danielrm26

Please link the RFC that differentiates the two. And thank you for your service.

Meanwhile thousands of people are using things like prompts and skills and Cowork to do actual work.

If you think this is theoretical at this point it's because you're not using it to do real stuff.

Agreed that there's some measure of chaotic/creative work that won't fall into this type of category.

But much or most regular enterprise work is very much able to be done by having and regularly updating an SOP and then executing the task according to that SOP.

We suck at it. AI will be far better at it. And we'll sit above it and decide how to tweak the SOP based on taste/preference/expertise, whatever.

But the day-to-day work of handling insurance claims, doing procurement, doing analysis, creating reports, processing inputs according to some standard and producing some output according to another standard...that will largely be done by AI.

This is what makes the new /workflows feature coming to Claude Code so exciting (and frightening) to businesses. Along with Skills and Cowork and such, plus their analogs from other providers, Workflows are literally the making of opaque, alchemy-like work that Chris and Raj and Sarah do...into transparent, optimizable algorithms.

It's super hard to automate this stuff because it's super hard to articulate it. That's kind of the meta-super-power in all of this: the fact that AI is making the opaque and complex into transparent and inspectable.

Been waiting 20 years to hear that.

https://danielmiessler.com

Yes, I could tell. : )

Definitely. We have to find ways to replicate this.

One thing I've noticed is that I've actually learned a lot more code about things I didn't understand before. Just because I built guardrails to make sure that they are built exactly the perfect way that I like them to be built. And then I've watched my AI build it that way dozens of times now. Start to finish. So now I've just seen all the steps so many times that now I understand a lot more than I did before.

This sort of thing is definitely possible, but we have to do it on purpose.

That's why the whole thing has to start with you identifying what you consider core to yourself.

There is no "separation of moving things on the job vs. moving things at the gym" when it comes to creative craft...

- Coming up with names for cities in a role-playing game you're making - Summarizing an idea that you're writing about - Doing research for an article - Brainstorming character names - Creating an aesthetic for a new website for a customer - Etc, etc.

I could go on for days with these examples. And so could any AI.

Pre-2022 ALL these were done 100% by a human.

Now they're not. Now creative people are using AI to help them massively with tons of these. So, yes, the separation needs to happen there as well.

For example, maybe you say, I'll never use AI to help me name characters. Or to come up with plot lines. Or whatever.

That's a Gym vs. Job distinction.

How many senior developers do you need to tell you that they've been vastly surpassed (in coding) by AI before you believe them? The creator of Claude Code just said he's not opened an IDE in a while. He was a principal engineer.

And why would you think this would be the only place that'll happen?

I agree there are things they can still do better than AI, but coding isn't one of them.

You do realize that the entire point of the post is to be cautious of AI, right?

And to make sure that you have your own personal goals separate from it, and that if you're getting help from it you need to make sure it's in line with those goals.

Right?

What about that do you disagree with?

Ah man...that's good.

But maybe both of those are in the category of undesirable things.

And the things we end up with are like art and baking and walking and talking and drinking coffee and such.

Professional Chess is a nice pattern here. A calculator can beat Magnus Carlsen at this point, but Chess is more popular than ever. So it should be ok if AI/Robots are better than us at all the stuff we still decide to do.

I think that comes down to documenting the mindset as a goal and then using all the AI, scaffolding, and tools available to that system to help you nurture that mindset.

OP here, yeah, I think that's a really good point.

I feel like the way I'm building this in is a violent maintenance of two extremes.

On one hand, fully merged with AI and acting like we are one being, having it do tons of work for me.

And then on the other hand is like this analog gym where I'm stripped of all my augmentations and tools and connectivity, and I am being quizzed on how good I could do just by myself.

And based on how well I can do in the NAUG scenario, that's what determines what tweaks need to be made to regular AUG workflows to improve my NAUG performance.

Especially for those core identity things that I really care about. Like critical thinking, creating and countering arguments, identifying my own bias, etc.

I think as the tech gets better and better, we'll eventually have an assistant whose job is to make sure that our un-augmented performance is improving, vs. deteriorating. But until then, we have to find a way to work this into the system ourselves.

Author here.

I like Doctorow a lot, and I always read his stuff.

I think his assessment is pretty good. I think the issue is how he is perceiving it and therefore what he is recommending to do about it.

It all hinges on him thinking AI is basically an autocomplete fad that will blow over and require companies to hire all the people back.

And he's just wrong about that. And because he's wrong about that, the rest of his advice is worse than unhelpful.

Ecosystem features and cohesion.

It's like the entire thing was written just for you.

Hi, I tried to address that in the video version.

I think what pops is the false belief.

.com -> going online will save you AI -> adding a chatbot will save you

To me, those are what qualify as bubbles. And the other stuff is just overheating, disruption, and other effects.

Nice! You should integrate with github.com/danielmiessler/fabric!

Why not both?

I humbly submit my project as a possible solution.

It's open-source on Github.

https://github.com/danielmiessler/fabric

The tagline is Human Augmentation Using AI, but really it's a crowd-sourced library of prompts.

Basically, I solve a problem once, to a satisfactory level, and then I upload it to Fabric so everyone else can do the same.

Over 22K stars just since January 2024.

Pwned.

We’re moving to go.

Its unusefulness is probably why it has nearly 20K stars and keeps hitting the GitHub trending page.

Check the help. It has a GUI.

Creator here:

1. It’s a curated set of problem/solutions more than prompts 2. It abstracts away tons of the work of dealing with the various APIs 3. It’s crowdsourced and constantly improving

1-3 are useful because most people aren’t AI engineers like you, and they shouldn’t have to be to get the benefits of AI.

The possibly good content in this article was ruined by the fact that the author hasn’t seen AI produce anything yet, and completely dismisses AI.

His rant extends to all the big players building AI in a way that just seems anti-AI, with Altman being used because he’s topical.

In other words I can’t trust the source—even if he might have some actual insights—because he’s outed himself as a hater.

Haters hating things isn’t signal.

https://danielmiessler.com

Been writing there since 99, and lots of technical posts on AI lately.

This is insanely great. And it's bringing the future forward where everyone has custom models for their business. Right now it's langchain, but that's really difficult to implement right now.

This is a short-term bridge to the real thing that's coming: https://danielmiessler.com/blog/spqa-ai-architecture-replace...

Here's my take, from January 2017.

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/we-need-mediums-editor-not-m...

Basically, the incentives are misaligned, which will inevitably make it worse for writers as time goes on.