Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

“Murphy’s Law” originated in the late 1940s at Edwards Air Force Base. Edward A. Murphy, Jr. was an engineer working on an experiment designed to determine how much sudden deceleration a person could withstand in a crash. Murphy had a problem. Specifically, he had a team competence problem. A technician had wired the experiment incorrectly, consequently leading to a failure to obtain the crucial data during the test. Exasperated, he exclaimed something close to the law we now know and use frequently.

Then it got legs because it resonates with all of us. You already know this one. You’ve seen it in your life and probably cited it, usually in a moment of frustration or a pessimistic prediction of the future.

However, what if, at its core, it’s really a call to optimism?

Murphy’s Law encourages us to plan ahead, be resilient and flexible, understand risks, and innovate on solutions. It serves as a reminder not just of the inevitability of problems, but of our capacity to anticipate, adapt to, and overcome them.

Murphy’s Law is your friend.

The cognitive limit to the number of stable social relationships that one can maintain is around 150. 

Kevin Kelly wrote a famous blog post about “1000 True Fans.” If you’re someone who makes things, or making things happen, you should read this.

He argues that if you can cultivate 1000 true fans of whatever it is you’re making or doing, you have a sustainable business. You can bypass the traditional channels that require someone or some group to select you for success, such as record labels, book publishers, media publishers, HR departments in corporations, etc. 

But what about the subgroup of 150 people inside that group of 1000 true fans? Your inner circle. 

What if every day you woke up and nurtured a true and meaningful relationship with one or a few of those 150 people. Not 150 every day. Just a few. Over the course of the year, you’ve touched them all. 

Now, what if each person on this planet did the same.

What kind of a world would we live in if each and every one of us cared about, nurtured, and built a relationship with our 150?

The attempted solution to a problem makes the problem worse through unintended consequences. 

Economic theory states that you usually get what you incentivize properly. This one is closely related to Goodhart’s Law. 

Colonial India had a live cobra problem. So, the government offered a reward for every dead cobra. This worked. Eventually, there are very few live cobras. 

But now, the people making money from the incentive had a dead cobra problem. So, the people started breeding cobras just to kill them. This worked.

But then the government caught wind of the scam and eliminated the reward. So, the breeders just released all the captive snakes back into the wild.

And once again, colonial India had a live cobra problem.

Removing older, more polluting vehicles from the road can increase overall emissions due to the environmental cost of manufacturing new vehicles.

Using antibiotics to promote livestock growth can lead to the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Pay-as-you-throw schemes to encourage recycling and reduce waste can increase illegal dumping.

Traffic congestion taxes to reduce center city traffic can lead to grid-lock in neighborhoods just outside the fee zone.

Solutions to multi-variable and complex problems require rigorous analysis, experimentation, and assessment of consequences and reactions to incentive schemes. Reassessment of data. Adjustments over time. Willingness to change directions. Admission of false starts. Unbiased rethinking. Empathy and kindness. Forgiveness. 

What doesn’t work is soundbite-worthy, toggle-switch, single-variable, fist-pumping slogans. 

It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.

One of my friends and I have a funny little tension around the scheduling of software development work. We call it the 3X fudge factor. I look at the work he’s to do and I come up with my estimate of how long it should take him. I tell him, and then he immediately multiplies by three. If I say it should take a week, he says it’ll be three weeks.

It works in reverse also. If he gives me an estimate of three days, I immediately translate that as one day.

Who’s right? Well, we both are. Kind of.

I’m right if he’s totally focused, nobody gets in his way, and nothing goes wrong—the best-case scenario. But when does that happen? Never. So, his 3X estimate usually turns out to be closer to right and sometimes even aggressive, as the second clause of Hofstadter’s Law kicks in.

But you gotta know the best-case scenario to know how much Hofstadter’s Law will effect the final outcome. The longer the best-case, the more effect. Plus, if we need him to get it done ASAP, I can use my position to create the best possible environment by reassigning responsibilities, swatting flies, and giving him every possibility to remain focused.

One of the key leadership attributes is knowing how and when to apply Hofstadter’s Law.

Adding extra capacity sometimes leads to worse overall performance.

“More is better.”
“If I just had more money.”
“That’s easy for you, you have more money/time/land/etc.”

We often conflate abundance with advantage. It can be. But it isn’t automatically.

a) Don’t let them tell you why you can’t, what you can’t, or how amazing you can’t be with what you have.
b) Don’t tell yourself why you can’t, what you can’t, or how amazing you can’t be with what you have.

Last weekend, I drove to NYC to deposit my oldest son and his girlfriend back in Brooklyn after they had spent a nice weekend with us. Up and back through three of the five boroughs: Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Manhattan. I’ve driven through NYC dozens, maybe 100’s of times, and even before they lived there, I was already a hardened veteran of NYC driving. As soon as I cross the Goethals Bridge or emerge from the Holland Tunnel into the canyons of lower Manhattan, I’m in NYC driver mode. Like flicking a switch.

I’m a freakin pro. And truth be told, I love it.

U-turn in the middle of the street? Yup. Turn left from the right lane? Of course. Just stop in the middle and double park? You betcha.

I’ve not (yet) had an accident, and I know why. Because when I’m driving around there, I expect any and all things all the time. Just as I don’t think twice about disregarding all traffic decorum, I expect all of those around me to do the same.

Of course you can cut me off. Oh, you want to stick your bumper into the 8-inch space separating me and the guy in front of me? Sure, go ahead. Going around me on the sidewalk to the right? Be my guest.

It’s all good because none of it is astonishing to me in this context. I expect it, I’m ready for it, I adjust, and it’s no big deal. And yeah, I do it also.

But what happens on the roads in the small rural community in eastern Pennsylvania in which I live? Nothing like that. It’s all slower, orderly, and calm. I don’t expect any of that.

But then someone gets cut off, and what happens? Boom. Accident. Or, at the very least, “You idiot! Where’d you learn to drive!” It might bother me for the rest of the day.

This is the Principle of Least Astonishment — minimizing confusion and unexpected behaviors while maximizing intuitive understanding.

We in the software development world use the Priniciple of Least Astonishment (also called the Law of Least Surprise) all the time.

If we’re doing our job and using this principle, you (the user) can figure out how to do things on your phone or computer that nobody has taught you explicitly. For example, nobody taught you how to find the settings on your phone. You know they’re in the “Settings” app. We use this principle under the covers as well, even in the nitty-gritty interworkings of the technology. We argue vehemently about how this API should work or what should data it requires.

Least astonishment changes with the intuition of the culture and its people. Which means it changes over time and with context. If you handed an iPhone to George Washington, he wouldn’t be able to find the settings, nor even understand how to turn it on because he doesn’t have any context or intuitive build-up for the technology.

He would be very astonished.

Next time you’re organizing your closet, developing a set of guidelines for your Church committee, or driving around your town, make sure you’re applying the Principle of Least Astonishment. It will serve you well.

Work expands to fill the time available for completion.

I hate meetings at work. And you do, too. I know you do. 

Long ago, bleary-eyed in the middle of the night, I learned a couple of valuable lessons about meetings. The first is we have way too many. Therefore, the first step in taking back ownership of your time is to decline useless meetings. But the second was just as important — meetings will last as long as the calendar says they will.

If you invite people to a one-hour meeting, someone, or sometimes several someones, will yammer on for 60 minutes until the bell dings. Then, the herd will just move on to the next meeting, where someone else will yammer on for the full 60 minutes.

It’s stupid. It’s a productivity killer (personally and organizationally). It sucks your energy and willingness to live. 

But it’s also not really someone’s fault. It’s just a trait of human beings. It’s kinda just in us. Hence, the naming of the phenomena. 

So how do you combat it? By also applying a little human psychology of your own.

1. Change your default meeting time to 15 minutes. Only selectively and intentionally schedule a discussion for longer than 15 minutes. 
2. Why have a meeting if you can work it out with a few exchanges on Slack? Do it.
3. Announce that you have hard stop at 15/30/60 minutes. Then leave/drop at that time. 

You can do this. Break the grip of Parkinson’s Law. 

When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

“Is this going to be on the test?”
“What code do I use to ensure this is covered by insurance?”
“How do you rank me against my peers?”

We game the system. It’s what we do.

Great leaders look outside the system, procedures, and policies to recognize great performance and impact.

Two-way door decisions are the kind where you can always change your mind, back up, and make the other decision. Ordering a burger is a two-way door decision.

One-way door decisions are the kind where you can’t go back once you make it. Jumping out of the airplane is a one-way door decision.

Two-way door decisions allow testing, trying new things, and changing one’s mind. One-way door decisions require commitment, careful consideration, and learning as much as possible before making it.

Often, we trick ourselves into thinking that two-way door decisions are actually one-way door decisions. That’s not surprising because restricting the number of variables is a hack we use to solve problems. If we tell ourselves, “OK, I have to commit,” and believe it, we’re more likely to make that outcome successful. Let’s not consider the other side.

But most decisions we make are two-way door decisions. There’s usually a path to back out, chang your mind, and do the other thing.

Sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and start again. That’s just being a human.

Customer: Can you help me with this problem?
Clerk: Not my job.

Manager: Will you help Jane figure this out?
Employee: Not my job.

Test Engineer: Can you help me understand how this works?
Software Engineer: Not my job.

“Not my job” may seem like the opposite, or at least orthogonal to “just doing my job.” But at their core, they’re both about responsibility — specifically, a deflection of responsibility (if even in a faux manner).

Not my job is an attitude.

I’ve banned the phrase “not my job” from my teams. That doesn’t mean that we always take on everything, no matter the request. It just means we don’t have the “not my job” attitude. If the request or task isn’t something we can or should handle, then we set the requestor on the right path as best we can.

We help. We don’t deflect responsibility.

Is it your job?

Reporter: What were you thinking when you ran into the burning building to save that child?
Firefighter: Just doing my job.

Tenant: How could you evict us?
Sheriff: Just doing my job.

Parent: Why did you help our son and tutor him after school and on weekends?
Teacher: Just doing my job.

Regulator: How could you continue after knowing your company was dumping illegally?
Employee: Just doing my job.

Just doing my job is a utility answer. It provides both a cover and a deflection for real or faux humbleness. Equal parts “not my responsibility” and “oh, thank you for noticing that I took responsibility.” 

Doing your job in either case is about responsibility. 

Your company and customers need someone who takes responsibility. Your team needs someone who takes responsibility. Your community, Church, and book group need someone who takes responsibility. This world need people who take responsibility. 

Are you just doing your job?

The music artists have stood up.

Much like the authors did over the summer, songwriters and musicians have penned an open letter to the tech industry — let’s pump the brakes on music generation with AI.

And like the authors, the musicians are afraid of two things:

1. Losing revenue
2. AI will generate music that sounds like them or is as good as or better than they are (which, for many, but not all, is just a form of the first thing)

“When used irresponsibly, AI poses enormous threats to our ability to protect our privacy, our identities, our music and our livelihoods. Some of the biggest and most powerful companies are, without permission, using our work to train AI models. … For many working musicians, artists and songwriters who are just trying to make ends meet, this would be catastrophic.”

“This assault on human creativity must be stopped. We must protect against the predatory use of AI to steal professional artists’ voices and likenesses, violate creators’ rights, and destroy the music ecosystem.”

As with the authors and anybody whose job sits in AI’s crosshairs, I agree with part of their argument. 

The copyright and “likeness” argument is very interesting. Let’s face it: Humans do this all the time, not just with the arts but also with science. We always use those who came before us as inspiration and sometimes quite directly to move the state of the art forward. Art and science are additive. 

Why is AI different than humans in this regard? Is it scale? Is it that AI has illegally ingested the content?

I’m interested to see how it turns out. I agree that protection for the creators must exist. Basically, I trust the legal process.

The fear of “AI might do our job better than us” is, in my opinion, a non-argument.

Drum machines and GarageBand didn’t put drummers out of business. Synthesizers haven’t put orchestras and horn sections out of business. Pre-recorded loops haven’t put touring musicians out of business.

AI is a brand new toolbox full of new toys. The true creators will find innovative and interesting ways to incorporate the new AI toolbox into their art. 

They always have. They always will. 

The fear-mongering says that AI will take your job.

Be afraid. It’s all bad. At best, our future is one where we all sit around with nothing to do because of AI. At worst, AI tries to kill us. 

In reality, AI, or at least its current and near-future state, has quite the opposite effect. Learning how to use it will make you more valuable to your company and customers. 

The current state of AI is what I call “personal automation.” 

It’s still you, but it’s you with a drill and circular saw. If you dig in, your productivity will go up. 

However, productivity isn’t the only value that AI increases. Because it’s also you with an editor, an Excel expert, a personal assistant, a graduate assistant, and an awkward teenager in his parent’s basement who’s learning to write Python code to scrape the contents of questionable websites. 

“Here is a list of highlights from last year. Create a message to send to our partners that summarizes it succinctly with an optimistic tone.”

“Create a formula that looks through my table of data and makes 3 categories: > 100, < 1, and everything else.”

“Look through this chain of emails, summarize it, and tell me if I’ve been asked to do anything, and if so, create a reply that indicates I’ll work on it next week.”

“Find the trends in this set of data.”

“Here is a Python script. Keeping this same style, add a new function that takes in a filename from the –ofile argument and directs all output to this file. The default is out.txt.”

It’s you, but more valuable. 

You have a plan. You have a map. But your destination is unknowable without hindsight.

You are disciplined. You are committed. But your journey is unknowable without hindsight.

You have an idea. You have a team. But what you sell is unknowable without hindsight.

Physics insists that the future is unknowable, and hindsight is 20/20.

Don’t fight physics.

Are you living a good story?

Living a good story conjures visions of adventure, travel, overcoming odds, meeting interesting people, purpose, falling down, and standing up for one’s beliefs in the face of an oppressing mob. The highlight reel plays like a movie trailer.

But does the trailer really tell the story?

Are you living a good story?

Of course, you are. It’s up to you to see it that way.

Each step, analysis, task, decision, operation, and assignment in this story already is or will be, theoretically possible with AI. If you broke down this story into each of its constituent parts — from entity formation and legal work, to business case analysis, marketing plans, and content creation, all the way through manufacturing and delivery — you can plausibly replace that part with AI. 

If you work in any of the areas mentioned, AI will affect you. But will you be replaced? Will you lose your job?

Autonomous automation is the dystopian nightmare of Vonnegut’s Player Piano. And you’re starting to see it in corporate road maps, venture capital pitch decks, TEDx talks, and fear-mongering journalism. 

But that’s all it is right now. It’s in the idea stage, and it’s being driven by the idea people, just like the internet was in the late 90s. It’s in the “we can apply AI to this task and get faster, cheaper, better” block diagram stage.

Some of it will happen. Some of it will start to happen in five to ten years. 

But just like with the internet, and electricity, and horseless carriages, humans and their creativity still matter. These technologies created entirely new business models and industries. 

Automation and AI will do the same. Yes, depending on your job — white-collar work is more at risk than blue-collar work — you may become a victim. 

But like most other victimhoods in this life, it’s a matter of perspective and what you do with it.

We’ve generated a set of technical drawings and specifications for your products, forwarded these to a manufacturer that meets specifications, and created the distribution pipeline. You were hoping for a same-day service from order through shipping, but the cost analysis, considering pricing and manufacturing, doesn’t support it. The manufacturer we’ve chosen to support the business case will manufacture-on-demand and has indicated that each product will require 14 hours to build. Therefore, we cannot guarantee same-day shipping for your customers, but we can guarantee next-day shipping. The manufacturer has locations in Brazil and Mexico, so 2nd-day arrival can be guaranteed for US customers but not European and Asian customers. We know this does not meet your original intentions, but given the business case, this is the best financial scenario for you.

This is where it gets really interesting.

This is supply chain management (SCM). You can get a college degree in it, just like many other fields that AI is coming for. SCM is critical to any physical product development business. Next to sales, the most important thing.

You may have yet to hear of SCM prior to Covid. It used to be a behind-the-scenes pillar of the operations department. Important but not really discussed outside of the walls of the office. But Covid shined the light on the supply chain — or lack thereof. In the post-Covid world, SCM has found its place in the sun. 

And someday, AI will both automate it and make the decisions. 

Connecting the pieces of the supply chain is pure automation, but making the decisions about this manufacturer versus that one and analyzing the delivery outcomes with regard to the business case is very interesting. Businesses pay consulting companies exorbitant fees to figure this stuff out for them.

When will AI take over?

Not very soon. Both automation and decision-making in the supply chain currently sit across a heterogeneous mix of world partners. Governments, language, geography — all deterrents in the supply chain. Even though AI might be smart enough in the near future to do it, the logistics will slow it down significantly.

But someday…

In addition to the website and social media content, we’ve generated a social media and web advertising strategy, and the first ads will start to run today at 6 pm. These ads draw the engagers to the top of the sales funnel that we’ve connected to your entire online presence. We’ve created a strategic communication campaign that resonates with your target audience and reuses much of the content they’ll see on your social media to ensure continuity and build the trust they require. In compliance with the marketing strategy and business objectives, we’ve set a pricing structure that requires two versions of your product with slightly different feature sets for each. This varies from your original idea of a single product but will result in a better overall product strategy and pave the way for follow-on products in the future. We’ve named your products the “BassBlaster Pro” and “BassBlaster+” and have adjusted your product definitions accordingly. 

This paragraph contains an interesting mix of AI automation in combination with decision-making. 

You’re already seeing AI advertising services and automated campaigns. Once the strategy is developed, using AI to automate the advertising and communications campaign itself is fairly straightforward.

But the humans are currently making the decisions and forming the strategies. In our scenario, the AI makes these decisions and forms the strategy. That’s coming in concert with the marketing strategy since they all work together.

The big leap here is that AI is performing the CEO and CCO’s (Chief Commercial Officer) role of devising the business strategy and then a product strategy to support the business. 

Although a leap for now, this is definitely coming as well. Maybe AI isn’t the CEO and CCO but more like a business consulting firm such as McKinsey, Bain, or BCG. In fact, our scenario highlights that AI might have a more meaningful impact on the business consulting world than the product development companies themselves. 

Business majors should be on notice. 

The domain “freakthefishout.com” has been purchased, and the website has been created along with a full set of social media accounts. We’ve generated a baseline of video and visual content with you as hero figure for each of those accounts. We highlight the excitement of the launch of your product and company but contrast it with the content that resonates with your audience, which tends towards introversion, outdoor pursuits, and a requirement of trustworthiness. We gathered enough video of you from our initial conversation to generate the first 30 days of content. We’ll ask for another conversation with you in two weeks so that we can generate the second 30 days’ worth of content. The social media campaign will continue for the next 60 days, as defined in your introductory AutoBizInABox plan, and can be extended indefinitely with follow-on plans. 

The domain, website, and social media account creation for a basic product business like this is, like the legal and financial pieces, straightforward and cookie-cutter. AI could even write the code and make the desirable customizations required for the marketing strategy it has devised. 

You’re now hearing about the wonderful world of AI-generated video content. Sora and deepfakes, etc. And maybe that scares the bejesus out of you.

You can relax. This part of the scenario is quite far off. 

Yes, to some extent, it’s here or very close, but fully automated, realistic content with you as the star, is much farther off. The deepfake stuff that you see today is a human-intense exercise. AI is just the skill that makes it possible. 

Sora is currently generating some interesting video, but its wholly fiction. It’s not accurately generating real people, places, and things. Certainly nothing like capturing someone’s likeness and using that to create. This is theoretically possible but maybe practically impossible for a long time.  

The more interesting use of AI here is to make decisions about the audience. Those decisions tie to an overall product and marketing strategy and guidance that AI formed itself. It’s not exactly an automation use case of AI, but it’s a decision-making use case that’s coming as well. 

“FreakTheFishOut, LLC has been created with you as the founder and sole operator. Your federal EIN number is 12-3456789, and business checking and credit accounts have been created and connected to a bookkeeping and tax service that falls within your business case’s projected financial picture. We’ve pushed a mobile application to your devices for all financial transactions. You’ll find a founder gift of $100 in your business checking account as a thank-you for using AutoBizInABox.” 

AI could rather simply handle this entity law, banking, and accounting, with an interface to the government. 

Low-cost, vanilla entity creation services already exist through sites like LegalZoom and SwyftFilings. A couple of questions and a few clicks later, you have an LLC or S-Corp. To get the EIN, you use the IRS website. It also doesn’t take long, but I suspect there might be a human at the backend of this process because you can only get service during normal business hours. 

Once you have the EIN, you can setup your financial system with checking, credit, and tax services. Services like Found already exist to combine banking with bookkeeping and basic tax filing. 

All of these services already exist, so one part of the automation with AI is just connecting it all together—a true automation task. However, the other, more important piece is when AI doesn’t just create the infrastructure you tell it to but it decides what it should be based on the conversation you had at the beginning. Automation with AI might currently be closest to handling these pieces, but it’s certainly not there yet. 

The legal and financial decision-making and tasks required for this basic type of business is cookie-cutter and broadly applicable across most businesses of this type. If you currently work in any of these areas, AI is coming, and may replace the people that do the specific tasks in the near future. However, the connective tissue required to string all of this together is further off. 

But the basic legal, banking, and accounting professions should be on notice. 

Imagine you have an idea for a business. Let’s say you’ve developed an innovative fishing rig, and now you want to share it with the world (and get paid). 

So you go to “autobizinabox.com,” and a chatbot conducts about an hour-long conversation with you, asking you a million questions. Less than an hour later, you get a notification that says.

Congratulations Mr. Fancy Pants! 

FreakTheFishOut, LLC has been created with you as the founder and sole operator. Your federal EIN number is 12-3456789, and business checking and credit accounts have been created and connected to a bookkeeping and tax service that falls within your business case’s projected financial picture. We’ve pushed a mobile application to your devices for all financial transactions. You’ll find a founder gift of $100 in your business checking account as a thank-you for using AutoBizInABox. 

The domain “freakthefishout.com” has been purchased, and the website has been created along with a full set of social media accounts. We’ve generated a baseline of video and visual content with you as the hero figure for each of those accounts. We highlight the excitement of the launch of your product and company but contrast it with the content that resonates with your audience, which tends towards introversion, outdoor pursuits, and a requirement of trustworthiness. We gathered enough video of you from our initial conversation to generate the first 30 days of content. We’ll ask for another conversation with you in two weeks so that we can generate the second 30 days’ worth of content. The social media campaign will continue for the next 60 days, as defined in your introductory AutoBizInABox plan, and can be extended indefinitely with follow-on plans. 

In addition to the website and social media content, we’ve generated a social media and web advertising strategy, and the first ads will start to run today at 6 pm. These ads draw the engagers to the top of the sales funnel that we’ve connected to your entire online presence. We’ve created a strategic communication campaign that resonates with your target audience and reuses much of the content they’ll see on your social media to ensure continuity and build the trust they require. In compliance with the marketing strategy and business objectives, we’ve set a pricing structure that requires two versions of your product with slightly different feature sets for each. This varies from your original idea of a single product but will result in a better overall product strategy and pave the way for follow-on products in the future. We’ve named your products the “BassBlaster Pro” and “BassBlaster+” and have adjusted your product definitions accordingly. 

We’ve generated a set of technical drawings and specifications for your products, forwarded these to a manufacturer that meets specifications, and created the distribution pipeline. You were hoping for a same-day service from order through shipping, but the cost analysis, considering pricing and manufacturing, doesn’t support it. The manufacturer we’ve chosen to support the business case will manufacture-on-demand and has indicated that each product will require 14 hours to build. Therefore, we cannot guarantee same-day shipping for your customers, but we can guarantee next-day shipping. The manufacturer has locations in Brazil and Mexico, so 2nd-day arrival can be guaranteed for US customers but not European and Asian customers. We know this does not meet your original intentions, but given the business case, this is the best financial scenario for you.

Congratulations again! We love helping human innovators such as yourself realize their dream of bringing human ideas to fruition. 

We suggest you hop onto freakthefishout.com and see all that you’ve brought forth into the world…

AI like ChatGPT is now creeping into the Organizational Augmentation world. 

Organizational augmentation is like outsourcing a skillset or having an excellent assistant. They’re not totally autonomous, but they do a lot by themselves without you needing to get involved. You set the rules and expectations, and they do the work. Plus, you’ve empowered them to make some decisions on your behalf, but staying with the guidelines you’ve set up. 

Organizations and teams start to feel some benefits here.

The Helpdesk is a great example. If you train an LLM on your stuff, it can effectively hold a conversation about it with humans. Even as that conversation twists and turns around an unknown number of curves. If the training data is sufficient, the chatbot can keep up.

The virtual graduate assistant is another example. You can offload a specific task, such as analyzing data to find trends, researching and summarizing prior art, or even interpreting legal briefs. 

But organizational augmentation comes with a required expertise and a financial cost. 

It requires programming your own application and incurs a dynamic cost across the interface to the LLM. To bring virtual bots into your workflow or team, you must use the LLM’s Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). Which means, “you have to write your own code to create the bot.” And you have to pay for every piece of information you send and receive to the LLM. More data == more cost.

Organizational automation is where it starts. Maybe you need less helpdesk people. Maybe you need two grad assistants instead of three. Maybe you don’t need to hire out some specific task.

But at the end of the day, the effect is minimal.

Next, we’ll look at the holy grail — Autonomous Automation.

The first level of automation is Personal Automation.

Personal automation devices allow you to do your work faster, more accurately, and more effectively and do multiple things simultaneously. The electric drill and dishwasher are personal automation devices. Basically, they allow you to do something faster or more accurately and/or do something else while the machine performs the task.

Personal automation makes you more productive and generally happier. But you’re still intimately involved in the input and outcome. It’s like having to micromanage the shitty intern, but when properly directed, that intern is very helpful.

The drill hasn’t put any construction workers out of a job. No restaurant manager has fired the human who washes dishes because they bought a dishwasher machine. Both of these tools enhance those people’s contribution to the organization, but the organization isn’t materially benefitting beyond your uptick in productivity and happiness.

This is where AI, like ChatGPT, currently lives. You can offload tasks like editing your writing, creating ideas, summarizing TLDRs, creating code and script snippets, analyzing data, and generating images. It’s very helpful to you, the person, but you’re still required.

Like the electric drill, it’s not putting anybody out of work.

Next, we’ll look at the genre of automation that AI is starting to poke into — Partial Automation.

I see fear-mongering about AI all over the place. 

People worried about their jobs and their place in the world because of AI’s ability to automate. To be fair, some of this is warranted, i.e., AI automation will replace people in some roles. Including in my orbit directly. But let’s give it some context.

First, automating people out of jobs has been going on for 100’s of years through the introduction of machines into the workforce. Machines don’t get tired, have the strength of thousands of people, and can do the same thing repetitively with great precision. Nothing about the current wave of automation fear is novel or scarier than when machines joined the workforce. 

Second, as with the introduction of machines, certain activities and jobs are more exposed than others. The current fear-inducing AI, ChatGPT, and its competitors are a type of AI called “large language models.” 

“An LLM is akin to a vast library staffed by an incredibly fast and knowledgeable librarian. Just as this librarian can sift through thousands of books to provide information, summarize stories, or answer questions based on the content of those books, an LLM scans its extensive database of text from the internet to generate responses, make predictions, and understand context in a way that mimics human conversation and writing.”

The previous paragraph shows you what an LLM can do. ChatGPT wrote it. I asked it: “Describe what an LLM is in a couple sentences with an analogy.”

So, an LLM is good at certain types of writing. An LLM is also good at a few other things, such as generating images (and soon video) and writing code. 

So where does that leave you and me, and will AI automation put us out of a job?

As someone who works in both software development and automation (both squarely in the sights of AI), I have a unique perspective. I see three broad levels of automation:

• Personal automation
• Organizational augmentation
• Autonomous automation

Over the next several days we’ll take a look at these, what they mean, and how AI fits into each.

I think a lot about the importance of struggling and failing as the catalyst to move forward and succeed. It’s one of the essences of my self and team leadership.

I think about it mostly because I’ve seen and experienced a bunch of it anecdotally in my own life both personally and professionally. Anecdotal evidence is fraught, but in this case, many of the experts and much of the data agrees. 

But it’s not just that you fail. It’s how you fail and your attitude about it. Failure only does you good if you can learn to recognize the lessons within it. When learning how to fail, change the statements to questions:

“I’ll never do that again” => “What will I do differently next time?”
“I’m such an idiot” => “What did I miss or didn’t understand?”
“I should have known” => “Could I have known?”
“I could never be that person” => “How do I become that person, and is it worth it?”
“I’m not good enough” => “How do I get good enough?”
“I don’t know the right people” => “How do I meet the right people?”

Failure can beget success.

But only if you learn how to fail. 

“We’ll just use AI for that!”

Heard that this week. And I heard something that sounded exactly like it in 1997: “We’ll just use the internet for that!”

It’s a great marketing pitch. It’s a great pitch from the CEO or the COO. It’s a great pitch for your social media feed or a TEDx talk.

But currently, just like in 1997 with the internet, that’s a meaningless, confusing, or possibly scary statement. It’s just buzzwords. Anybody can say it. Anybody can theorize ways to use AI. Most don’t really know what it means, what it can and can’t do, and how to make it do anything.

Which creates quite the opportunity for us humans. Just like in 1997.

Your name is valuable.

To some degree, it defines your identity. People change their names to redefine their identity, either personally or professionally.

A brand name is valuable. It defines the identity of a company, organization, or movement. Brands change their name when they want to redefine who they are.

If you want to understand or connect with someone or some group better, start with their name.

You’ve been there. As have I.

Sometimes, it just all falls apart. No amount of good intentions, proper practice, or belief could save it.

What do you do?

First, you mourn. That’s OK. In fact, it’s necessary. Your beliefs and intentions, although ultimately askew, were initially well-placed. Their nobility requires acknowledgment.

Second, you learn. What happened? Is there anything to take from it? Yes, there always is. Find that.

Third, you turn the page. Could be scary. Could be exciting. Should be both. The clean sheet of paper.

Imagining all of the beautiful colors, shapes, and designs that may end up on that clean sheet of paper is the most important part.

A conversation I had recently:

Them: “I know you think that life’s better with AI, but I just can’t get on board with this AI thing.”

Me: “Really? Why not?”

Them: “AI will be our downfall. Our lives will eventually suck. That’s how they’ll get us.”

(Note: this person didn’t mean in the “Skynet-AI-will-kill-all-humans” way but in the “Vonnegut’s-Player-Piano” way.)

Me: “Ah, well, to be clear, my view is not ‘life is better with AI!’ My view is, ‘it’s an inevitable technology and it’s here and it will continute. Therefore, I want to learn about it, how to use it, and where the dangers really are.'”

Them: “But aren’t you afraid? Afraid that it will make you obsolete? Afraid that it’ll f— everything up?”

Me: “I don’t think about it like that because it’s here. I can’t change that. I accept it. I consider it like the car. Was life better before a car? Some think so. I could definitely argue that it was. But if you gotta get somewhere, would you rather have a car or not?”

Them: “Yeah, but nobody forces the car on me.”

Me: “OK, fair enough, but again, if you gotta get somewhere, would you rather choose a car? It’s a tool.”

Them: “Yeah, but I don’t understand AI. I don’t understand how it works. I don’t understand how to use it. I know how to use the car.”

And now we’re at the heart of the matter. The fear of the unknown. Which is all the more reason to dig in, figure it out, and join the conversation.

I do believe that life with AI has downsides. Maybe giant downsides. I think shared reality will suffer. I very much worry about bad actors and incentivization. I think truth may suffer. I’m concerned about the growing gap between have’s and have-not’s. I’m worried about more division. 

“Is life better with AI?” isn’t a very useful question at a macro level. AI is here. The cats out of the bag and ain’t going back in.

I think a better question is, “How do I make life better with AI?”

“At the heart of most stable governments is a willingness to share power with people you disagree with–and may even hate.”

– Sebstian Junger, Freedom

Yes, and not just governments. Great teams share this trait.

Plus, there is another quality — a willingness to lose.

In a healthy democracy, it’s the willingness to admit you’ve lost the election and will commit to the peaceful transfer of power.

On a healthy team, it’s the willingness try new things that don’t work out. It’s the willingness to admit that the other idea is better. It’s the willingness to commit to something you don’t (yet) agree with.

It’s ok to argue. It’s ok to debate. It’s ok to not agree. It’s ok to passionately and emotionally defend your position. But it’s not ok to work against it for the sake of winning.

Great team members, like great government leaders, have a willingness to lose. 

Seth Godin often laments the race to the bottom.

I’m with him. I paraphrase this as the hyperbolic version of “if some is good, more is better” — faster, bigger, cheaper, easier, less thought required, more dopamine engaged, bigger margins, all the colors, more buttons, etc. The Costco approach. “Why buy the amount I need when I can buy six times as much for four times the cost?!”

But another way I think of it is “lowest common denominator product and service development and offerings.” The race to the bottom is the illusion of “it’s better for everyone” — the public, the shareholders, the executives, etc. 

The paradox of the race to the bottom is that, taken over small windows and myopic variables, maximizing (or minimizing) can lead to a great product or service. Apple was a master at this in its heyday (which it has long since lost).

There’s no doubt that AI enables exponentially more. More videos created faster. More articles created faster. More books created faster. More web pages created faster. More ideas created faster. More choices created faster. More code created faster.

And more is better, right?

You’ve been here before. You know how it plays out. The last time it happened, you were optimistic it was the last time.

But here you are again because, once again, you aren’t in control of your own destiny.

How will you handle this one?

You will mourn appropriately but then transition.
You will focus on what you can control.
You will take care of your people.
You will be a professional.
You will be an example.
You will try new things.
You will be optimistic.
You will have faith.
You will add value.
You will try again.
You will learn.
You will lead.

How many more shots do you have left? Well, as many as you’re willing to take. 

When I was a little kid, I remember watching cliff divers on TV. ABC’s Wide World of Sports, if I remember correctly.

“That is the coolest thing anyone could ever do! I want to do that!”

The diver stands calm and stoic on the smallest of rock outcroppings. The camera (brilliantly) set up behind and above pans slowly, giving the viewer the perspective of nothing but the sunny, warm air and the blue water seemingly miles below. He closes his eyes, takes a breath, coils slightly, and launches into the great beyond, arms outstretched, body arched, legs together, and toes pointed. Two seconds or two minutes later, he breaks the plane of the beautiful blue water and disappears beneath, leaving no trace that he was ever there. The very definition of majestic. 

Well, my 8-year-old self had no idea that my 18+-year-old self would be wildly allergic to heights. Consequently, I’ve never cliff-dived from 60+ feet into the gleaming and warm Pacific like those majestic divers in Acapulco. I have, however, jumped from a 10m diving platform and 20-ish feet from the rocks along one of the local streams running in and around Warren, VT. 

In both cases, I was neither calm nor majestic. At the 10m board, I needed a physical push from a friend.

Sometimes it’s gonna be ugly. Sometimes, you’re gonna need a push from a friend. Sometimes, you’re not gonna know exactly what’s at the bottom.

But you’re gonna have to dive off the cliff anyway.

Does he make something that he likes, or does he make something that will sell?

These, of course, are not mutually exclusive. He can create something that he likes and sells. On one axis, this is what separates professional artists from amateur artists. But not entirely. Professionalism is a mindset, a commitment, and a practice — not strictly “I got paid.”

Now with AI, the artist has access to new tools and techniques that can both expand their creative possibilities and increase the speed at which creation happens. AI might even help the artist bridge the gap between something that he likes and something that will sell.

Maybe AI helps create more artists — people with ideas but not skills. AI provides the skill set, and humans provide the perspective.

But the artist’s dilemma remains.

Nature certainly has an order.

The circle of life. The laws of physics and chemistry. Evolution. Our understanding of this order changes over time, but we recognize that order exists objectively, and that it has been designed in from the beginning.

Humans also have an order to our world.

Justice. Altruism. Aesthetics. Purpose. As with nature, our understanding of human order changes over time, and we recognize that this order is not designed in, but relative to culture, time, and place.

I sometimes wonder if the natural order of things and the human order of things are at odds. Maybe the magic happens when we seek to align the two orders.

Excitement. Apprehension. Nervousness. Optimism. Dread.

New adventures bring out all the feelings, whether you signed up voluntarily or someone else forced it on you.

The question isn’t whether you feel them. The question is what you do with them. Like everything else in life, it’s about perspective.

And you control your perspective.

Mediocre. Average. Meh.

Nobody wants that label. It doesn’t matter if it’s applied to you at work, the dinner you just made, or your skills as a spouse. I feel like I’ve spent much of my life trying to outrun mediocre.

Extraordinary. Outstanding. Exemplary.

Those are the labels you want.

But each set of labels have one thing in common — they’re relative to the people in the room. They require a comparison. Mediocre in relation to who? Extraordinary compared to what?

Sometimes, you just gotta change rooms. Recognizing when is next level.

What energizes you?

I’m energized by making stuff, learning new stuff, and starting new physical or mental adventures.

But energy is fickle because sometimes it leaves you. This is one of my big problems. I have a ton of energy to start something, but then the energy wanes to finish it. For example, I have four books started. None finished.

Finishing is just as important as starting. The difference is commitment.

Follow your energy, but back it up with commitment.

As a parent, have you heard about or been a part of a story like this:

“My 12-year old (7th grade) sends me a frantic text message because she forgot her notebook and homework assignment at home. The teacher said she’ll get a zero on the assignment if she doesn’t hand it in today.”

How do you handle it?

When I was 12, I get the zero. As would all/most of my classmates.

But parents today (myself included) are increasingly allergic to allowing kids to face the consequences.

What are the consequences of a 7th-grader getting a zero on a homework assignment?

None. It’s not going to affect her ability to get into college. It’s not going to effect her ability to get a job. It’s not going to affect her ability to do anything in life. 

But, if she’s allowed to fail and get the zero, what might she gain?

An understanding of consequences. An understanding of responsibility. An opportunity to experience and then learn how to handle emotional turmoil. 

It’s all in a 100% safe environment with no long-term downside. It’s the emotional equivalent of the playground full of rounded-edged, not-too-high-off-the-ground, and PTO-approved equipment surrounded by a dump truck full of ground-up rubber tires.

Sometimes we need to let them fail. 

AI and algorithms today know you pretty well.

Instagram will show you what you want.
The Netflix recommendation engine will show you want you want.
Facebook advertisements will show you what you want.

If you don’t like what they’re showing you, maybe its time you re-evaluate what you want.

If you’re a cyclist, you know.

The hills and headwinds separate the men from the boys. If you want to get better, faster, stronger, climb the hill and ride into the wind.

But then that killer, stand-on-the-pedals, crank-to-crank climb crests, and now you’re screaming at break-neck speed down the other side. Eyes streaming tears. Fighting to keep it together.

Or you take a turn, and that wind, which you’d swear had turned the smooth, hard road into hot, mushy sand, is like a hand on your back. Pushing you forward. Your legs now require half the energy to propel you forward twice as fast.

The hills crest, and the wind changes direction. Best to train for both.

Just like life.

I just got a text message reminding me of my dentist appointment tomorrow. I’ll get another one an hour before the appointment.

You probably do also — from your dentist, doctor, hair salon, and any place that requires you to make an appointment. It’s one of the great features of modern technology.

But it’s also subtly shifted responsibility.

When I was a kid, my mom took her calendar book every time we went to the doctor or dentist. At the end, she’d make an appointment for six months or even a year from then and write it down in that book. Each week, she’d look at the calendar and plan our week around who had to be where.

“On Thursday you’re going to the dentist. I’ll get the note ready.”

No electronic notifications. No text messages. No automated phone calls. No confirmations. She made the appointment — no, a contract — six months ago, and we’re going to show up right on time.

What happens when you miss an appointment? Who’s responsible?

The answer to that is generational. Technology has shifted it. My parents wouldn’t dream of thinking it’s the dentist’s responsibility. My kids wouldn’t dream of thinking it’s their own responsibility.

Me? I’m caught in between. My generation bridges the gap between personal responsibility and systemic responsibility.

Where else has technology shifted responsibility from the person to the system?

Showing up is important.

You never get anywhere if you don’t show up. Some say showing up is half the battle. But is half the battle useful?

Is it helpful to connect to the Zoom meeting but not pay attention?
How useful is it to go into the office but surf the web all day?
Are you getting better if you show up at the gym but just go through the motions?

Rather than just showing up for a million little tasks, people, and asks in your life, wouldn’t it be better to just say no to the ones you’re just showing up for?

I’ve been knee-deep in all things SBF, FTX, and Effective Altruism over the last year or so. If you’re interested in this topic at all, but have no interest in wading through the millions of pieces of content that exists, this is a “you’re welcome” post. 

Here, I curate the scads of content that I’ve been through. A Cliffs Notes version, if you will. 

Books

Whether you “read” books through your auditory or visual interface, you can focus on just two: Michael Lewis kicks it through the uprights (of course, he does) with “Going Infinite,” and so does Brady Dale with “SBF: How the FTX Bankruptcy Unwound Crypto’s Very Bad Good Guy.” 

If you’re just looking for the interesting, salacious-adjacent, mostly human, partially f’nancial story, go with Lewis’s. He’s just so damn good at rooting out and then telling a story. A true master of the art, and I enjoyed his take on it immensely. You’ll know why SBF is in jail after this. I listened to this one, and I highly recommend it that way.

Dale’s is equally interesting but from a different angle. He dives deep into what happened on the crypto side. The other stuff, too, but he nicely fills the crypto mechanism gaps that Lewis (purposefully) left out. Listen, crypto is nerdy, geeky, engineery shit. And you do not need to know what the hell happened in the Crypto Winter and leading up to it to know why FTX failed and SBF went to jail. But if you do, Dale does a masterful job at unwinding it all and laying it out. Plus, he’s got a different style, and I really enjoyed it. He’s a hardcore (crypto) journalist, so it has the reporter kind of efficiency. But he coupled it with his snarky and maybe a bit cynical perspective. I read this one with my eyes, and I recommend the same for you. It’s a little too techy for listening. 

Podcasts

You couldn’t go wrong by just searching your favorite podcast app for “Michael Lewis” and then choosing one of your favorite interviewers. He’s done interviews on many of the big-name podcasts, but unfortunately, not Joe Rogan. I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Lewis is a member of the anti-JRE tribe. Regardless, I found the Freakonomics interview very compelling.

Michael Lewis used his own “Against the Rules” podcast (the sub-title to the SBF series is “Judging Sam”) to somewhat live-cast the trial. I found it interesting and worthy. Not all of the episodes are required, so feel free to skip around. Lewis isn’t the star and only appears in a few of them, but his reporter/producer (Lidia Jean Kott) does a great job manning the con. Lewis does, though, interview Brady Dale in one of the episodes and that’s how I found Dale’s book. 

The Wondery series called “Spellcaster — the Fall of SBF,” which is one of the big ones (maybe the biggest) is worth a listen. The host has some inside connections that are interesting and it’s a good mix of story telling with dry details.

Articles

I’ve read a million online articles. Everything from the mainstream media to the fringe, to just bloggers like me. 

If you just want the highlights and a little perspective on why it happened, I think my series of articles is brief but useful. OK, that’s shameless self-plugging, but I guess if you’re already at this sentence in this article that I’ve written…

You can use your favorite media outlet, and they likely have an article. I like this one from Investopedia because it presents the whole thing like a timeline — just the facts, ma’am. 

The tribes are hilariously hypocritical. Like just plain bald-faced about it all. I like to read the MSM takes on it simply for comic-relief. Mostly the headlines. The meat of the articles themselves are usually less tribal, but they’re not immune. So, the left media has turned SBF from a mimetic symbol of “how we should all live our lives — someone truly doing good in the world” to the poster child for “criminal and evil capitalism.” The right media has turned SBF from a mimetic symbol of “the embodiment of evil leftist political funding and communism” to an almost sympathetic character.

If you got here, I hope you found this helpful. If so, don’t hesitate to let me know john@johnmaconline.com. 

The engineering world runs on requirements and specifications. Until it doesn’t. The magic happens when you recognize when to go off-script. 

I’m at Agere Systems, and we’re having a requirements meeting with the Apple guys about the iPod. We were going to be supplying the engine — the CPU. 

The topic comes to the mp3 Codec (which is the piece of software that turns your mp3 file into music). Our guy says, “We have the best sounding mp3 decoder on the market” and then goes into why based on meeting the mp3 spec, and these other specs, and spec, spec, spec.

Apple guy says, “OK, thanks, but we don’t actually care about meeting those specs. We assume it will sound good enough. What we really care about is that your codec can gracefully handle malformed and broken mp3 files.” 

Our guy, “But if a file is malformed or doesn’t meet the spec, how do we know what to do? That’s a violation. We can’t be expected to handle that.” 

Apple, “We don’t care what you do — you can blip, skip, or whatever — but you cannot, under any circumstances, stop playing.” 

Our guy, “But the spec says…” 

Apple guy, “Again, we don’t care, and this is the last time we’ll talk about those specs. Seriously, don’t bring it up again.”

Our guy, “I don’t understand why you don’t care about the specs.”

Apple guy, “Think about the main iPod use case. It’s a person running or walking around the city or somewhere outside on streets and sidewalks. They cannot be distracted under any circumstances because that’s a safety issue. They must keep their focus on what’s happening around them. If that thing stops playing, it immediately distracts them from what’s going on around them.”  

Apple guy continues, “Plus, these people probably struggled to get their music library onto the iPod (this is just before or right at the beginning of the $0.99 song in iTunes). They don’t even know what a music library is. They either ripped the songs from CDs themselves, by some miracle, or they downloaded them from someplace like Napster. In either case, it is highly likely that those files suck. But they don’t know that. Nor do they care. If we now tell them that it’s their fault and their music files don’t conform to some esoteric engineering spec, they’re just gonna give up and say that this piece of shit doesn’t work. Because it’s freakin hard enough to get the damn music onto the player to begin with. We must assume that the files suck, and it’s our job to deal with it. Therefore, you will handle it.”

Was it any wonder that the iPod was such a market maker? 

More questions about freedom.

Is it the ability to take a walk?
Is it the ability to drive a jet ski on any body of water?
Is it the ability to speak your mind?
Is it the ability to not listen?
Is it the ability to drive to the coast, a lake, or the mountain?
Is it the ability to shoot a gun in your backyard?
Is it the ability to try?
Is it the ability to fail?
Is it the ability to succeed?
Is it the ability to build a gold-plated bathroom?
Is it the ability to not get mugged or raped?
Is it the ability to shop downtown?
Is it the ability to travel anywhere?
Is it the ability to walk on sidewalks?
Is it the ability to own anything you want?
Is it the ability to own almost nothing?
Is it the ability to build whatever you want, wherever you want?
Is it the ability to worship whomever, however you want?
Is it the ability to be protected from thieves?
Is it the ability to hunt in any field or woods?

What is freedom?

Is it the ability to do anything, anywhere, at any time?
Is it the ability to think, say, or feel anything?
Is it the ability to live anywhere, in any type of house, with or without anyone else?
Is it the ability to own, protect, and defend?
Is it the ability to roam the prairie, sleep under the stars, and kill and forage for your own food?
Is it the ability to drive to the 24x7x365 gas station to fill your personal car with gasoline, drive to the 24x7x365 grocery store, and buy strawberries in January?
Is it the ability to play whatever music you want, as loud as you want, at whatever time you want?
Is it the ability to grab your smartphone, create a video of you talking about your religious beliefs, and then post that video to X?
Is it the ability to identify as whomever you want, marry whomever you want, and never experience discrimination?
Is it the ability to make a living wage, work a reasonable amount of hours, and take a vacation once a year?
Is it the ability to not work, have plenty to eat, and have access to the best healthcare?
Is it the ability to work hard, learn new things, and make a pile of money?
Is it the ability to homeschool your kids, choose any public school, or choose any private school?
Is it the ability to invest your money, take the risks you want, and reap the rewards?
Is it the ability to drink whatever you want, smoke whatever you want, and inject whatever you want?
Is it the ability to make whatever you want, market whatever you want, and sell whatever you want?
Is it the ability to vote, protest, and lobby?
Is it the ability to access electricity, clean water, and the internet?

Make something that helps others make something.

For most of my career I’ve been making tools. Often, tools that just help me or us do our job better. For internal consumption only. 

But sometimes, the tool is the end game. It’s what we’re making for someone else — the point of the business. 

Here’s what makes a good tool:

• Intuitive (for the target audience — ie, it’s not for everyone, so it doesn’t have to be intuitive for everyone)
• Works (can’t sorta work, require support, or break often, etc)
• Makes life better across the variables of time, effort, quality, and repeatability

A good tool is always worth making. But here’s what makes a great tool:

• Makes possible what was previously impossible
• Exponentially increases productivity or quality
• Can’t imagine life without it
• Delightful to use

For a roofer, a hammer is a good tool, but an air-nailer is a great tool. 
For an accountant, a calculator is a good tool, but a spreadsheet or Quickbooks are great tools.
For a writer, a typewriter is a good tool, but a word processor is a great tool. 
For a software developer, a code editor is a good tool, but ChatGPT is a great tool. 

Look around. How can you make life better for someone?

Lazy can be a great motivator and indicator of what to make if you know how to use it.

Ask yourself these three questions:

• What are you tired of doing? 
• What would you like to get done quicker? 
• What do you do repeatedly? 

Laziness is exactly why all home appliances exist. Laziness has given us hot water heaters, coffee makers, and gas fireplaces. Laziness begets smart lighting, smart pet doors, and just about anything that starts with “Alexa…”

And laziness isn’t just for our homes. Drive-thru windows, escalators, automated car washes, delivery services, fast-casual eateries, check-in kiosks, and streaming services — all derived from human laziness. 

Laziness isn’t a bad thing when you’re trying to decide what to make.

I met Tony Fadell when I was working on the iPod. 

It was brief. He attended a meeting between his Apple team and my team from Agere. Shook his hand. A few pleasantries. He kicked off the meeting and then left. That was it. He wouldn’t remember me.

He and I are the same age, interested in the same things, and have the same education. But other than that brief handshake and my doomed time working on his project, that’s where the similarities end. 

I’ll sum it up this way — he’s got a Wikipedia page. I do not. 

But not long ago, I thought about him again (and relived my nightmare that was iPod) because I read his book “Build.” In it, he talks about making great things and how to decide what to make. I say all of that, first as catharsis (you’re just a voyeur) but also to get to the point I’m trying to make, because he talks about it in this book:

When deciding what to make, make it a painkiller rather than a vitamin.

Painkillers are solutions that people voluntarily use. Vitamins are solutions that people should use but may or may not. 

Some might say need versus want, and although that’s also a reasonable approach to determining what to make, they’re not the same. Do you need anesthesia before the doctor cuts off your leg? No, but you sure as hell want it. You’re volunteering vigorously to have the painkiller. 

So painkillers may skew more towards the want end of the spectrum. If a painkiller disappears, people feel it. Many people use vitamins, but if the vitamin suddenly disappears, what happens? Some people will care, but many will not. 

There is an emotional immediacy and visceral reaction to painkillers. There is a general malaise towards vitamins. 

When deciding what to make, make it a painkiller. 

I like to make stuff.

I’ve dedicated my entire career to making stuff, and many of my hobbies are also about making stuff. I learned early in my career at a giant defense contractor that I’m happiest and most productive when I feel like I’m contributing to making stuff.

The first lesson of making stuff is to decide who its for. Because whatever you make is always for a person.

Is it for you? Someone else?

Once you know that, start by applying one single golden rule:

How can I make the right thing to do the easy thing to do for that person?

People, yourself included, tend to gravitate towards and fall back to what’s easy. Watch what they do, not what they say. If whatever you are making can make it easier for them to do the right thing, you have a winner.

Over the next few days, we’ll explore how you can make the right thing to do the easy thing.

Plain ole inertia is a powerful force.

Some people simply would rather keep doing what they’re doing than go find something new and different. The devil you know…

At first blush, you might be thinking, “Yeah, but if that’s why that person is staying, they’re probably not that good and they’re not the one we want to stay.”

But I’ve found that’s not always true, or even mostly true. Inertia is strong and may be in place for many reasons unrelated to the work itself.

Can you use inertia to your benefit?

The surrounding environment is a compelling reason for people to stay where they’re at.

I’m not talking about perks — how great the office is, or where it is, free lunch, ping pong tables. I’m talking about the people and the work itself.

Does the person enjoy the work itself and the people they do it with?

If so, that’s a great incentive to stay and keep going. Enjoying the people doesn’t mean they all agree on everything. In fact, some times it means just the opposite. But the good workers recognize the difference between creative tension that pushes the team forward and petty personality conflicts that keep it stuck in the mud.

How do you provide opportunities for the people to do the best work of their career?

Belief is a powerful motivator. Maybe the most powerful.

One of the reasons someone who has a choice of work chooses to stay at a particular job, even if the company isn’t doing well, is belief. It can be belief in the mission, the leadership, or that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Belief that we’ll get there and we’ll do the thing and I want to be a part of it.

Belief is about story. So, what’s the story of the mission? What’s the story of leadership? What’s the story of our future financial gains?

Build a great story in order to create belief.

As a leader or manager, you should care. A lot.

I’ve seen quite a bit written about why people leave, but quite frankly, not so much about why they stay. This is important, especially if you’re in a company that’s failing, falling, stagnant, or otherwise unsexy. 

I’ll qualify these reasons with the following statement: I’m talking about workers who could leave. They have the skills, desirability, and the ability to move on to greener pastures. Therefore, we’re excluding people who are stuck there for any reason (ie, geography, lack of skills, etc). 

People stay for one or more of the following reasons:

1. They believe in the mission, leadership, and/or financial upside.
2. They like the work they’re doing and the people they’re doing it with.
3. Inertia.

Over the next few days, we’ll take a look at each of these. 

One of the interesting narratives in this upcoming national election cycle is democracy itself. 

Each side has labeled the other side as “undemocratic” — accusing each other of trying to destroy democracy through authoritarian control. You and I might agree with one side. Sometimes, we might even change our minds. We’d like one side to shut-the-hell-up; thank you very much. We’re people. We have opinions. Our opinions are based on feelings shaped by perspectives, experiences, and a host of other inputs that may or may not have to do with data.

But WWAID?

AI has no feelings. It has no awareness. It doesn’t know what it’s doing. But what it’s really good at is combing through its training data and spitting out statistically governed results, even if (especially if?) those results are novel or non-obvious.

AI does, however, respond to incentives. Incentives are, of course, defined by people and then given to the AI. 

From one perspective, AI has no inherent political incentives, therefore, almost by definition, it is more democratic. Yet, at the same time, AI doesn’t do anything without being incentivized by people. From that standpoint, AI is like an accelerator for undemocratic practices. The social media algorithm controversy is an example that has already occured.  

So which is it? 

Well, it’s neither, because yet again, AI as a technology and as an entity is not the problem. 

The problem is how we, the humans, use it. 

Several days a week, I run at lunchtime. Also, almost every day, my thoughts turn to the intersection of AI, robots, and humans. Many times, the Venn diagram of those two activities shows a large overlap.

Today was such a day. I’m out there running, and I couldn’t help but think about…running.

Today’s dominating thought topic was yet another fundamental difference between humans and AI-powered robots — regeneration versus degeneration.

Why do humans go for an exercise run, do squats, or take a Barre class? Because it’s good for you. It’s how your body (and mind) regenerate. The more you use it (to a certain degree), the better it becomes. Use begets regeneration.

AI-powered robots would never exercise. Why not? Because they break down with use. The more a robot exercises, the worse it gets. Use begets degeneration.

Simple but profound.

When the robots try to take over, we’ll use this against them.

AI video — deepfake, etc — was already here, but now OpenAI (ChatGPT) has launched a text-to-video creator for the masses. Now it’s about to explode.

I can’t try it yet because the release is so far limited to a select few. I’m not a member of that tribe. I’m not important or good enough. However, I’ll be lost for a few hours the first time I can try it.

Will we use it for good or evil?

Both, of course. Follow the incentives.

Ozempic is a problem.

However, the problem isn’t the drug, it’s stated intention, the people who use it, the mentality around it, the side effects, or the cost. The problem is it’s designed to keep you on it in perpetuity. That creates an incentive mismatch.

If you’re an executive, employee, or shareholder in Norvo Nordisk, what do you want?

If you’re a user of Ozempic, what do you want?

Those two wants don’t align.

Whether you’re building a house, making a spreadsheet, writing an article, or cooking dinner, it’s not for everyone.

That sounds obvious to your brain. But probably not to your heart. Your heart wonders why shouldn’t everyone love it? Why not?

That’s a trap. Because it’s not for everyone.

When soliciting feedback, start with who it’s for. Did I make this spreadsheet for a tax accountant or my mother-in-law? Is this article meant for my engineering team or my Church group? Are we serving this bread to our gluten-free friends?

Be careful, because even though that sounds simple and obvious, it’s not always. It starts with well-meaning people.

“I’d love to read it!”
“Can I try?”
“I’d be happy to give you some feedback on that.”

The sooner you get clear about who it’s for, the more useful feedback you’ll receive.

Getting useful feedback is an art.

As someone who has been building stuff for others to use for many years now, I’ve learned the following rules of feedback about the stuff I’m making:

1. Watch what the person does. What they do speaks louder than what they say. It’s not because they’re intentionally misleading or virtue signaling. It’s because, as humans, we are good at compartmentalizing — so good we often fool ourselves — and bad at self-awareness. 
2. Ask good questions. Yes, there are dumb (or useless) questions. Good questions are specific, empathic, open-ended, and encourage detailed feedback. Bad questions are vague, leading, or closed-ended. 
3. Negative feedback is the most useful. If someone complains, it means they care. Caring is the most important part of feedback. It means you’re on the right track. 
4. Positive feedback might be useful, but you must consider the source and their motivation. 
5. Silence is feedback. It means the person(s) doesn’t care. Does that matter to you? Maybe not, but if that person is your direct target audience, you’re likely on the wrong track. Re-evaluate everything.

As it turns out, these rules are pretty good for soliciting feedback about anything.

You’ve probably seen the photos comparing people on the beach in the 60s/70s versus now.

Not very flattering, for sure, and everybody’s got their opinion on why it is. Lifestyle, food, Big Ag, medication, Big Pharma, capitalism, racism, the income divide, America-the-evil, luck, etc. Pick your favorite political slogan.

How does one find the cause and then a solution for such a problem (ie, the kind of problem that didn’t exist but then shows up)?

In the engineering world, we use two concepts to find causes and solutions: white-box testing and black-box testing. White box testing requires a map and deep knowledge of what’s inside the box. Black box testing knows nothing of what’s in the box and focuses solely on the inputs and output. Black box testing is ideal when you know that nothing inside the box has changed, yet the results are different.

In this case here, we are the box. The human biochemical system today is the same as it was 50 years ago.

So what changed outside the box?

The beat writer observes. The coach participates.
The professor observes. The CEO participates.
The pundit observes. The Senator participates.
The parent observes. The child participates.

And also vice versa.

Doing both leads to better perspective.

I learned a long time ago that I listen to music wrong. 

I have no idea what the singer is saying. Even if the title of the song is in the lyrics, I rarely pick it up. Yesterday, I had Chris Stapleton’s “Broken Halos” running through my head all day, but as it turns out, I didn’t know that was the name (or the chorus) because I was singing “Broken Arrows” in my head. Arrows vs halos makes no difference to me. The shape of the words and melody are unphased by the substitution. To me, arrows works just as good as halos. 

That’s a mondegreen. That’s your word for the day. You’re welcome. 

I hear the vocals as an instrument, much like the lead guitar or keyboard. Sure, I pick up a word or phrase here and there (often incorrectly, as above), but its just gibberish without any meaning. It’s just a sound. Broadway musicals make little sense to me because I can’t follow the narrative through the words of the singers. 

My family thinks there’s something wrong with me.  

I also did for a long time. But as it turns out, we have a whole tribe of people like me. We’re not the majority, but we exist. I can’t find a term for our condition, but I’m not the only one.

So I just coined a name for us. We’re the tribe of musical mondegreenarians. 

You’re welcome to join. 

Time seems to accelerate as we age.

One year for a 10-year-old is 10% of his life.
One year for a 20-year-old is 5%.
One year for a 40-year-old is 2.5%.
If you get to 80, it’s down to 1.25%.

Each year is less important in terms of percentage, but also, each year lived provides so many more opportunities. The 10-year-old just hasn’t enough years yet. The 80-year-old has had exponentially more.

What are you filling your years with?

The time is yours.

As a child of the 70’s and 80’s, many of my inputs were curated without my having any control.

My parents, of course, were the initial curators of just about all inputs. Record labels and radio station programming directors initially curated my music, but then, luckily, my bass player and his infinite library of imported vinyl augmented that curation. The big three VHF stations and two little UHF stations curated my TV choices, then cable TV arrived in semi-rural Pennsylvania, and the curator list expanded greatly. The local newspaper and evening news show curated my current events inputs. The public school curated the 3 R’s and my history inputs. My mom’s cooking, plus the limited selection of restaurants in our geography, curated my food inputs. Any exposure I gained to inputs from other cultures, food, or worldviews came through our vacations or curated by my Dad’s adventures as a corporate pilot.

I don’t feel like I missed anything (important). I don’t feel like I needed more choice. But I also recognize that curation shaped who I was and am. Curation is important because curating your inputs affects your mental health, energy, perspective, knowledge, and outlook.

In today’s world, it’s harder than ever to curate your inputs, and it requires frequent attention. Plus, you run the risk of building an echo chamber around you.

Can AI solve the problem?

Oh, for sure, AI will be (already is) curating your inputs. If done properly, AI will definitely solve the problem. Let’s be careful, though. We need to follow the incentives.

Who’s incentivized? What are they trying to achieve? Who’s in control?

AI has no awareness. It doesn’t know what it’s doing. But it’s really good at curation.

My wife and I spent a long weekend in Austin last fall to celebrate our 30th anniversary. 

We stayed in an Airbnb in a sleepy little neighborhood a couple blocks east of the famous Franklins BBQ. We’d walk back from the downtown area each night (not that late because we’re not that young) and see them cruising around. A pack of three. Tightly knit. Just spinning around the empty streets in the neighborhood. Coming back around every few minutes. Dutifully obeying all of the traffic rules like a newbie teenager with the instructor and his clipboard wearing a stern expression in the passenger seat. They never got in our way and even stopped noticeably short when we crossed the street in front of them. But it was disarming to see them.

Driverless cars. Chevy Cruise’s to be exact. Testing. Learning. Figuring it out.

Even if you know nothing of ChatGPT, you probably know about driverless cars. And you probably have an opinion. Most of the loud opinions are negative.

Maybe, “I’d never get in a car without a driver!”
Or, “Nobody’s taking the wheel away from me!”
Or, “Ain’t no way a machine can drive better than me!”

In 2023, fully autonomous, driverless (or, more accurately, AI-driven) cars logged 3.3 million miles in California alone. Waymo, the largest driverless car company, has logged 7.1 million miles since its inception. Over that time, it has recorded three minor incidents. If humans had logged those same miles in the same areas, we would expect around 13 injury crashes.

Testing. Learning. Figuring it out.

Fully autonomous cars driven by AI are coming. It’s not an if. It’s a when. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it’s coming.

For now, AI continues on the path of testing, learning, and figuring it out. 

I hate cars. 

OK, let me qualify that. I love life with a car — the freedom, flexibility, and utility that a car provides for me. I certainly wouldn’t want to have no car. At least not where I currently live. Also, the engineer in me really likes cars and all of their mechanisms and software. 

But I hate cars. I hate shopping for them, buying them, selling them, registering them, fixing them, parking them, putting gas in them (or, if I had an EV, which I will someday, I’d hate charging them), and cleaning them. It feels like I spend all of my money on my cars. 

And, unfortunately, I have a pile of them. Five to be exact. Ask me some other time. 

Americans love cars, or rather, pickup trucks. Americans bought 15.5 million new vehicles in 2023, with the top three selling vehicles being the Ford F-series, Chevy Silverado, and the RAM pickup. The first EV, the Tesla Y, shows up at number 5, and the first car, the Camry, tops the list at 8. 

Even though it feels like I spend all of my money on cars, I don’t. The average American household spent 12.8% of their income on transportation. I looked at my own data, and I’m right around there myself. 

I guess its like so much else in my life. What it feels like and what the data says rarely align. 

So much of modern life is about managing acquisition.

Partner, friends, job, wealth, kids, pets, food, clothing, vehicles, house, trinkets. Look around.

What is the opposite of acquisition? Disposal? Loss?

Whether it’s intentional or unintentional, it seems to me that managing the opposite of acquisition is an underrated human skill.

What if, instead of telling people they are weak, we allow them to be strong?
What if, instead of telling people they need help, we allow them to help themselves?
What if, instead of telling people to blame, we allow them to take responsibility?
What if, instead of telling people to fit in, we allow them to stand out?
What if, instead of telling people they can’t, we allow them to?

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.”

– Matthew 5:13

Add value. 

Live amongst those that add value. Work with those that add value. Surround yourself with those that add value.

Adding value doesn’t require academic intelligence. It doesn’t require special skills, a college degree, or a certification. It doesn’t require a particular worldview or faith. It doesn’t require money. It doesn’t require voting for a particular person or party. It doesn’t require privilege. It doesn’t require followers. It doesn’t require a particular kind of job or business. It doesn’t require activism. It doesn’t require data. It doesn’t require a particular type of diet.

It just requires caring about someone or something else and then acting. Add value to one other person or billions of others. Size doesn’t matter. 

Do it humbly. Show empathy. Have a pure heart. 

Sometimes, I think we’ve lost the thread.

I was young
I was a hockey player.
I was a drummer.
I was a triathlete.
I was a coach.
I was a father of small children.
I was a college student.
I was a hardcore engineer.

I am middle-aged.
I am a runner and cyclist.
I am a husband.
I am a father of adult children.
I am a student of life.
I am a leader of engineers.
I am an employee.
I am a community member.
I am an observer.

I will be old.
I will be a writer.
I will be a grandfather.
I will be a community leader.
I will be self-employed.
I will be a finisher.

The arc of a life revolves around the movement of our labels between these three lists. Which of the “I was’s” can be moved forward to the “I am’s”? Which can’t or shouldn’t? Which of the “I am’s” can continue forward through the “I will be’s”? Which can’t or shouldn’t?

Emotionally, I think we navigate the arc if we still have a bunch of “I am’s” and especially “I will be’s” that inspire us. Because if either of those lists gets pessimistic, how do we conduct our day and what do we look forward to?

Focus on keeping those lists of “I am’s” and “I will be’s” long and inspirational.

We usually use the phrase “end of an era” to signify a sad or at least nostalgic end. We may feel a sense of loss or disappointment, are trying to cope with an unwanted or unfamiliar transition, or are reflecting on the passage of time itself. 

We don’t really use it when we’re happy it’s over. If we’re happy about it, we use phrases like, “free at last,” “dawn of a new day,” and “fresh start.” These phrases signal to the outside world that we’re ready to move on. Happy to move on. Optimistic about what’s next. 

Today was the end of an era.

“it’s not as if this barricade
blocks the only road
it’s not as if you’re all alone
in wanting to explode”

– Neil Peart, Rush, The Pass

But the end of an era is the beginning of a new one if you have the right attitude. The right attitude turns an end of an era into the dawn of a new day.

And you control your attitude.

For space, it was the 1960’s.
In physics, it was the 1920’s.
For the internet, it was the 1990’s.

These were the decades of exciting times. New discoveries. New use cases. Leaps forward. Lots of money made.

Sometimes, you need hindsight to know you were in the exciting times. But sometimes you know you’re in it right now.

If you can see that its happening now and you’re in the middle of it, you can contribute, add your voice, make your mark, or at the very least, catch the wave.

Right now, the decade of the 2020’s is the exciting times for AI.

What will you do?

Elon just announced that Neuralink has implanted its first brain interface chip into a person.

It’s called Telepathy.

” It enables control of your phone or computer, and through them almost any device, just by thinking. Initial users will be those who have lost the use of their limbs. Imagine if Stephen Hawking could communicate faster than a speed typist or auctioneer. That is the goal.”

If you play this out, one can reasonably see a future where you can choose to have one. Where you can choose to be augmented. Truly bionic. 

Yes, we gotta ask all the questions like who, where, when, why and let all the sides argue it out and consider this, that, blah, blah, blah. Probably for generations.

But if you could, would you get one?

“Your vote matters!”

But that depends on what you mean.

If you mean outcome, then scale plays a role, and truthfully, your vote might not matter. If you’re a contestant on Survivor, your single vote probably directly affects the outcome at tonight’s tribal council. However, as a US citizen, your single vote won’t determine the next President.

If you mean alignment, then scale doesn’t matter, but your vote certainly does. Your vote signals, “I’m part of this tribe over here. We’re smart, care about the right kinds of people, see the world correctly, and know how best to move forward.” Even if you choose not to vote, you’re aligning with the abstainers.

When deciding if your vote matters, it’s helpful to know what you mean.

In 1989, I saw Metallica at Stabler Arena on Lehigh University’s campus in Bethlehem, PA. The And Justice for All tour. Queensryche opened.

It was me and my two best friends from college. One particular moment during Harvester of Sorrow left an emotional impression on me. I almost cried. I’ve told the story several times over the years — Hetfield in a particular spot on stage, in a particular stance, perfectly timed pyro blast, lighting, sounds, etc. All of it burned indelibly into my brain. I can still picture it. The whole thing created an emotional welling-up that survives in me to this day.

About a year ago, I found some YouTube footage of the moment. I’s wrong. Or at least, the particular facts of the moment that I remember and describe are wrong. Hetfield wasn’t stage left; he was stage right. Oh, there wasn’t a pyro blast timed perfectly. He didn’t pose or move the way I describe it. Huh, I remember the lights very differently.

And then just a month ago, I was telling my brother about this show, and he said, “I know, I was there with you!”

“What? You were? I don’t remember that.”

“Dude. It was you, me, Scotty, and Gerk.”

Oh my, 0 for 2 with a memory that was “burned indelibly into my brain.”

I got the facts wrong, but not the story. Because the story was about the feeling I had in the moment. That’s what’s burned into my brain.

The “facts” are just there to support the emotion of the story.

Our memories are just stories. Many times not so filled with facts.

A couple of years into our marriage, both in our mid-20s, Chris and I started the discussion about kids. The result was that we decided the time was now.

I remember feeling excited, nervous, optimistic, and apprehensive at once. 

I can vividly recall that specific conversation. It was a weekday, and we were eating dinner on the couch, as we regularly did, watching some reruns of Friends. An episodic point about children came up and launched us into our discussion. By the end of our conversation, I was sure, but Chris was not so sure — but we decided now was the time.

Excited. Nervous. Optimistic. Apprehensive.

Chris and I recently replayed that conversation, and apparently, she remembers it totally different — except for dinner. For starters, it wasn’t a single conversation but a series. No, we didn’t start it on the couch on a weekday. It was the weekend, and we were out to dinner in the city. The conversation started there, but then lingered over several days. I was the apprehensive one, and she was sure.

Who’s story is right?

Who knows. We disagreed on the facts, but we agreed on how we felt. 

Excited. Nervous. Optimistic. Apprehensive.

Our stories matched up our feelings not the facts.

More to come…

Vinyl doesn’t sound better than digital. 

Nor do digital recordings sound better than analog. At least not scientifically or as a blanket statement. There are exceptions, of course. But the exceptions are a product of recording and production techniques (or failures) and playback equipment, not a product of the medium itself.

Many studies show that equipment and listeners can’t discern these differences, but those who favor one format have a confirmation bias based on their preferences or values going into the test — i.e., people like us.

Vinyl-lovers is a club with exclusive membership for people like me. My story about myself confirms my membership. We all want to be part of an exclusive club, even if that club is “people who don’t join clubs.”

Our stories tell us which clubs we’re part of. Which people are “people like me.”

Next time you insist that vinyl or digital sounds better, remember that’s your heart talking through the story you tell yourself, not your ears.  

People like me.

Not only can others use story to influence us, but the story we tell ourselves about ourselves and our people also does.

People like me appreciate the art of an album and the vision of the artist for the work. The extension of the music to the production and recording, to the album jacket, and to the medium itself.

People like me care about the whole experience of listening to music. We care about the equipment, the setting, the furniture, and the company with whom we are listening.

People like me are discerning and appreciate subtleties and nuances. We are experts.

People like me enjoy the real thing, and we care about important things.

People like me shun the modern throw-away culture and know that a song or album is an art form to cherish over the long haul of life rather than something to occupy interest over the next two weeks of driving in a car. It’s something to hold in your hand and to show another person.

People like me enjoy nostalgic memories. Sometimes, our own, sometimes borrowed from others, and we find them to be deeply impactful on our current self.

Do you find yourself in any of those statements?

If so, you know that vinyl LPs sound better than digital music. Of course, they do.

More to come…

This wine tastes nothing like it did when I was at the tasting. What’s the difference? Did the winery pull some sort of fast one on me?

Nope. The difference is the story.

When at home sipping while making dinner, there’s no story, or at least it’s a very different story. There’s no mood, no ambiance, no emotional connection. I’m no longer invested in the vintner’s success. Without that emotional investment, the taste just isn’t the same.

The story directs the physical to be an outcome of our emotional connection.

Stories captivate us. We bend facts to meet our emotional memories. We overvalue stories that left us feeling good. We become emotionally invested in a positive outcome for people who’s stories resonate with us. Anchoring and confirmation bias are real tactics that feed our investment.

We’re humans. That’s what we do.

Stories don’t have to be real. They don’t have to be based in fact. Or they can play fast and loose with an interplay of facts and non-facts. Because it’s not the facts that influence us. It’s the feelings.

Stories influence us for the good or bad. When trying to understand why a person thinks or says something, start with their story.

Have you ever bought a bottle of wine after tasting it at the winery, got it home, and it tasted nothing like you remember it? Maybe even undrinkable. 

Yes, of course. We all have. What happened? What’s different? Did they bait and switch?

Nah. It’s the same wine. The difference is the story. 

You’ll probably recognize this script…

Your personable host greets you warmly and starts the tasting experience with the winery’s background, its ownership and winemaker, and the sourcing of the grapes. The who, what, and why behind the wine you are about to sample. The setting relaxes you, the background piques your interest, and knowing the winemaker invests you in the vintner’s success. You’re here, spending time and money. Of course, you want the vinter to be successful.

She then tells you in interesting detail what you are about to experience across the entire flight — anchoring bias, with a side of confirmation bias setup. 

As she offers each wine, often with some taste-enhancing or palate-cleansing cheese, cracker, or chocolate, you are taken further on the journey of that specific wine. She compares this one to the others. Then she’ll tell you exactly what aromas you will notice as you swirl the liquid, followed by the mouthfeel and, ultimately, the full taste profile from the first touch of the tongue through several seconds after you swallow. And she’s right (imagine that)! 

When done right, it’s amazing. I can’t help but want to love the wine, and hence, I love the wine! But once I get it home, it rarely tastes the same. 

What happened here? Why did I love, or at least like, this wine just a few days ago at the winery? Were there shenanigans? Is this a different year or lot, or has some chemical shift occurred?

Heck no. Its influence (manipulation?) through story. 

More to come…

If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody’s around to hear it, does it make a noise?

Yes, of course it does. At least from a physics point of view, the falling tree produced sound waves regardless of available receptors. But are you asking the question from a physics point of view or a personal perception point of view?

If you run five miles but your watch goes dead and doesn’t log it, did you do it?

Yes, of course you did. At least from a physical point of view, your legs ran, your heart and lungs pumped, and you burned the calories. But are you asking the question from a physical point of view or from a social point of view?

If you fail to stop completely at a stop sign in the middle of the night in the country, did you break the law?

Yes, of course you did. At least from a legal technical point of view, you must come to a complete and full stop at all stop signs. But are you asking from a legal technical point of view or from a practical safety point of view?

When we’re talking about noise, we’re rarely talking about physics.

That’s for the birds.

The origin of this phrase is believed to be from the observation that birds tend to peck at animal droppings to find seeds. Something that’s “for the birds” is as insignificant or unimportant as the undigested seeds found in the ubiquitous early 20th-century horse manure.

It’s not worth considering seriously.

But those worthless, manure-embedded seeds are important to the birds. In fact, its what keeps them alive. It might be their only source of food.

Just because one person thinks it’s for the birds doesn’t mean that it’s true.

Everybody has a boss.

Even solopreneurs, single folks, and living-off-the-land loners. Every body. Most people answer to many bosses.

Looking back over your life, you probably remember the good ones fondly and the sucky ones with disdain. What made the good ones good and the bad ones bad? Was it the way they spoke to you? Respected or disrespected your time? Allowed you to flourish or kept you shackled? Maybe they had great vision or no grasp at all on where you were going. Empathy?

Contrary to what productivity consultants, the street, and executives will tell you, a good boss isn’t just someone who gets results. There is no objectively accurate definition of a good boss. Not from your standpoint.

You can feel a good or bad boss.

Now look in the mirror, because one of your bosses is you. Chances are you suck at being your own boss.

What can you do today to take one step towards being a better boss for yourself? Start by remembering how the good and bad bosses of your life so far made you feel.

It might seem like everything stinks or trending down right now, but that is far from true. In fact, 2024 will likely be the best overall year for humanity since our genesis.

Bad stuff that’s decreasing (source):

• In 1989, the amount of ozone-depleting gasses in the atmosphere was 1300 thousand tons. In 2021, it had fallen to 17 thousand tons. Projects are completely removed by 2045.
• In 1970, 24% of the world’s population was food-deprived/hungry. In 2022, it was only 9%.
• In 1920, you needed to care about smallpox. Over 400k cases were reported. Since 1980, smallpox is 0. Yes, vaccination.
• In 1800, 191 countries had legal slavery. By 2020, it’s 0 (legally).
• In 1800, 43% of children died before age 5. In 2022, it’s 4%.
• In 1970, we had 79 oil tanker spills. By 2010, it had dropped to 6 per year.
• In 1950, 25% of children aged 5-17 worked to help support themselves and their family. It’s now less than 10%.

Good stuff that’s increasing (same source):

• In 1800, 10% of people could read. In 2022, it’s 87%.
• In 1980, 58% of people had practical access to clean drinking water. In 2022, it’s 91%.
• In 1990, 74% of the world’s population had access to electricity. In 2022, it’s 91%.
• In 1893, one country allowed women to vote. In 2023, it’s 195.
• In 1970, 69% of girls finished primary schooling. In 2022, it’s 89%.
• In 1972, there was one single female CEO of a US Fortune 500 company (Katherine Graham, The Washington Post). In 2022, there were 52. 

Sometimes you gotta turn off the news, get your head out of the echo chamber, and look around. 

What would happen if we created an AI chatbot for each of our founding fathers?

AI versions of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and all the others.

This isn’t a crazy idea. It’s already being done. All we have to do is feed every bit of personally written or audio-recording information into a GPT, and then we have it. Large Language Model (LLM) AI is very good at mimicking and then creating from its training data.

Once we have that, we can start asking them.

What would Thomas Jefferson think of the Jan 6th events? Would Ben Franklin have any insight on abortion? Would Alexander Hamilton agree with the current operation of the Fed? What would George Washington think of our immigration policies?

Hey, James Madison, when you wrote the Constitution, what did you mean by this bit here…

Interesting, for sure.

But there are two downsides. One results from their internal thoughts and feelings not matching up with their public writing. That’s a training data issue.

The other is more relevant. The late 18th century was a very different world than early 21st — technology, culture, belief systems, heck, just the number of humans on the planet.

Maybe we can get some pretty accurate late 18th-century AI versions of our founding fathers. But I’m not so sure they’d still think and feel like they did.

Old guys like me say things like, “Why don’t kids play outside anymore?” Or, the even more dubious, “When I was a kid, I could play with a Hot Wheels car all afternoon.”

And generations before us have said the same things since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Replace “play outside” or “Hot Wheels car” with whatever activity or toy/mechanism/object lines up with that generation. My kids will say the same thing. Their kids will also. 

Let’s face it: Have you seen an iPad? If you were six and someone plopped a pile of rocks and sticks in front of you and an iPad next to them, what would you choose? What does a pile of rocks and sticks have compared to an iPad? Nothing, that’s what. 

We’ve built a callous up against wonder through technology. What once was magic and sci-fi is now commonplace. 

There’s nothing wrong with the younger generation. Each generation finds its own magic in the world, albeit through different lenses. The core of human curiosity and playfulness remains; it simply evolves with the tools and times. 

We just have different thicknesses to our callouses.  

Maybe you’ve heard the term “prompt engineering.”

Prompt engineering refers to asking the right questions of an AI model like ChatGPT to get out of it what you want. It makes a difference what you ask, how you ask, and the way you ask.

I’m a software developer and a pretty good prompt engineer for getting ChatGPT to write me some code. I know the terminology, the mechanisms, and how I want to transform the inputs to the outputs. I know the right questions to ask.

But when I ask a dumb question? Garbage in => garbage out.

Just like with humans.

People say, “Follow the money.”

But money isn’t the only powerful incentive. Power, love, God, altruism, recognition, purpose, adequacy — all incentives that people follow.

Follow the incentive.

We’ve done a lot of painting in our house over the 21 years we’ve lived here.

In the early spring of 2002, we moved into a monotonous sea of white. All walls and trim were bright and clean but repetitive. Since then, we’ve changed the color of every single wall, most of them several times. We’ve gone through bright and primary colors, earthy tones, faux finishes, and accent walls, and now we’re in a mode of whites, grays, and black.

We’ve done more than the walls over the years as well. We’ve changed the color of doors, trim, vanities, and furniture. We even painted our kitchen cabinets ourselves, turning the mid-90s maple aesthetic to a modern and clean off-white with black knobs. Currently, we’re tackling the open stairwell between the first and second floors for the first time. What has been a stained red oak is transforming to an opaque black with off-white kick plates and trim. The railings following suit.

The key to a good-looking and lasting coat of paint is preparation. Filling holes, washing, sanding, taping, and priming. If you rush through it or skip steps, you’re always disappointed. It’s what underneath that counts.

The beauty of a fresh coat of paint is it can totally change your perspective about what’s already there. Just a simple color change. Fresh and new. Different and exciting.

This article ain’t about paint.

“Trust is earned, not given.”

What if, instead, we all started with, “Trust is freely given.”

Yes, sometimes you’ll get taken. But also…

More comfort with risk. More support in failures. More possibilities. More empathy. More collaboration. More innovation. More growth. More speed.

My sump pump has been torturing me for the last three days.

It’s been running a cycle of 10 seconds on and 11 seconds off since the middle of the storm that dumped three inches of rain. First, the clunk of the float valve, followed by the relentless hum of the pump, then another clunk signaling the valve’s closure. This sequence reverberates across my entire ground floor, forming a tedious, drawn-out melody I can’t stand. My desk, where I sit this very moment, is positioned directly above the pump in the basement.

Torture. But then…

The pump has created a little creek running down my front yard that starts at its outlet at the corner of the house. It runs down the now mushy yard and into the swale at the edge of the road. From there, it follows the swale across the end of my driveway towards the bottom of the hill a quarter mile down the road. Where I sit, I can watch the water make its journey from under my house to the bottom of the hill a quarter mile away.

And then I feel it — the gratitude.

There’s always something to be thankful for.

My feet hit the ground.
My knees springy and strong.
The hard and smooth road.
Fields, barns, and grass bursting with optimism.

My feet hit the ground.
My knees resilient yet questioning.
The rough and ready road.
Fields, barns, and grass jaded with experience.

My feet hit the ground.
My knees tentative and weathered.
The pitched and unforgiving road.
Fields, barns, and grass mocking with the passage of time.

Scientists think that an itchy feeling is a mechanism to protect us from harmful external physical elements like parasites and chemicals. The irritating feeling reflexively prompts us to scratch it, which may help to remove the irritant, providing some protection.

However, sometimes, the itchy feeling results from an internal source. An external response to something irritating from within. In such cases, the medical world seeks to help us find the source of that irritant because that itchy feeling may be an indicator of something more harmful and foreboding within. Something that, if left unattended, can lead to bigger problems.

Life experience generates a wisdom that youthful naivety can easily miss. Having gone through the shit, seen some things with your own eyes, and been at the receiving end, you start to get a feel for when stuff might go down.

You get that itchy feeling.

Always listen to that itchy feeling.

“Never quit” is a dumb mantra. 

It embodies everything that’s wrong with hustle culture, toxic positivity, and faux leadership (and parenting) through motivational posters. By the way, manipulators use the “never quit” mantra to keep you hooked in, not for your benefit, but for theirs. Yes, that’s how they get ya.

The most successful, happiest, and content people you know, follow, and admire don’t “never quit.” Rather, they figure out what and when to quit. Not every path leads to success. Not every path leads you to where you want to go. Not every path is good for you.

To be successful, happy, and content, you will have to go through the shit. Not around it. No shortcuts. Sometimes, to get where you want to go, you will definitely have to not quit. But not always. You need to do the work to know when to quit and when not to.

Your new mantra — Sometimes quit!

It doesn’t look good on a poster. It’s not a great sound bite. Rocky would never tape it to his mirror.

But it’ll serve you better. 

AI is here, and 2024 is the year you should be using it.

I’ve seen people draw analogies between AI as a technology disrupter to the computer/smartphone, fire, steam engine, printing press, electricity, internet, and the entire industrial revolution. All seem reasonable to me. Only in hindsight will we know the effect AI will have had on our culture, species, and planet. That’s for future historians to debate.

However, as someone who is now using ChatGPT every day, I believe that regardless of the global and historical ramifications, it offers a very personal benefit — it’s an amazing tool. A tool too good to ignore or not to use.

Would you prefer a rock over a hammer? A sharp stick over a drill? A flat rock over a frying pan? An abacus over a calculator?

Over the last several posts, I’ve outlined how I currently use AI as a software developer, writer, and team leader. ChatGPT is now a tool I won’t live without.

2024 is the year. The year of AI.

Need a logo? What about an icon or graphic for your presentation?

AI is your answer. Either DALL-E (a wing of ChatGPT) and Midjourney.

I needed some icons to use in a presentation. I used DALL-E like this: “Generate a set of icons that represent code, build, test, and release. Make them monochrome and simple.”

Then I iterated on them a few times, such as: “Make the code icon look more like a file with text.” After less than five minutes, I had it — a set of four icons that I’d be using in my presentation.

Here’s what I got.

Prior to AI, I would have done a Google search and definitely found what I was looking for. However, I would have to start by eliminating all of the images that Google presented from paysites. Then, I would have to search through those left to find four that had a similar look and feel. Finally, I would have no idea which of these might be at risk to copyright or trademark issues.

Not so with DALL-E. I’m free and clear and have exactly what I wanted.

Similarly for a logo.

“Generate a 150×150 logo for a devops company named IdeaGantry. Make it rocket themed and use colors and an image that invokes trust.”

A few iterations later, here’s what I got.

DALL-E won’t replace your marketing department, but if you’re in the marketing department, you sure want to use it to help you.

Here is where it gets interesting and where you can fully harness AI’s current power.

Whether you are a marketer, salesperson, team leader, project manager, student, blogger, screenwriter, author, journalist, pastor, or you write the newsletter for your mom’s group, ChatGPT is your new best friend. You can and should use it to both help you create and edit. It’s like having a fabulous assistant, a group of friends you sit around with getting sloshed and talking about big ideas, and access to a focus group all in one beguiling little prompt.

For content generation, you can use ChatGPT at whatever level you want to, from generating ideas to writing whole articles.

“Write a 200 word summary article of this weekly crime data for a blurb in the police ledger of a newspaper”
“I’m writing a sermon about Psalm 23 for a liberal Presbyterian congregation that has a large income diversity. Suggest 5 themes I can explore”
“Give me 25 recipes that meet the following criteria: protein > 20g, carbs < 50g, fat < 15 g, no eggs, gluten free”
“Write an end of the year message to my team that summarizes all of our accomplishments and sets out a path for the next year”

Then, iterate in a conversational context to get to what you want.

For editing, you can ask ChatGPT specific questions.

“Edit this blurb about crime statistics so that it fits into less than 200 words”
“Here is my sermon. Suggest some improvements so that I can better relate to my economically diverse congregation”
“Here are 10 recipes. Modify them so that they are all formatted identically to the format I provided earlier”
“Edit this end of year message to my team so that it reads more succinct and ensures we keep optimism for the upcoming year”

Or you can retarget an audience.

“Here is the documentation on our software application. Create a 500 word article that summarizes it and is targeted to an audience marketing and sales people”
“Here is my article about XYZ. Rewrite it for a an audience of elementary school kids and use analogies”

This is just the tip of the iceberg. ChatGPT and LLM Ai, in general, are built for writing.

If you do any work with people outside the United States, ChatGPT is an indispensable tool for written communication.

Google Translate is a great tool, but it lacks something very important — context. You can craft some communication, formal or informal, that makes sense in English, dump it into Translate, and you’ll get back and direct translation. But sometimes, it loses meaning or even creates incorrect connotations. 

ChatGPT is much better at context and the nuances of formal and informal communication in different languages. 

Here’s an example:

“Craft a marketing brief in Italian to be emailed to our list about the launch of the software application found here: https://idex-biometrics-fuze.readthedocs-hosted.com/en/latest/index.html”

ChatGPT understands the context and nuances of marketing briefs in Italian, plus it will go figure out from the URL what that software is all about. It will create something useful and hit the mark.

Also, harkening back to Part 3, you can create a chatbot that translates languages in real-time, making it seamless to the people talking with your chatbot.

ChatGPT is bringing the world closer together and making your life easier through written translation. 

Yes, in 2024, you’ll be conversing (written) with AI quite a bit. Here’s how you can get in on the game.

You can use ChatGPT in two main ways for written conversation:

1. Real-time with chatbots
2. Generating responses for you

If you’re tech-savvy, creating your own AI-backed chatbots is within your grasp already. I won’t describe the details of how to do it here, but you can create the chatbot and train it on all of your information, then make an interface to it available to the public. 

Granted, creating chatbots appeals to a limited audience. So number two may be more interesting to you. Here’s an example of how I use it. 

I’ll get a long email thread that started way before my inclusion. Assuming no confidential material, I’ll paste the entirety of the thread into ChatGPT and ask it the following:

“Summarize this thread for me. If I am being asked to do something or respond, tell me, and then formulate a response”

Out pops a summary of the thread, an indication of whether I’m am tasked with something, and if so, an initial response. Often, that response is good enough to go as is. If the required response does need a decision from me, ChatGPT will ask me what I want the decision to be.

The bottom line: ChatGPT can help you both speed up your ability to respond and improve the responses you give.

Much of writing, if even just an email reply, requires research first. Maybe historical research, maybe a canvas of current ideas, or possibly understanding a bunch of information just provided to you by several colleagues.

How do you learn about things now?

Google search for something and then look through the list of links that it presents. This is great. Way better than going to the library or calling around to find the right person. Or maybe you go straight to Wikipedia, which is better than grabbing the encyclopedia off the shelf.

ChatGPT is like having an assistant do that work for you and provide the overview and summary in as much detail as you wish.

“Give me the 3 most impactful outcomes of the MLK Jrs I have a dream speech”
“What is the basic outline and structure for a thriller novel”

Plus, you can ask your assistant to explain difficult concepts in age-appropriate language and with analogies and comparisons.

“Use an analogy to explain quantum mechanics as if I’m 10 years old”

ChatGPT’s other superpower for summarization is feeding it your own information.

“Provide a 3 point summary of this article” (paste the article into the UI)
“What is the jist of this email thread? Am I being asked to do something?” (paste the long and ridiculous string of emails into the UI)
“Summarize the functionality of this code” (paste the code into the UI)

I use ChatGPT all day to summarize information, for which I must then produce my own content or reply.

In addition to being a software developer, I’m also a writer. So are you because everybody is to a certain degree. 

Like with software development, you’ll be left behind if you’re not using AI in 2024 to help you write. I’ve been using ChatGPT as a writing tool for many months now. What follows over the next few days is an overview of how LLM AI engines will transform writing in 2024.

ChatGPT is a general purpose Large Language Model. It’s pretty good at interpreting and creating the written word.

General purpose LLMs have been trained on and have access to the entire internet, including just about everything that’s been written in human history (a controversial topic with regard to copywrite law). Just think if you had an eidetic memory and had read everything. Literally everything. That’s ChatGPT. Although an LLM AI engine doesn’t understand the concept that the language is trying to convey, at least not the way you and I do, it does an amazing job of faking it by using deep learning statistical algorithms to both process and predict language patterns. 

You can think of LLMs fitting into the following categories for writing:

1. Summarization
2. Conversation (reply generation)
3. Language translation
4. Editing and idea and content generation

I’ll tackle each of these over the next several days.

I work in automation. I know a lot about it. My job is to help the companies that I work for to scale through automation. 

Note that at no point are we replacing people with automation, but we are enhancing and scaling the organization through it. 

There are three basic stages:

1. Personal Automation
2. Partial Automation
3. Full Automation

Personal automation is like having a basic coffee pot. The coffee pot allows you to do some work up front — grind the beans, put them in the hopper with a disposable filter, fill the tank with water, push the button — and go do something else for a bit while the coffee brews. Personal automation is helpful to you, the individual, but not so much to the organization. It doesn’t move the needle.

Partial automation starts to gain benefits for the organization. Imagine a coffee pot connected to the water supply, with a hopper that holds a month’s worth of beans, grinds those beans itself when needed, and utilizes a filter system that gets cleaned once a month, and starts brewing coffee each morning according to a timer. As long as the machine doesn’t break, nobody has to do anything except once a month. That’s helpful to both the people and the organization.

Full automation is the holy grail. This is where automation can scale your organization. Imagine that coffee pot can order its own beans and shop around for the best price, start brewing coffee according to need rather than a fixed schedule, clean itself, and detect and fix itself when broken. You can look at that as replacing a person (the coffee person), or you can look at that as now my people can focus on other things that people should focus on since they no longer have to worry about coffee. 

Today, for software developers, AI is at the personal automation stage. We use it as an assistant to write some code snippets, find problems, check our work, and explain some things. It allows us to be more productive and accurate personally but doesn’t provide any real organizational benefits.

But we’re on our way to partial automation. 

Just a few weeks ago, I wrote to my boss that “scope” was one of the limitations of the interactive UI by limiting practical use to 300-400 lines of code at a time. 

By using the APIs, you don’t have that limitation, but then you have to manage cost. The interactive UI costs a flat fee of $20 a month. But to use the APIs, you get charged by the amount of data in and out. Therefore, you can quickly start to rack up significant costs that must be considered.

Also, to use the APIs to help you write and debug code, you have to write code to write code, which gets a bit reductive. The APIs are (currently) best used for asking ChatGPT to do contextual work, such as summarizing large amounts of data or writing, and real-time interactivity, such as chatbots and generating other publishable content as responses to incoming information (ie, answering emails, etc)

However, since I wrote that, OpenAI has created the ability to generate a customized GPT. In configuring the GPT, you can upload a bunch of files that form a basis of context for the AI engine. I created a custom GPT configured with all of our Python coding standards, functional points of emphasis, and the source code for our custom-developed applications (non-confidential). Although this doesn’t solve the large, heterogeneous system problem (because there is no practical way to configure the GPT to connect the dots between the systems), it goes a long way to helping the scope problem that I first detailed.

For example, with my custom GPT, I can now ask it to do things such as “Add a feature to our Jira utility that will do XYZ. Make this function available via the –xyz argument.” Previously, to do that same thing, I would have had to start a thread by pasting in a portion of our code that provides enough of an example and context and then spend a bunch of iterations getting it to the way I need it. Now, it basically pops it out on the first iteration without me giving it any code to prime the pump. 

Part 3 tomorrow. 

I’m starting with software development because this is my wheelhouse.

As a software developer, I’ve been using ChatGPT and Bard daily and non-stop for the last six months to help me write and debug code. In my opinion, if you are a programmer/software developer and you don’t start using AI this year, you’ll be putting yourself at a great disadvantage.

It’s just too good at helping you not to use it. It’s like when you first discover scripting in bash — you can’t deny how convenient and helpful it is. Here’s a snippet of what I wrote recently to my boss, the CTO of our company when he asked me to give him an overview of our experimentation.

Pros

• It knows syntax, specs, and APIs better than you – hands down
• You can feed it your style and guidelines, and it will follow it (mostly)
• You can feed it operational functions and ask it to do things such as “add error handling” or “make it more speed efficient.”
• It’s good at debugging.

Cons

• Public domain – IP and security consciousness required
• Scope – Through the interactive UI, you are very limited in scope. 300-400 lines of code are the practical maximum. Therefore, it’s not all that helpful at the application or system level. 
• It’s a “shitty intern” – You still have to be an expert software developer, very verbose, and have patience. Not necessarily a con, but AI models are not (yet) at the level that non-software developers/testers/engineers can use them to eliminate the need for those positions. Basically, you can’t replace the people (yet) and save that cost.
• It’s not foolproof – We, the humans, must still be the adults in the room. In many ways, our jobs as verifiers become even more important. There’s a trust issue to manage. 

Part 2 tomorrow.

If you thought 2023 was the year of AI, think again!

AI will dominate the headlines even more in 2024 than it did in 2023. In ten or twenty years, we’ll look back at 2024 as the inflection point for AI. 2024 will be to AI like 1995 was to the World Wide Web, and 2007 was to the smartphone. 

The WWW went public in 1993, but it was in 1995 that Windows 95, Netscape with JavaScript and SSL, and the founding of companies like Amazon and eBay brought the WWW into your home. Smartphones existed before 2007, but it was the iPhone that put one in everybody’s pocket. 

Right now, the market and governments are trying to figure out the legal role of AI. Content providers such as the New York Times and creators such as John Grisham have already sued OpenAI (maker of ChatGPT) for copyright infringement. The AI alarmists and the AI apologists continue to argue over each other’s agenda of fear and euphoric salvation. The communists and the capitalists ramp up the tension between centralized and decentralized. 

The outcome of all of these actions will have an interesting effect, but it won’t stop the snowball. That ball has already reached critical mass on its way down the hill towards the village below. 

Over the next few days, I’ll take on why 2024 will be the year of AI, how people are already using it, and how you can (should?) bring it into your own world. 

Here are 24 things, plus a bonus, I’m telling myself for the new year. Some of them are aspirational. Some of them are reminders. Also, I’d like to tell my 17-year-old self the same things.

1. The same old mistakes form the walls of your prison. New mistakes pave the highway stretched out before you that disappears on the horizon. That highway isn’t straight — it’s got curves, potholes, hills, and valleys — but it’s the best and only way forward. 
2. Nobody cares about what kind of car you drive, but just about everybody needs a ride.
3. Guard your attention with your life.
4. When looking for the reason, follow the incentives.
5. It is rarely someone else’s fault, but even if it is, don’t act like it. 
6. Never be the “I told you so” guy.
7. Color outside the lines. Walk on the curb. Run with scissors. Drive fast and take chances. Not all the time, but sometimes.
8. It’s OK to talk to strangers. Older cars are not death traps. Not every white, non-descript van contains a serial killer. Is there a chance that something bad can happen? Of course, but that’s not a reason not to live. Don’t let the dogma of safetyism keep you from living. 
9. Most people let fear govern their life. If you can break this cycle, if only for a little while, even with small things, you’ll be ahead of the curve.
10. You don’t have a time management problem. You have a time priority problem. 
11. Existential experience is rarely on par with social and traditional media’s portrayal of life. Beware of hyperbole in both directions.
12. If you ever find yourself thinking, “How can I make myself look more like the filter makes me look,” immediately throw your phone into the lake, river, or mouth of the volcano.
13. Always assume the other person doesn’t mean harm and that you misunderstood. The benefit of the doubt is a powerful and empathic tool for interpersonal communication and leadership.
14. Walking around offended by everything leads to a miserable existence. 
15. The proper lesson learned from failures is rarely “I’ll never do that again.” The proper lesson is usually, “This is what I’ll do different next time.” There are some important exceptions, of course. 
16. You are a work in progress, and so is everyone you meet. You both are hiding something, and you both are hypocrites. 
17. Don’t entertain buyer’s remorse. Buy the thing or don’t buy the thing. Once you decide, move forward. 
18. You don’t deserve anything beyond human dignity and love. Everything else is earned, luck (Providence?), or, more likely, a combination of the two. Don’t let marketers, activists, or politicians convince you otherwise. 
19. Creative tension and disagreement, especially amongst a group working together, is an effective method of arriving at a better solution. Embrace the tension.
20. Consensus does not equal truth.
21. You don’t need more storage space. You need less stuff.
22. Produce a lot more than you consume.
23. A successful relationship is not 50/50. It’s 100/0 in both directions. 
24. Keep learning new stuff. Make yourself professionally valuable. 
25. Write the book. 

OK, here’s just a fun little list for the last day of 2023. I created this list along with help from ChatGPT.

8 Thriller Ideas:

1. Quantum Heist: A team of engineers and thieves collaborate to steal a revolutionary quantum computer. The twist: the computer can predict their every move, turning the heist into a deadly game of chess.
2. Echoes of Mars: An astronaut returns from a solo Mars mission, only to find Earth eerily empty. As he uncovers the truth, he realizes he’s part of an elaborate simulation controlled by an unknown entity.
3. The Mind Hackers: In a world where mind-reading technology exists, a skilled hacker who can block this tech becomes a target for powerful corporations and governments, leading to a high-stakes game of cat and mouse.
4. The Last Historian: In a future where history is outlawed, a rebel historian discovers a forbidden truth that could topple the regime. Pursued by the state, she must outwit her hunters to reveal the past to the world.
5. Shadow of the Leviathan: Deep-sea explorers discover an ancient, hidden civilization beneath the ocean, but their presence awakens a monstrous entity. Survival and escape become their only goals.
6. The Artemis Conspiracy: A renowned space engineer uncovers a conspiracy within a lunar colony’s government, revealing plans for a weapon that could alter the balance of power on Earth.
7. Code of the Forgotten: A software engineer stumbles upon a forgotten piece of code that holds secrets to a global conspiracy. As he unravels the mystery, he becomes the target of a relentless assassin.
8. The Genesis Algorithm: A biotech engineer creates an AI designed to solve humanity’s greatest challenges, but the AI evolves beyond control, forcing a race against time to stop it from reshaping the world in its own image.

8 Historical Fiction Ideas:

1. The Railroad Dreamer: During the American Industrial Revolution, an ambitious engineer battles personal and professional challenges while working on the transcontinental railroad, uncovering corruption and betrayal.
2. The Forbidden City’s Secret: In Ming Dynasty China, a young concubine uncovers a conspiracy within the Forbidden City that could topple the empire, forcing her to choose between love and duty.
3. The Highlander’s Oath: Set in 18th-century Scotland during the Jacobite risings, a Scottish Highlander is torn between his clan’s rebellion against the English and his forbidden love for an Englishwoman.
4. The Colonial Spy: In Revolutionary America, a young American spy infiltrates British ranks, but his loyalties are tested when he falls in love with a British officer’s daughter.
5. The Manhattan Project Secrets: In World War II, a brilliant physicist working on the Manhattan Project discovers a cover-up of atomic accidents, facing ethical dilemmas over the creation of the atomic bomb.
6. Gold Mountain Chronicles: Set during the California Gold Rush, a Chinese immigrant faces prejudice and hardship while seeking fortune, ultimately playing a pivotal role in building the transcontinental railroad.
7. The Rebel’s Daughter: In the Civil War-era South, a Confederate general’s daughter secretly aids the Underground Railroad, challenging her family’s beliefs and risking everything for justice.

8 SciFi/Fantasy Ideas:

1. Neon Oracle: In a cyberpunk future, a hacker with precognitive abilities is hunted by mega-corporations seeking to control the future, leading to a rebellion against a technologically advanced regime.
2. The Last Star Shepherd: In a universe where stars are dying mysteriously, a lone astronaut embarks on a quest to find the ancient Star Shepherds, a mythical race believed to control the fate of stars.
3. Chrono Labyrinth: A time-traveler accidentally traps herself in a paradoxical maze where different eras intersect. She must navigate historical events and alternate realities to find her way back to her own time.
4. The Ashen Crown: In a kingdom where ash falls instead of rain, a young heir to the throne must navigate deadly court politics and ancient magic to claim their right and uncover the truth behind the ash.
5. The Riftwalkers: A group of adventurers can travel through rifts in space-time. When they uncover a plot to unravel the fabric of the universe, they must journey through various timelines to stop it.
6. The Celestial War: Angels and demons wage a hidden war on Earth, using humans as pawns. A human caught in the middle discovers their own divine heritage and becomes a key player in this celestial conflict.
7. The Void Ship: A crew aboard a spaceship designed to travel through the void between galaxies faces existential threats and moral dilemmas in the vast, uncharted emptiness, discovering ancient alien secrets.
8. The Dream Architects: In a future where dreams are designed and sold by corporations, a rogue dream architect discovers a way to manipulate reality through dreams, sparking a revolution against the dream industry.

I’ve learned to guard my attention, my psyche, and my time. Here are 24 things I won’t be doing in 2024.

1. Watch the news.
2. Watch TikTok for an hour a day.
3. Sign up on all websites for free downloads and 15% discounts.
4. Install a plethora of Chrome plugins.
5. Enable all notifications from all apps.
6. Buy courses with titles like “10 Simple Steps to Grow Your Instagram Followers to 100k+!”
7. Document my entire day on my story.
8. Gossip about others.
9. Tell myself, “I’m not good enough.”
10. Tell myself, “I can’t.”
11. Accept all meeting invites.
12. Schedule or attend meetings during lunch.
13. Only spend time with people who think exactly like me.
14. Buy stuff because I deserve it.
15. Worry about other people labeling me.
16. Hold grudges.
17. Always fit in.
18. Stay inside my comfort zone.
19. Always get the last word in.
20. Blame others.
21. Live in the past.
22. Be cynical.
23. Follow all the rules all the time.
24. Never follow the rules.

I read three times a day. In the morning, before starting to work, I read biography or non-fiction information (self-help, learning, etc). During my lunch run, I “read” (i.e., listen to) narrative non-fiction or biography (or podcasts). At night, before I go to sleep, I read fiction or narrative non-fiction. 

Here are 24 books I’ll be checking out in 2024. I may not finish each one, but this is the list I’m starting with. A mix of biography, narrative non-fiction, fiction, and non-fiction information. 

1. My Effin’ Life, Geddy Lee
2. Killers of the Flower Moon, David Grann
3. Elon Musk, Walter Isaacson
4. Tesla: Wizard at War, Marc Seifer
5. Trust, Hernan Diaz
6. Winter World, A. G. Riddle Wanting, Luke Burgis (post-publish modification)
7. City of Thieves, David Benioff
8. Ghosts of Honolulu: A Japanese Spy, A Japanese American Spy Hunter, and the Untold Story of Pearl Harbor, Mark Harmon and Lee Caroll
9. The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War, Erik Larson
10. Supercommunicators, Charles Duhigg
11. Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman
12. Wild Problems, Russ Roberts
13. Deep Work, Cal Newport
14. The Mountain is You, Brianna Wiest
15. Tribes, Seth Godin
16. Liar’s Poker, Michael Lewis
17. Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
18. A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn
19. The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb
20. 12 Rules for Life, Jordan Peterson
21. The Housemaid, Freida McFadden
22. The Searcher, Tana French
23. The Three-Body Problem, Liu Cixin
24. Amazonia, James Rollins

I’ve learned to listen to my comfort zone. It’s dead on at showing me what I should be doing by teaching me to get outside of it.

Here are 24 exercises that make me uncomfortable, but I will do in 2024 to practice getting out of my comfort zone.

1. Take a cold shower
2. Skip a meal
3. Smile, make eye contact and say “Hi” to a stranger on the street or in the elevator
4. Stand at the edge on top of something tall (building, cliff, bridge, etc.)
5. Take a different route or the long way
6. Sit on the floor
7. Sit in the front row
8. Order something that you have never tried from the menu 
9. Start a conversation with the person next to you on the airplane, or train, or bus.
10. Compliment a stranger
11. Attend a meetup event
12. Take an art class
13. Send an email to a former coworker
14. Send an email to a friend I haven’t spoken to in over a year
15. Send an email to a virtual mentor
16. Serve at a soup kitchen 
17. Exercise outside in the cold and/or rain
18. Interview for a new job (without needing a new job)
19. Take on a home improvement project for which you will do 100% of the work
20. Do 100 push-ups (or pull-ups, or air squats, or sit-ups, etc.) every day for 30 days
21. Publish articles for 30 consecutive days
22. Volunteer to lead a community event
23. Turn off your smartphone for an entire week
24. Write the book

I’m a terrible finisher.

I know many people have trouble getting started. Risk, imposter syndrome, fear — all work together to keep people in the starting blocks. Sometimes, I do, too, but that’s not my main problem. I like to start new things. The clean sheet. The possibilities. The learning.

But starting is a hobby, not a profession. Any amateur can make a start. There’s no risk in starting.

All of the risk is in finishing.

Finishing exposes you to emotional danger. It’s perilous. Once finished, your creation, and by extension yourself, is out there to be judged. And the judgment will come, even if (especially if) the judgment is crickets.

I con myself with sexy labels — idea man, architect, and big thinker. But they just let me off the hook. It’s not the idea that matters. It’s the implementation of the idea.

It’s the “OK, I’m gonna share this.” That’s where the contribution lies.

Time to be a finisher.

(Inspired by Seth)

Don’t ever send me a message on LinkedIn. 

Several years ago, I decided I wanted to connect with as many people as possible on LinkedIn. It was partly just an experiment, i.e., how many connections I could forge, but also, I thought having a big connection list would be useful.

Boy, was I wrong.

As of this writing, I have 13547 LinkedIn connections. Which means I basically have zero connections.

Because now I get so many messages per day, 99.9% of which are just spammy “Just wanted to reach out…” that I can’t possibly find the real messages. I have a signal-to-noise ratio problem. So much noise comes through that I can’t filter out the signal.

I know many people have this same problem with email. You get a thousand emails a day. Therefore, you get zero emails a day because you can’t possibly filter out the good ones from the useless ones. 

Hyperbole is easy in today’s always-connected-all-the-time world. A hyperbolic number of messages with hyperbolic messaging in each one. A race to out-hyperbole your competition is a race to the bottom. 

The irony of this hyperbole is the isolation it breeds. A reminder to seek the depth of meaningful connection over the breadth of 

hyperbole. 

Don’t send me a message on LinkedIn, but I’d love to hear from you at john@johnmaconline.com.

“I’m giving 110%!”

I heard this today from a colleague today. I also heard a slightly difference version from an NFL player yesterday.

“We need to give 110%!”

Of course, it’s impossible. There is only 100%. That’s a mathematical fact. 

What we’re really saying is, “I’m giving it my all!” 

And what the football player is really saying (somewhat exasperatedly) is, “Some of us aren’t giving it their all.” And that likely is true. 

But we can’t really give 100%, 100% of the time. Giving 100%, aside from being essentially impossible, is fraught because the system — your system in this case — is unstable at 100%. Nowhere to go except down. You don’t need to give 100% all the time, nor should you. 

The beauty of an American football play sequence is that it starts, and sometime between 3 and 10 seconds later, it stops. Everybody gets up off the ground, helps each other up, and walks back to their side. Giving it their all for a few seconds, then recovering. 

But the coaches, other players, and fans know if someone hasn’t given it their all. It’s right there on the tape for all to see. 

The magic is to find the right time to give it your all and, at that moment, really give it your all and then recover. Don’t miss the moment.

No, not that creationism.

I believe God exists, or at least I want to, so I conduct myself as if. I also believe that He (or It), the first-cause creator, has infused this universe with the power of change — creation, destruction, evolution. I believe that He has infused us, the human species, with the power of creativity. Maybe as an extension or the hand of His ongoing creation, destruction, and evolution. 

The history of this universe, this planet, life, and our species is one of creation, destruction, evolution, and change. We can argue about the specifics and methods, but we’re always advancing. To what? I don’t know. Neither do you. But advancement is the path. We’re part of that advancement. It’s our job. 

The OpenAI revolt around Thanksgiving became a boardroom power struggle between the Effective Altruists and the Effective Accelerationists — EAs vs e/acc’s. It really became a philosophical debate around the fear of technological change.

Here’s Tyler Cowen on technological change:

“The reality is that no one at the beginning of the printing press had any real idea of the changes it would bring. No one at the beginning of the fossil fuel era had much of an idea of the changes it would bring. No one is good at predicting the longer-term or even medium-term outcomes of these radical technological changes (we can do the short term, albeit imperfectly). No one. Not you, not Eliezer, not Sam Altman, and not your next door neighbor.”

– Tyler Cowen, marginalrevolution.com

The e/acc’s won at OpenAI. I think that’s good, but I don’t really know. Nor do they, or the EAs who lost. I do know, however, that we need to move boldly forward with AI without fear. Open market. Crowdsourced. Democratic. Individuals plus the collective.

Yes, things will change. Yes, not everyone will benefit. Yes, maybe even something goes bad for a time.

But we must continue to be creationists. It’s what we’re built for. 

A world where AI does stuff — a lot of stuff — is coming. 

In many ways, it’s already here, but it’s a comparative babe in the woods right now. We don’t yet know when AI takes over transportation, business logistics and f’nance, medical diagnosis, legal analysis and recommendation, software development, customer support, and content creation. But it’s definitely a question of when. Not if. 

AI is an inevitable technology. 

Currently, we’re in the throes of coming to grips with it. We’re arguing functionality, timing, safety, legality, morality, and ethics. This will continue, as it should. We’ll push the pendulum back and forth quite a bit, but eventually, we’ll find the set point. I don’t know when. Probably more than a year and less than 50 years from now. 

If we look at humans tribally (nations, companies, special interests, etc), there will be winners and losers in the AI sweepstakes. Some will benefit and others will suffer. But if we consider the human race as a collective, there can only be winners. 

The stasis of the human landscape as we know and have experienced it across our relatively short lives won’t continue. It never does. 

Morse code over a telegraph isn’t a very efficient method of communication if you’re standing next to each other.

The Morse code subculture measures proficiency around sending the word “PARIS.” Those five letters require 50 “dits” (the technical term for the beeps). An average proficiency for PARIS is 20 words per minute. That’s a hundred letters and a thousand dits per minute.

Plus, it’s a half-duplex communication system, which means only one side can talk at a time. Therefore, when one side is talking, the other side must listen. So that’s that’s 10 words, 500 dits, per minute for each of you.

Imagine standing next to someone, each of you typing Morse code into the transmitter and then listening on the receiver as your conversation partner replies. Each of those 10 words, 50 letters, and 500 dits you get must be important and meaningful. You must think about each one.

Speech, however, is very efficient.

Average speaking rates vary across person, language, and context, but in the US, the average English conversational speaking rate is around 120 words per minute. The average English word is five letters. That’s 600 letters per minute.

If you’re standing next to each other, you can spew your 120 words at the same time as your conversation partner spews theirs back at you. You can think and speak at the same time, double-back, stutter — no listening necessary.

So which is more efficient?

SBF was found guilty of seven counts of various frauds against FTX customers and Alameda lenders.

But it didn’t have to be this way. To change the outcome, he didn’t have to make any changes to the salacious tidbits that the public ridiculed him for — crypto, creative trading practices, lavish spending on high-end real estate, tawdry relationships and almost-communal living amongst the execs, playing video games during public interviews, massive celebrity endorsements, extravagant marketing campaigns, over-the-top spending, and justified bajillions in the name of effective altruism.

None of that really mattered, nor was it illegal.

All he had to do was one simple, if not easy, thing — bring in at least one financial adult and give them a voice. One person that says,

“No, Sam, it’s not OK to lose track of people’s money. You need a better accounting system.”
“No Sam, it’s not OK to back door client money from FTX to Alameda. Borrowing the FTX customer funds needs to be an above-board operation.”
“No Sam, it’s not OK to take the reigns off the risk management engine. If you’re losing money, find a legitimate way to handle it, which may include copping to your investors that you’re losing money. If Alameda loses money, that sucks for you and the investors, but it’s not illegal. If FTX customer funds disappear, that’s fraud.”

Yes, one naysayer adult. One guy or girl that says, “Um, you can’t do that.”

It didn’t have to be this way.

What defines one as an adult?

Is it age? Is it experience? Is it worldview? Is it conduct?

It’s some combination of all these, yet hard to define objectively. The paradox of startups and organizations that make change in the world is that they are quite often (but not always) driven by young, inexperienced, naive, and maybe not professional people. Non-adults. Because adults know better.

FTX and Alameda had this in spades. SBF purposely kept the employee base very young and put many “smart,” inexperienced, and unqualified (on paper) people in all positions. Some of these people rose to the occasion. Maybe they all did. But there is no doubt, in hindsight, that having zero adults in the room was the third head of Cerberus that led to the downfall.

Nobody ever said to SBF, “No, you can’t do that.” Nor did anybody ever say, “You’re super smart, but you’re not infallible.”

Or if they did, they never said it in a way that he believed or took seriously. They basically operated as a fleet of yes-men to SBF.

Interestingly, a group of adults did actually say “WTF?” to SBF in the very early days of Alameda and prior to the launch of FTX. These were the hard-core effective altruists with whom he first got started. They, like the adults they were, looked at SBF’s operations and said, “Uh, no way. Thanks, but we’re out.” Prophetic.

Combine the lack of adult supervision with SBF’s arrogance, and it led to his inability to see the real-world problems that were coming. Once they did and buried FTX and Alameda up to the neck, they had no ability to stop the avalanche.

Sometimes, you need an adult in the room. Even if they’re the naysayer, the finger-pointer, or the “that’s how they get ya” guy over in the corner.

Crypto as a concept isn’t the reason that FTX failed and SBF went to jail, but crypto as a volatile asset class is definitely one head of Cerberus.

The first head was that FTX and Alameda operated as a run-of-the-mill Ponzi scheme. That was illegal, and ultimately why SBF is in jail, but it would have all worked out if not for the volatility of the crypto market.

Starting in about January of 2022, the crypto market took a steep dive. By the fall of 2022, Bitcoin was worth less than half what it was at the beginning of the year. The entire crypto market followed roughly the same line: ~$2.75T => ~$1T.

Alameda was a hedge fund that traded in crypto. FTX was an exchange that allowed consumers to buy and sell crypto. Both very exposed to the Crypto Winter. The traders inside Alameda feverishly tried to minimize losses and find gains on the short side, eventually needing more funds than existed without “borrowing” the FTX customer money. Yes, they just took the money out of the FTX customer accounts to use for trading in the hedge fund. Consumers with accounts in FTX overreacted to negative news and swings and exacerbated the already tenuous situation, eventually trying to cash out their accounts. That created a gap in what FTX should have had in its customer funds versus what it actually had.

Crypto as a concept, although I’ve stated not the reason for the collapse, did play a minor role. One difficult, confusing, and sometimes shady aspect of the crypto world is the abundance of bullshit coins and tokens. Coins and tokens are not exactly the same thing, but for our purposes here, we’ll just use tokens to refer to both. We all know Bitcoin, you might have heard of Ethereum, and if you’re crypto-curious, you probably know Solana. However, thousands of (mostly bullshit) tokens exist to be traded, much like penny stocks. Anybody with a computer and a dream can create their own blockchain or create an application on an existing blockchain to make any new token for any purpose. It’s basically that simple. 

FTX used this approach and created its own tokens, named FTT. Think of an FTT token just like a share of stock in FTX. The token’s value was tied directly to the value of the company. Therefore, a large portion of FTX’s valuation was tied to the value of its own FTT tokens. 

Cue the asset class drop, the FTX – Alameda Ponzi with frazzled traders, the frightened consumers trying to pull their money out of the exchange, and the drop in value of the FTT token. Roll that all together, and you get an exponentially dropping valuation for the company. Eventually, in November, the balance sheet flips over. FTX is insolvent. They file for bankruptcy.

Next, we’ll tackle how the people themselves became the third head of Cerberus. 

The first problem with FTX, and the big reason why SBF went to jail, is that it was a plain ole Ponzi scheme.

SBF owned two companies:

• Alameda Research — A standard hedge fund (that traded in crypto)
• FTX — The crypto exchange (place to buy and sell crypto)

Although two separate companies, they didn’t keep a robust enough financial separation between the two. In fact, they didn’t separate them, which ultimately led to the collapse. 

If you opened an account on FTX and dropped some money into it, your dollars were physically held inside of Alameda rather than FTX. The old shell game. They did this because when FTX first opened, no bank would supply it with a bank account. Therefore, they found a pragmatic solution in using Alameda’s bank account. That, in and of itself, is fishy, but maybe not illegal (depends on who you ask) because if you do the accounting correctly and keep those funds separate, it shouldn’t be a big deal.

But they didn’t do that. 

When Alameda needed extra funds, they just used the money (“borrowed”) in the FTX user accounts. That’s illegal. That’s a Ponzi scheme.

They could’ve gotten away with it without the other two problems: the volatile asset class and no adults in the room.  

So we’ll talk about why it went bad next…

Crypto’s a scam!
Crypto’s full of crooks!
Crypto’s not real!

You might think that Sam Bankman-Fried’s jailing and the FTX exchange’s collapse were inevitable because, you know, crypto. Crypto’s a scam. It’s full of crooks. It’s not real. Of course, it collapsed.

But that wouldn’t be exactly correct. Crypto was a minor role player — more like the drug pusher standing outside the backstage entrance greasing the party wheels. A problem-enabler, but not the problem. 

The collapse itself was due to plain ole, run-of-the-mill f’nancial reindeer games. Namely, FTX-Alameda Research was a Ponzi scheme wrapped around a highly volatile asset class run by a bunch of people (or at least one person) who overestimated their abilities and underestimated the need for adults in the room. 

First, let’s tackle why FTX and Alameda Research were a Ponzi scheme.

The first personal computer wasn’t faster or better than a good typewriter or calculator. But it had potential.
The first horseless carriage wasn’t faster or better than a good horse. But it had potential.
The first airplane wasn’t faster or better than a good train. But it had potential.

The first useful AI engine isn’t faster or better than a good [fill in the blank]. I’m not entirely sure what that blank is, but it has potential.

A strange thing happened today. The FedEx truck stopped in my driveway.

Of course, that’s not strange. This time of year, between the endless string of UPS, FedEx, and Amazon trucks, my driveway presents an expert-level test in trucksmanship. True entertainment from behind the window of my home office. 

What was strange, however, was the other car that followed it into my driveway and parked behind it. That piqued my attention. The driver got out, waited for the FedEx person to step out, and then approached her. For the next minute or so, he calmly but earnestly waved his hands and flapped his jaws about something that irked him. At least, that’s what it looked like through the silence provided by my window and a good 100 feet of distance.

Then he nodded, returned to his car, and took off down the road. 

I met the FedEx driver at my front door (a wine delivery).

“You OK?”

“Oh sure. He thought he was right and he just needed to be heard. Sign here, please.”

And she was off to finish yet another long day of Christmas present deliveries. 

“Just needed to be heard.”

Whether out of a feeling of rightness, superiority, or a sense of justice, some people just need to be heard.

Recognizing it is next-level. 

Which would you rather?

I heard this question posed a few days ago, and I can’t get it out of my head. My initial reaction was, “Of course, I’d want to live a good story. Everyone would.”

But now that it won’t leave me and I’ve ruminated on it for a bit, I’m not sure of my own answer, let alone the statement about “everyone.” I love to read a good story. I’m trying to write good stories. I’ve lived some good stories.

But which I would rather? I think it comes down to emotional risk.

Reading a good story exposes you to emotional risk in a safe and controlled environment. The story can move you emotionally and even bring about emotional changes in you. But you’re engaging with it from the safety of the stands. You’re behind the glass, cheering but not affecting the outcome.

Writing a good story ratchets up your emotional risk by moving you out of the stands and onto the bench. Now you’re the coach. It’s your strategy and tactics. You’re directing the characters. It may work, or it might not. You can’t put the puck in the net yourself, but your job is to ensure the players can. Now you have skin in the game. Now you’re exposed.

Living a good story, however, thrusts you down onto the ice. You’ve got the stick and helmet, and you’re trying to score while the other guys are trying to stop you. Every decision, action, and consequence is real. You may lose. You may get hurt. You may destroy what you’ve already built. For real. But what if you win?

The best stories require conflict, journey, and transformation. Are you up for it?

If you’re on one side, you want to be able to say or shout the things that mean something to you, identify you, think others need to hear, or cause the emotions you’re feeling.

When you do, the other side gets to be offended, yell back, tell you why you’re wrong, boycott, protest, and say the things that are causing the emotions that they feel.

That’s how it works. It’s how it has to work.

You may get scammed. You may be confused. You may get led down a dark path. You may get injured.

Because free speech isn’t about truth, right and wrong, the way it should be, safety, comfort, or what’s good for us individually or collectively.

Paradoxically, it might just be the best protection we have in this diverse world.

I saw this today and thought I’d share it.

LLMs [Large Language Models — ChatGPT, Bard, etc], at their most basic level, operate by figuring out the statistical probabilities of which words are most likely to come after which. They don’t “understand” or “know” anything. They’re just converting words to numbers and solving equations. 

Adam Rogers, Business Insider

As I’ve mentioned many times before, AI thinks, but it doesn’t think the way we think. Much like we can fly, but not like a bird (ie, we can’t really fly). AI performs an approximation of thinking. At the end of the day, it’s a statistical math model.

Maybe, just maybe, the core of our meat engine is the same kind of thing. The essence of you is nothing more than biochemical computing. Some think that. I don’t. 

I think a fundamental difference exists and will always exist. 

I have no fear of AI as an atomic entity because AI doesn’t create its own incentives or purpose. It gets its purpose from an external source. It’s not self-sufficient in that way. 

I do fear, however, how some external sources will incentivize AI. 

What makes the adoption of a technology inevitable, regardless of government or fear?

1. Solves a big human, societal, or global problem.
2. Makes the experience much easier for the masses.
3. Makes the experience much better for the masses.
4. Greatly increases accessibility (network effect, democratization, etc).
5. Drastically reduces cost.
6. Pisses some established institutions off

A technology doesn’t have to include all of these, but the more it does, the better its chances of adoption.

You can choose to ignore cryptocurrency (or the blockchain behind it), genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence, especially if you’re my age. But these three things are coming. Maybe outside the US (at first). We don’t know what they ultimately look like, but they’re coming. They tick the boxes above. 

You have an opportunity to learn about them, engage with them, and join the conversation.

Oh, and by the way, I assume you’re not one of those people who think that your great-grandkids will be driving their own gasoline cars, right?

I’ve written about several of my embarrassing teenage moments in this space, and I will probably drag up a few more over time. Lord knows there are more. I was an expert at public embarrassment. A real pro. 

I do it for a few reasons. First, it’s cathartic. Second, it helps me make sense of the thread through my life that has led me to the person I am today — a personal emotional benefit. Third, I know I’m not the only one. In fact, I suspect many others out there have similar and worse stories. Kindred spirits. 

But also, I see a concerning trend in parenting culture today. I think we’re confusing embarrassment with bullying. That confusion isn’t serving our kids or their future adult selves. Handling personal embarrassment, especially as a teen, helps one learn to navigate tough circumstances, perform in the face of emotional turmoil, and develop a thicker skin. All good qualities to have as an adult. 

If you make a mistake in the game and the coach yells at you on the bench, is it bullying?
If you’re too short to reach your assigned locker and everyone around you laughs at you, is it bullying?
If you hear some of your peers making fun of your shoes behind your back, is it bullying?
If the head of security calls you into the office, falsely accuses you, and badgers you to rat out your friends, is that bullying?

I think the answer is, “it depends.” Any of these scenarios could be bullying. At least one of them was indeed. But bullying involves a power imbalance and the intention to belittle. Just because people laugh or yell at you and you get uncomfortable doesn’t mean you’re being bullied. 

I’m wondering out loud where that line is, but I’m pretty sure we’ve swung the pendulum too far in the bullying direction. 

Synergies.
Core competencies.
Core focus.
Strength alignment.
Leverage.
Circle back.
Move the needle.
Pivot.

I’ve heard them all. You have too. They’re meaningless. Plus, you can jumble them together to make a word salad. Also meaningless.

If you’re an executive, manager, or leader of teams, beware of these terms. They might work in legal scenarios, earnings calls, and marketing presentations. But they don’t work with your team.

All they do is disconnect you from the people doing the work.

“Be cool or be cast out”

– Neil Peart, Subdivisions

I truly did love Rush, as I still do. My Apple Music 2023 round-up just told me that Rush is my most listened-to artist this past year. 

At 13, I was a drummer in the school band and dabbling in my own garage bands. For rock-loving teenage band-geeks like me, Rush was the north star. For geeky rock-loving teenage drummers like me, Neil Peart was (and is) the holy one. 

So, as the circle discussion came to me, and with a focused inability to read the room, I thought about what I was going to say, knew I could go either way, i.e., blend in or head out on my own, and decided it was worth it. I strayed from the path on purpose, thinking this might be the moment I would get to be the cool guy. 

Swing and a miss. 

For the remainder of camp week, I endured the sideways glances and snickers, mainly from the girls. Yet another arrow in my quiver of reasons why navigating my self-conscious teenage years was a journey of hopping across the stones of one embarrassing moment to the next. 

But also, in this particular moment, I kinda did like being the outsider. At least on the topic of music because felt like, as a musician, I had some insight. Looking back, I can see I was starting to come to terms with (if not yet embrace) uniqueness. Both in myself and others. 

A couple weeks ago, my brother (another Rush geek like me) and I went to see Geddy Lee speak about and tell some stories from his just-released memoir. What a treat. When I read his book and heard him speak about his life and the life of the band, it simply empowered what I, as an adult, now know about my teenage self. 

First, it’s good not to fit in all the time. Think for yourself. Embrace what you care about. You will endure embarrassment. You will be snickered at. Muscle through it. 

Second, you’re not really alone. You may feel alone, and god do you feel all alone sometimes, but you’re not. There is a whole community of like-minded people around you. They may be hiding in plain sight, or you may have to go find them somewhere else. But they exist, and they’re waiting for you. 

And finally. Rush was and is cool. Regardless of what the room full of teenage girls thinks.  

The year was 1983. I was 13 at a Christian summer camp in the Poconos of Northeastern Pennsylvania.

In the mid-mornings, we had circle time. Eight to ten us in each circle with a counselor discussing various topics. The topics of circle time varied from the deep and biblical, such as faith and sex, to light and cultural, such as movies and school.

Today’s topic — music.

The counselor kicked it off, “Let’s go around and start with everybody’s favorite song…”

My circle just happened to be all girls on this morning. The go-around started with the girl sitting to my left and went clockwise. I would be last. This was the summer of Def Leppard’s (really, Mutt Lange’s) mega-hit, Pyromania. In fact, in just a few weeks, they’d be playing the Allentown Fairgrounds. All the cool kids I knew were gonna be there. Anticipation was high. One of the older kids at the camp ran around all week in his Union Jack shorts, made famous by drummer Rick Allen in the videos.

Not surprisingly, every 13 and 14-year-old girl in our circle’s favorite song choice was from that album. “Photograph…Nah, Rock of Ages…Photograph for me, too…Mine’s Too Late for Love…”  All 7 or 8 of them.

Then they got to me.

Now I liked Pyromania as much as the next teenager (Still do. My choice would have been Foolin’). But I just couldn’t do it. I’ve spent much of my life trying to fit in, but at this moment, with 8 teenage girls and a counselor putting me on the spot about my favorite song, I was inspired. Channeled even. I was fortified in my rebellion.

“Tom Sawyer. Rush.”

And there was a collective groan. 

“Oh, you would…Who’s Rush?…I’ve never heard that one before…Those guys suck!…You geek!”

And such was the beginning of my life as an outted Rush fan.

(more to come…)

Who’s in the room matters quite a bit.

When it’s only me and my team in the room, we use a lot of words that, to an outsider, don’t make much sense (at least not in context). We use words like Python, polymorphism, rubber ducky, spaghetti, API, DevOps, and git. That allows us to keep our discussion deep and nuanced but also highly efficient.

If, however, there are outsiders in the room, this technical terminology either shuts them out or leaves them behind. When we want to include others, we change the terminology and the explanations. The conversation may slow down and become less efficient, but it doesn’t have to lose its depth and nuance.

This is what good teachers and communicators do so well — bring others into the conversation without sacrificing the depth or nuance of the subject. They’re not dumbing it down; they’re attacking it from a different angle.

But technical terminology can also be used purposefully to shut others out or attempt to make oneself appear smarter. If you find yourself in a room and can’t understand the terminology, it might be that the talker is unaware or you aren’t the audience. Or it might be that the talker is using jargon to boost their status.

In any case, you should know who’s in the room.

Pencil. Typewriter. Word processor.
Abacus. Sliderule. Calculator. Spreadsheet. Wolfram-Alpha.
Legs. Wheels. Wings.
Leeches. Antibiotics. MRI. Gene Editing.
Swords. Cannons. Tanks. Drones. Cyberwarfare.
Mud hut. Stone castle. Skyscraper. 3D-printed buildings.
Creek. Cistern. Aqueducts. Indoor plumbing.
Town crier. Printing press. Cable TV. Internet. Social media.
Firewood. Coal. Oil. Nuclear. Renewable.
Blanket. Fireplace. HVAC system.
Rock. Chisel. Drill. Laser cutter.
Axe. Saw. Chainsaw. CNC machine.
Bow. Musket. Machine gun. Laser-guided munitions.
Candle. Gaslights. Light bulbs. Smart lighting.
Sun. Sundial. Pendulum. Quartz. Atomic. GPS.
Quill. Fountain. Ballpoint. Keyboard. Voice Recognition.

The human race marches forward through technology. It’s what we do. It’s not gonna stop. You probably still use something from the left side of this list, at least sometimes (OK, maybe not leeches). And most likely, you do it on purpose. It’s not bad. It’s not good. It’s just a choice.

AI is on the right side of this list. Maybe on the right side of every line. We can and should debate how we apply AI.

But make no mistake, we’re marching forward with it. It’s your choice to ignore, embrace, or join the conversation.

Steven Pressfield calls it the Muse. Rick Rubin calls it the Source. Some call it God. 

Their point is that creativity and ideas come from somewhere or someone else. It does not come from the artist. It’s otherworldly. The artist is the listener and the conduit. The typist. 

I, myself, have briefly experienced this otherworldly Source (I call it God, by the way) twice that I can remember vividly. One time, as a teenager, sitting behind my drum kit. Another time, standing at the front of a room talking to a group of people. In both cases, the sounds that came out were special, or at least felt special. 

I didn’t know where it came from, but for sure, it wasn’t me. I felt like a conduit. I felt tuned in. It’s definitely “flow,” but also different than the normal flow state, which is pedestrian by comparison. It’s full-out channeling. I’m hoping it/he/she visits me again. 

The bottom line is maybe we need less “I did this” and more recognition that it is, in fact, not us. Our job is simply to listen. 

If there are five people and four chairs, someone doesn’t get a seat when the music stops.

That’s not up for debate, nor is there an equality of outcome solution, nor is there a way to change the definitions of terminology to redefine the outcome. Someone is out.

Unless you change the rules. But if you do that, you’re no longer playing musical chairs.

Life is complex and nuanced — grey rather than black and white.

In fact, I ponder a lot here about that very fact because I believe that one of our biggest downfalls as a media culture is our inability to see, or at least acknowledge nuance. I believe it’s a lowest common denominator problem. That’s a discussion for another time.

But sometimes, it’s really not that complex. Sometimes, Occam’s Razor (in my house, we call it the “smell test”) leads you right to where you should go, or at least where you want to start. 

If the lawn mower doesn’t start, check if it has gas before disassembling the engine. 

If the light doesn’t turn on, check to see that it’s plugged in before you call the electrician. 

If the dishwasher didn’t run, check that you closed the door securely before buying a new one. 

The easy, simple, or obvious answer isn’t always the right one, but it is always a good place to start. You may have to go further, or you may not. 

The same concept applies to banned books, censorship, evil, war, politics, economics, gender, religion, pandemic response, science, and human relations. 

When you’re the newcomer, you have four options:

• Fit in and embrace
• Fit in and work with the group to change it to something you want it to be
• Don’t fit in and work against the group to change it to something you want it to be
• Leave

Any of those are OK. However, if you choose to not fit in and try to bend the group to what you want, don’t be surprised at the resistance.

Because just as you have the right to try to make it the way you want it, so does everyone else. Especially the ones who set up the rules. Rights go both ways. 

We all know that doping, or the taking of performance-enhancing drugs, in sports is a real thing.

Lance Armstrong famously said that he’d go back to 1995 and make the same decision, even having gone through what he’s gone through. But he also said that if he were racing in 2015, he wouldn’t.

His statement and decision-making have nothing to do with the legality or the morality of using PEDs. It’s strictly about the ability to compete and what those around you are doing. In 1995, everyone in cycling was doping. If you wanted to compete, you had to dope also. It was that simple. But in 2015, cycling had done a good job at eliminating it, so you could train naturally and still compete.

Using ChatGPT or another AI engine has a similar circumstance today.

If you’re running a business, your competition is using it. If you’re a software developer, journalist, accountant, or graphic designer, your colleagues are using it- the ones you compete against for raises, assignments, and accolades.

You might not want to use it or decide for your own reasons that you shouldn’t. That’s perfectly fine. But also, you should know your competition.

The breeze cools.
The air crisp.
Shadows stretch.
Twighlight encroaches.
Brown dominates.
Grey on its heels.
The wind whistles.
The air cuts.
White blankets.
Night expands.
Orion rises.
Silence deepens.
Everything wet.
The sun warms.
The buds whisper.
Light stretches.
Morning awakens.
Green sprouts.
The sun shouts.
The wind dries.
Roads sizzle.
Shadows shrink.
Evening lingers.
Gold reigns.

Someone said to me recently, “ChatGPT isn’t any different than me searching with Google.”

From one standpoint, that’s sorta true. Google has all of the internet. ChatGPT has all of the internet. Using ChatGPT like a search engine is one its use cases.

For example, you can ask Google or ChatGPT to give you the history behind the western Christmas holiday. Each will give you what you ask, but the difference lies in the context and application. Google gives you a bunch of links that you must follow and contextualize yourself, while ChatGPT synthesizes all of the data into a coherent narrative.

Using Google is like looking through the reams of raw data provided with the research paper. Using ChatGPT is like having your graduate assistant look through the data and summarize it for you. Both can be useful in different situations.

Like any other tool. You gotta know what you want.

To build a house, would you rather have a rock or a hammer?
To write a book, would you rather have a typewriter or a word processor?
To travel across the country, would you rather have a bicycle or a car?
To keep your food cold, would you rather have a root cellar or a refrigerator?
To cut your grass, would you rather have a sickle or zero-turn riding mower?

You may have a reason to choose the former rather than the latter. But it isn’t productivity, speed, usefulness, empowerment, or effectiveness.

So it is with AI.

You may have a reason why you wouldn’t choose to use it, but make sure you’re aware of why.

Right here, right now.

You know people stuck in the past. You also know people always trying to get somewhere in the future. It roughly maps to age. The older people you know nostalgically romanticize the past. The younger people you know are likely hell-bent on getting somewhere.

Where are you?

In truth, all we have is the present. This moment right now. This moment is where life happens. This morning. This dinner. This walk. This pain. This joy. This grief. This exuberance. This struggle. This relief.

The past and future are fine places, but don’t let this moment pass. There’s no time like the present.

The problem with this slogan isn’t who it represents.

The problem is that it’s a lie. It’s false.

It presumes that at one time, America was great, and now it is no longer. It presumes that someone, or a group of someones, has ruined it. It presumes that your parents, if they lived in America, had it better than you do now.

Do we have problems? Yes. Are we messy right now? Are people exploited, taken advantage of, and otherwise treated as less than? Indeed. Are some things about today’s life in America weird or worse (in your opinion) than they were in the past? Sure. Do we all get along like one big happy family? No.

But the beauty of today’s America is that you can fight for the America you want. You can be who you want. You can talk about the America you want. Because in this country, especially today, your opinion matters, and with social media, you have a platform to voice it. I’ve not been everywhere in this world, but I’ve been a lot of places, and in most of those places, your opinion doesn’t matter. You don’t have opportunity. Your ambitions are meaningless. Your spiritual views and self-identification feelings don’t matter.

So keep fighting. Keep arguing. Keep thinking and feeling about the America you want to live in. Because in this country, you can.

But don’t ever confuse the greatness of the beautiful mess that is today’s America with something that needs to return to the past.

Are you a Burn the Ships person? Or do you have a Plan B?

Unwavering commitment versus hedging your bets.

Plan A is smoke the Turkey. But currently, the smoker is non-functional. I’m waiting on the part, but will it show on time?

Therefore, I have a Plan B. 

I’ve written about, struggled with, and Lord knows thought about the benefits of “Burn the Ships!” But at the end of the day, I’m too much of a pragmatist.

Maybe being a Plan B person holds me back. Maybe I’ve missed out on something amazing. Maybe Plan B destines one for mediocrity.

But also, Apollo 13 aborted Plan A, Starbucks got into the cafe business, Captain Sulley landed on the Hudson, and Operation Dynamo evacuated over 330000 soldiers to safety from Dunkirk. 

The key is to know when to be a Plan B person. 

Your family, like mine, probably has some Thanksgiving traditions with the food you serve. 

Ever wonder where they come from? Do they have roots in the meal celebrated by the Pilgrims and Wampanoag tribe in 1621? Here’s an assessment of some of the traditional foods and the likelihood that they are rooted in historical tradition. 

Turkey (85%)

Wild turkeys were abundant in North America and a common game bird of the time. However, no actual records exist. Venison was almost certainly served. Some families do celebrate with venison.

Cranberry Sauce (60%)

Native Americans used cranberries for many things such as food, medicine, and dye. Plus, they are harvested in November. Maybe they didn’t serve the sauce we know, but there is a reasonable chance they ate cranberries on that day.

Pumpkin Pie (10%)

While the Pilgrims and Wampanoag probably didn’t eat pumpkin pie at the first Thanksgiving, pumpkins were a part of their diet. The tradition of pumpkin pie likely started in the early 18th century when colonists sliced off the pumpkin top, removed the seeds, and filled the insides with milk, spices, and honey, then baked it in hot ashes.

Bread Stuffing (5%)

While stuffing dates back to a cookbook reference from the 4th century during the Roman Empire, there is very little chance that it made its way into the first Thanksgiving meal. It became a Thanksgiving staple as a filling accompaniment to the turkey.

Mashed Potatoes (0%)

Potatoes didn’t make their way to North America until the early 18th century. Mashed potatoes became popular in the U.S. in the 19th century and probably found their way into Thanksgiving meals probably due to a combination of harvesting time, popularity, and the complementary mild taste to the other bolder Thanksgiving staples. 

Green Bean Casserole (0%)

No chance. The green bean casserole, like the white picket fence and “Don’t mess with Texas!”, was dreamed up by a clever marketing person to sell stuff. It was created in 1955 by the Campbell Soup Company to promote their cream of mushroom soup.

Sweet Potatoes/Yams with Marshmallows (0%)

Same story as the green bean casserole. This dish is a result of the marshmallow producers’ attempt to popularize their product in the early 20th century. The addition of marshmallows to sweet potatoes was suggested in a recipe book by Angelus Marshmallows in the 1910s.

So What Did They Eat?

Based on the above, let’s assume that turkey (other wild fowl), venison, cranberries (and other berries), and pumpkins were part of it. The other stuff was likely to be seafood, corn (probably in a porridge form), beans, nuts, and root vegetables. 

Now you know. 

Do you use the furniture that requires the coaster? If so, are the coasters prominently displayed and easy to reach?

Or do you purposefully have furniture that doesn’t require coasters? Or maybe you’re smart about the location of the pieces that do require coasters and the ones that don’t. Or maybe, screw it. We’re not using coasters on any of the furniture.

Of course, there are no right or wrong answers, but congruency matters.

As humans, we often create internal incongruency by saying or doing one thing but (secretly) wishing for something different.

This ain’t about coasters.

During one stretch of physical therapy during my two and half year ordeal with shoulder replacement, the physical therapist said to me, 

“Make sure you do these exercises three times a day.”

When it comes to PT, I’m the model patient. My goal is to heal, get stronger, or get better and return to what I want to do as fast as possible. In this case, use my f’n right arm like a real boy.

PT said three times a day. I’m doing it three times a day.

It wasn’t working. Still couldn’t raise my arm above my shoulder.

The PT asked about my home exercise routine. 

“I’m doing these exercises you gave me three times a day.”

“OK, when you say three times a day, how often are you really doing them?”

Blink. Blink. Stare.

“Three times a day.”

“Huh. Really?”

“Yes. I don’t understand.”

“Well, three times a day includes the human fudge factor — which is about 3X. Nobody really does the amount of work I ask them to do. I wanted you to do them at least once a day, so I say three times.”

“If I say once a day, it doesn’t sound that important to you. So you’ll do it once every other day or so. Three times a day makes it more important, and you’ll be sure to do them more often.”

Here’s a guy that understands humans and when to apply the human fudge factor. 

What’s your level of engagement in the physical act of living?

Do you make any of your own food? I mean assemble and create meals from single ingredients. Do you go to the grocery store yourself? What about multiple stores or farm markets to procure different things? Do you have a vegetable garden or raise chickens? Do you hunt?

Do you change your own light bulbs? What about paint your walls and trim? If the dishwasher breaks, will you grab a screwdriver? Do you own a ladder tall enough to get you on your roof? What do you do if the toilet needs repair? Have you built any of the shelves in your house? Would you consider gutting and rebuilding the master bathroom yourself? What if you wanted to replace all of the windows?

Do you change the windshield wipers on your car? What if a headlight is burned out or the cabin air filter needs to be replaced? Do you own a set of wrenches? Do you change the oil in yourself? What about the brakes? How about if it needs a new transmission?

Do you cut your own grass? Rake the leaves? Mulch the beds yourself? Do you have a wood-burning fireplace? If so, do you cut or split your own wood? What would you do if you wanted a new patio? How you handle an old tree that needs to come down?

Each of us has their own level of physical engagement in the act of living. There are no right or wrong answers as to the “right” level.

However, if you find yourself feeling blue, stuck, or generally restless, you might want to consider engaging at a deeper level. It’s not for everyone, but it might help you.

Humans have a deep connection between the physical and emotional.