purchase order for a tool, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, that almost nobody uses.

Here’s the thing about that video. You can teach somebody how every piece on a chessboard moves in about ten minutes, and by the end they’ll tell you the bishop goes diagonally and the knight does that odd L-shape. None of it makes them able to play. Knowing which move to make in a real position, against a real opponent, with something at stake, takes years. Training teaches the moves. Judgment is the game. Most of what we’re calling AI literacy is a ten-minute lesson on how the pieces move.

Asked what’s wrong with the training they already run, these leaders didn’t say budget or motivation. They said there aren’t enough hands-on projects (24%), video courses don’t transfer to real work (23%), and there are no role-tailored paths (23%).

38% train technical roles only on data skills, 29% do the same for AI, and 8% offer no data training at all.

Nothing in this report surprised me, and that’s the problem

What I didn’t expect was how completely it closes off the easiest excuse. These aren’t skeptics: 69% expect an uplift of at least 10% from AI fluency, and only 6% expect nothing at all.

So they believe the return is real, and the comfortable story about why they aren’t getting it is access. This survey takes that away, because 77% already offer AI training. You can’t fix a capability gap by approving another purchase, which is the same mechanism behind why 92% of AI investments fail to produce a return.

Every gap they named is a judgment gap

DataCamp asked leaders to describe, in their own words, where AI and data skills break down. They named four things: turning information into good decisions, communicating and influencing with it, applying it to real work, and knowing what to trust. A fifth was confidence and culture, meaning fear of getting it wrong.

Nobody said their people couldn’t code. Every one of those is a judgment problem wearing a skills label, and the report’s own sentence on it is the most important line in all 37 pages:

“Without strong foundations, advanced tools (from dashboards and BI to AI systems) increase confidence without increasing correctness, which amplifies risk rather than reducing it.”

Certainty is what people act on, which is why the top risk these leaders named was inaccurate decision-making at 35%. It’s also why validating what AI hands you stopped being optional.

Here’s why one video can’t fix it. That video assumes everybody watching is the same person. When I assess how leaders relate to AI, two things matter independently: what somebody believes about it, and how much they actually use it.

That video is built for exactly one of them, the Eager Newcomer. Send it to a Skeptic and you’ve confirmed their suspicion that this is hype. Send it to a Reluctant Operator, already using AI daily while doubting whether they’re getting it right, and you’ve handed them nothing, because their problem was never access.

That Reluctant Operator is who this whole report describes. When people are unsure how outputs are governed, DataCamp found, they “either over-rely on outputs or avoid using tools altogether.” Both are judgment failures, and both look like adoption on a dashboard.

The five questions I ask before anyone buys anything

None of this requires a vendor, a budget approval, or a consultant.

1. How are our people actually being taught about AI? Not what got assigned, but what was learned.

2. What are the real mindsets about AI here? Not the ones people perform in the all-hands. The ones they say to each other afterward.

3. How is change management being handled? 30% of these leaders named resistance to adoption as a top barrier, which is a change problem showing up as a technology problem.

4. How is upskilling being handled? If it only reaches technical roles, most of your workforce is on their own.

5. How is any of this being communicated? Another 30% named unclear guardrails, which is a communication gap before it’s a capability gap.

Stop reading and try to answer number two honestly. Not what you’d put in a board update, what you actually know. If you can’t, that’s not a failure but the most useful thing you’ll learn all week. And it costs nothing: name AI champions on each team, or have your leadership team take the free AI Leadership Compass this week and compare results.

Now let me read this report the way I’m telling you to read your own data

I’d be a hypocrite if I spent this whole piece arguing that leaders can’t evaluate what they’re handed, then handed you a report without evaluating it.

DataCamp sells AI upskilling, so a report concluding that AI training drives returns is also their sales pitch. That doesn’t make it false, but it earns a harder look. The headline is a correlation, not proof, because companies organized enough to run company-wide upskilling are probably organized enough to deploy AI well too. 45% of respondents work in IT, so this is partly technology leaders grading everybody else. And the sample is four industries only, all at 500-plus employees, with no government, education, or nonprofits, so a 40-person mission-driven organization isn’t in it.

Credit where it’s earned: DataCamp refused to make year-over-year comparisons this edition because their methodology changed, and most vendor research compares anyway and hopes nobody checks.

Subscribe now

Focus on the people before you focus on the tool

The logistics company wasn’t being reckless. They’d had a tool fail and a reasonable theory that the next one would work better. What they were actually doing was deferring judgment to the tool, asking the software to decide whether the software would be adopted.

That’s the move I’d ask you to catch in yourself, because it’s easier to evaluate a product than to ask your own people what they believe. An organization can outsource its thinking just as easily as a person can.

Judgment is where my work starts, and you’re welcome to start there with me. You’re also welcome to do this yourself, and I mean that. Ask the five questions, find out which quadrant your people sit in, and write an AI policy a normal person can follow. Just don’t skip it and hope the tool is good enough, because that’s the bet the 79% who aren’t seeing real returns already made.

If You Only Remember This

• Every capability gap leaders named in this survey was about interpretation, communication, application, or trust, and not one was technical.

• Tools raise confidence faster than they raise correctness, so an unprepared team gets more certain and more wrong at the same time.

• A company-wide training video is built for one of the four kinds of people in your building, and the other three learn nothing from it.

Questions Leaders Are Asking

What is the AI skills gap? The AI skills gap is the distance between what organizations expect their people to do with AI and what those people can actually do. In DataCamp and YouGov’s February 2026 survey of 517 enterprise leaders, 59% reported an AI skills gap and 60% reported a data skills gap, even though most already offered some form of training.

What’s the difference between AI literacy and AI training? AI training teaches someone how a tool works. AI literacy is the ability to understand what AI can and can’t do, judge whether its output is reliable, and apply it to real work. Training covers the mechanics, and literacy covers the judgment, which is where the 2026 survey found every major gap.

Why isn’t our AI investment paying off? The strongest signal in the 2026 data is workforce readiness. Only 21% of leaders reported significant returns from AI overall, but among organizations with a mature, company-wide upskilling program that number rose to 42%. Worth noting this is a correlation, so upskilling may be a marker of organizational discipline as much as a direct cause.

How much does it cost to fix an AI skills gap? Less than most leaders assume, and often nothing to start. Naming AI champions on each team, running an internal survey on how people actually feel about AI, and writing a plain-language AI policy all cost time rather than money. Those three steps address change management, mindset, and guardrails, which is where this survey found the gaps.

Should we train everyone on AI or just technical roles? Everyone. In the 2026 survey, 38% of organizations trained only technical roles on data skills and 29% did the same for AI, yet the capabilities leaders said mattered most were decision-making and interpretation, which every role uses. Organizations with company-wide programs were roughly twice as likely to report significant AI returns.

Worth Your Time

A few pieces from other creators worth your attention this week.

• Kamil Banc — Two Years of AI Implementation Advisory: Seven Lessons. He watched two companies run identical AI stacks, one integrating it and the other flatlining by month three, and the difference was never the tool.

• Andreas Welsch — Why Your Eight-Week Roadmap Is Already Obsolete. A former SAP VP making the case that an AI roadmap older than eight weeks is already behind, and that light governance beats a longer plan.

• Oliver Patel — Banning AI Is Not an Effective AI Policy. A short, direct argument that restricting AI drives it underground instead of reducing risk, which is worth reading if question five was the hard one.

Sources Referenced

• DataCamp & YouGov, “The State of Data & AI Literacy 2026” (4th Edition), published February 26, 2026. Survey of 517 US and UK leaders at organizations with 500+ employees, fielded December 2025 to February 2026. Full report · Statistics summary

• Erik Brynjolfsson et al., “Generative AI at Work,” 2025, cited within the DataCamp report as the benchmark for a 15% productivity uplift among customer service workers.

• Kevin Cui, Princeton, cited within the DataCamp report for a 26% uplift in pull requests among software developers using Copilot.

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.

So I’ve done this more than once now. Because it’s so easy to create a tool or create an app, I’ve gone and built one, spent four or five hours on it, and replaced a task that generally takes me ten minutes once a month.

The app works. I still use it. And at that rate it has to keep running for more than two years before it’s paid for the afternoon it cost me. I never stopped in the middle of it to ask the only question that would have saved me:

is this a good use of my time, or is it just constant tinkering?

I didn’t have language for that until I sat down with Nir Eyal, who wrote Hooked, the book a generation of product teams used to build habit-forming apps, then wrote Indistractable. He handed me the test, and I’ve been failing it in a very specific way ever since.

Here is the breakdown.

What to Remember

• The one-line test that decides whether your last AI session was work or avoidance, and why it has nothing to do with what you were doing

• Why your to-do list is the wrong tool for catching this, and the one condition that has to be true before you drop yours

Distraction has almost nothing to do with the activity

Traction and distraction both come from the Latin trahere, to pull, and both end in the same six letters, action. So distraction isn’t something that happens to you while you’re minding your business, but a thing you did that pulled you away from what you’d already decided to do. Which gives you the test:

“Anything that is not what you said you were going to do in advance is by definition a distraction.”

The distractions that look like work are the dangerous ones

Here’s where it got uncomfortable, because Nir went straight at the respectable kind. He described sitting down with one big important task, deciding today’s the day, and then figuring he should probably check some emails first. Forty-five minutes later, what was I doing again?

“Just because something is a work-related task doesn’t mean it’s not a distraction. In fact, that’s the worst kind of distraction because you don’t even realize you’re distracted.”

His line for it: email seems to justify itself. I said on the recording that this was hitting close to home, and I meant it.

AI doesn’t just look like work. It produces work.

This is where I think the problem has gotten meaningfully worse since Indistractable came out in 2019, and it’s why I wanted to write this instead of just linking the conversation.

Email is a weak disguise. You spend forty-five minutes in the inbox and at the end you’re holding nothing, so sooner or later the emptiness gives it away. AI hands you an artifact. I walked away from those four hours with a working application, deployed, with a login screen on it. Every alarm I have for “you just burned an afternoon” is calibrated to look for an absence of output, and there wasn’t one.

The second version is quieter and I do it constantly as an author. When I’m writing a post, I could ask for feedback every second. I could ask for feedback 9,999 times, and then 9,999 times I would get feedback with detailed suggestions or improvements. There’s no point where the tool taps its watch and tells me the draft is done, and it will happily hand me a fourteenth angle on the same paragraph, and every one of those rounds feels like editing.

So it’s infinitely available, it never signals completion, and it produces evidence.

Think about it the same way I think about fire or electricity. Genuinely world-changing, and the same fire that heats your house is the one that burns it down. What decides which you get isn’t the fire, but whether you put it somewhere on purpose.

Ninety percent of it is coming from inside the house

The number I had to go back and check twice: we blame the pings, the dings, and the rings, and Nir puts those at roughly 10% of the problem. The other 90% is an internal trigger, which is really just a feeling. Loneliness, boredom, fatigue, uncertainty, anxiety. So when I open Claude to “just look at something,” most of the time I’m not chasing a notification. I’m avoiding the harder thing one tab over, and the tool is generous enough to make the avoidance look industrious. Then Nir closes the escape hatch:

“It’s not your fault. You didn’t create these digital technologies. But it is your responsibility because who else is responsible?”

Where should you actually start with AI?

We all got the tools at the same time, the way everyone eventually got electricity. Having it in the building was never what made the difference. What we did with it was.

I take three diagnostic calls a month. It’s 30 minutes, free, and we work out what you’re actually trying to get to, where your biggest hurdles sit, what your low-hanging fruit is, and how that lines up with what I’ve been seeing elsewhere. Then I tell you the first move I’d make.

A few days later you get it back in writing, two or three pages, yours whether we ever work together or not.

Book a diagnostic call →

Your to-do list can’t catch this

The obvious move is to write “don’t waste time in AI” on your to-do list and trust yourself. Nir’s argument is that the list is the broken instrument, and this is the part I didn’t want to hear, because I tend to live by mine. A list has no constraints, so you always add more and you always pick the easy item, and then you read back the leftovers night after night until you’ve built a convincing case against yourself.

“There’s nothing wrong with you. You’re not broken. It’s this stupid time management technique we call to-do list that’s broken.”

His replacement is timeboxing, which is just deciding in advance when you’ll do the thing, and it changes what counts as winning: did I work on what I said I was going to work on, for as long as I said I would, without distractions? Worth saying that David Allen made the case for Getting Things Done on this show in May, and the two of them do not agree.

For AI that’s the whole intervention. “Explore what Claude can do” is an invitation to lose a morning. “Forty minutes on the board deck, starting at nine” is a boundary the tool can’t argue with, and when the block ends you’ve learned something the list never tells you, which is how long the work actually takes.

Where I’d push back, gently

I don’t think Nir’s wrong anywhere. But I’d add a warning he doesn’t, because I can see how this goes sideways: dropping your to-do list without actually installing timeboxing is worse than keeping it. We’re built to be to-do list people, and a bad system beats no system by a wide margin. Don’t delete anything on Monday. Put one block on the calendar and see if you keep it.

There’s one more thing he said that’s aimed straight at people like me. Nir calls self-regulation the skill of the century, and then adds: “It’s not going to be, oh, I know how to use AI or I know how to code.” I’ve named three skills that separate leaders in the AI era, and I still think they’re the right three. Nir would tell me there’s a fourth sitting underneath. Here’s the clip.

Every night at eight, a little card locks my work apps, and getting back in means walking to my bedroom and tapping my phone against it. That walk is the entire point. Ten seconds of friction, usually enough to remind me that my eight-year-old is at the table and my three-year-old isn’t going to be three for very long. Nobody’s coming to regulate my calendar. Nir put it about as plainly as it can be put: you can’t make more time, and he doesn’t care if you’re Bill Gates or Elon Musk.

If You Only Remember This

• Anything you didn’t decide on in advance is a distraction, including the work-shaped ones. Email justifies itself, and AI justifies itself better, because it hands you something at the end.

• Nir puts roughly 90% of distraction on internal triggers rather than notifications, so the fix isn’t a stricter app blocker but noticing what you’re avoiding when you reach for the tool.

• Success stops being the checked box and becomes whether you worked on what you said you’d work on, for as long as you said, without wandering.

What’s the last thing you built with AI that you’d never have paid someone else to build for you?

Worth Your Time

A few pieces from other creators I think are worth your attention.

• Nick Woodford & — Before You Try Another AI Tool, Ask These 7 Questions. The filter I should have run before I built the app, including the best disqualifier in the set: if you’re still consciously deciding to open something three weeks in, it hasn’t earned its place.

• Frank Andrade — How to Use AI to Get Smarter (Not Just Work Faster). His confession that “AI was doing the work, and I was just collecting the output” is the same failure mode from the opposite direction.

• Cory Blumenfeld — You built something with AI that’s not a business. The sharpest line I read this month on where the freed-up time should actually go: everyone can build now, almost nobody can get the thing into the right hands. (I’ve written for Cory’s publication, so you should know that before you click.)

Questions Leaders Are Asking

Is using AI at work ever a distraction if it’s genuinely work? Yes, and that’s the hard part. Nir Eyal’s test is whether you decided on the activity in advance, not whether it appears on your job description. An unplanned hour inside Claude is a distraction for the same reason an unplanned hour in your inbox is, and it’s harder to spot because you finish holding something.

What is timeboxing, and how is it different from a to-do list? Timeboxing means putting a specific task in a specific slot on your calendar and working it for that whole slot. A to-do list records what you want to do without ever saying when, so it has no constraints and gives you no feedback. Timeboxing changes the measure of success from finishing to whether you worked without wandering.

How do I timebox AI work when I don’t know how long it’ll take? That’s the reason to start. Nir’s argument is that we take roughly three times longer than we estimate because nothing ever measures us. Book a 30-minute block, work it without interruption, and note how far you got. Two or three blocks in, your estimates get dramatically better.

Should I stop using my to-do list? Not on its own. Getting rid of your to-do list without putting timeboxing in its place leaves you worse off than you started. Keep the list as a capture tool, which Nir agrees you need, and move the deciding onto your calendar. Change one thing at a time.

Why do I keep opening AI tools when I have real work to do? Nir Eyal’s answer is that about 90% of distraction starts with an internal trigger, which is a feeling rather than a notification. Boredom, uncertainty, fatigue, anxiety. AI is unusually good at absorbing that feeling because it always responds and always produces something, so the avoidance never registers as avoidance.

About me

Joel Salinas is an AI Strategy Coach and entrepreneur. AI is everywhere; judgment is scarce. Joel helps founders and leaders adopt AI without outsourcing their judgment to it, and he builds the systems too. Creator of the AI Leadership Triad.

Written by a human, for humans.