The fear of falling behind is very real. I use AI heavily and even I sometimes catch myself testing something with absolutely no idea what problem I’m hoping it’ll solve.
Ask afterward whether you could tell someone else exactly what you'd point them at that tool for.
If yes, the problem just showed up late, which is fine. If you can't answer that even a day later, the session was really just curiosity, worth logging as that instead of counting it as evaluation.
Hi John! The story of your first coaching offer made me wince in recognition, because I've watched senior lawyers who would never let a client haggle over the firm's fees drop their own rate the moment a prospect hesitates. In my experience the fix starts well before the call: once you've written down what the work is worth and why, it's much harder to talk yourself out of it mid-conversation.
This matches what I see with the senior professionals I train: the ones getting somewhere with AI picked one tedious task and fixed it, while the ones trying to keep up with every new release are mostly exhausted. The pressure to be first is doing more damage to people's confidence than anyone likes to admit.
I have been writing about this since last year, the game was never feasible, and the money bleed will slow it down shortly, we reached the diminishing return for all frontiers AI , they destroyed each other, open source vs locked source.. no one will make money
The electricity frame does the real work, because it kills the fear in one move. Nobody feels behind for not owning a power plant. You feel behind for not knowing what you would build with the power, and that question was always yours, model or no model.
On your closing question: the lane I would back my judgment in is knowing which output is quietly wrong. A model can draft the plan, the doc, the forecast. It cannot tell you which line in it breaks in three months, because that takes having been burned by that exact line once. AI is not racing me for that lane, and it only gets more valuable as everyone else automates the drafting.
Your widen-or-hold tension may have a clean tell: widen the lane when a new tool changes what judgment you can apply, hold it when the tool only changes how fast you produce. Speed is never a reason to switch lanes. New judgment is.
Agreed, though I'd push it further. A lot of 'not a race' takes still end up counting pilots and rollouts as the win. I'd rather know what's actually different in a workflow or a decision now, and who's on the hook for that being true!
Being on the hook should mean the claim comes with something rerunnable, like the same task timed both before and after, or an error rate measured the same way twice.
Pilots rarely get that treatment. Calling a pilot the win almost always means it got measured once, under favorable conditions, and never checked again.
The fear of falling behind is very real. I use AI heavily and even I sometimes catch myself testing something with absolutely no idea what problem I’m hoping it’ll solve.
I feel it too! I believe we fabricate it
Ask afterward whether you could tell someone else exactly what you'd point them at that tool for.
If yes, the problem just showed up late, which is fine. If you can't answer that even a day later, the session was really just curiosity, worth logging as that instead of counting it as evaluation.
Hi John! The story of your first coaching offer made me wince in recognition, because I've watched senior lawyers who would never let a client haggle over the firm's fees drop their own rate the moment a prospect hesitates. In my experience the fix starts well before the call: once you've written down what the work is worth and why, it's much harder to talk yourself out of it mid-conversation.
Yes agreed! I’ve learned that!
This matches what I see with the senior professionals I train: the ones getting somewhere with AI picked one tedious task and fixed it, while the ones trying to keep up with every new release are mostly exhausted. The pressure to be first is doing more damage to people's confidence than anyone likes to admit.
The advantage is not winning every AI race, but knowing where AI creates the most leverage for you.
💯!!
I have been writing about this since last year, the game was never feasible, and the money bleed will slow it down shortly, we reached the diminishing return for all frontiers AI , they destroyed each other, open source vs locked source.. no one will make money
And I’ve read your pieces!! We are on the same page :) but sadly that’s the reality
do you think think investor will pour more money into IPO that is not defined or revenue guaranteed? that what we will witness in the coming months.
I am not surprised that Scam ALtman had delay or postpone any IPO in 2026 to focus on a different narrative to sell to bring more money in 2027.
it is crazy days. but the hype is evaporating now by the real number.s
The electricity frame does the real work, because it kills the fear in one move. Nobody feels behind for not owning a power plant. You feel behind for not knowing what you would build with the power, and that question was always yours, model or no model.
On your closing question: the lane I would back my judgment in is knowing which output is quietly wrong. A model can draft the plan, the doc, the forecast. It cannot tell you which line in it breaks in three months, because that takes having been burned by that exact line once. AI is not racing me for that lane, and it only gets more valuable as everyone else automates the drafting.
Your widen-or-hold tension may have a clean tell: widen the lane when a new tool changes what judgment you can apply, hold it when the tool only changes how fast you produce. Speed is never a reason to switch lanes. New judgment is.
Thanks Daniel! I do like that model, it’s a great analogy
This point...zero return on generative AI is what so many are overlooking. I just wish it couldbe whittled down to a few paths instead of many.
I agree! What is one thing you would change if you had a magic wand?
If I had a magic wand I would know the answer to that question.
hahaha!
Fear driving adoption instead of strategy explains so much of what I see out there.
Oh for sure! And I’m sure you do in the ops world
Great post and also, thanks for mentioning : D
Agreed, though I'd push it further. A lot of 'not a race' takes still end up counting pilots and rollouts as the win. I'd rather know what's actually different in a workflow or a decision now, and who's on the hook for that being true!
Being on the hook should mean the claim comes with something rerunnable, like the same task timed both before and after, or an error rate measured the same way twice.
Pilots rarely get that treatment. Calling a pilot the win almost always means it got measured once, under favorable conditions, and never checked again.
That pilot being checked off for a win is something is see so often!
nice!