• Cognitive offloading

    Scott Kosman talking about how, as a manager, he uses AI.

    Management work happens in your head with dozens of open loops spinning at once, and suddenly using AI gave me a safe way to unload that noise without judgment or consequence. Some days my brain becomes a bag of cats and I can quickly spin myself in circles with too many scattered thoughts competing for mindshare at the same time. Being able to hammer those down into a prompt window in no particular order and ask “what am I really trying to say here?” has saved me literal hours of effort in a single day.

    I’ve come to think of it as cognitive offloading. By pushing my internal monologue into a medium that reflects it back to me more clearly, I preserve energy for the parts of leadership that actually matter: listening, coaching, connecting.

    This is similar to the approach that I use.

    I am working as a project manager for a project where <insert the project description with client background>. I need to <insert problem statement, it can be vague but needs to include all your thoughts in any order>. I have an idea of using <some framework>. Can you use that as a reference and give me some guidance?

    The above prompt gives a pretty good starting point for me.

    Filed under
  • Kindness

    Warren Buffett’s final shareholder letter emphasising the importance of kindness.

    One perhaps self-serving observation. I’m happy to say I feel better about the second half of my life than the first. My advice: Don’t beat yourself up over past mistakes – learn at least a little from them and move on. It is never too late to improve. Get the right heroes and copy them. You can start with Tom Murphy; he was the best.

    Remember Alfred Nobel, later of Nobel Prize fame, who – reportedly – read his own obituary that was mistakenly printed when his brother died and a newspaper got mixed up. He was horrified at what he read and realized he should change his behavior.

    Don’t count on a newsroom mix-up: Decide what you would like your obituary to say and live the life to deserve it.

    Greatness does not come about through accumulating great amounts of money, great amounts of publicity or great power in government. When you help someone in any of thousands of ways, you help the world. Kindness is costless but also priceless. Whether you are religious or not, it’s hard to beat The Golden Rule as a guide to behavior.

    I write this as one who has been thoughtless countless times and made many mistakes but also became very lucky in learning from some wonderful friends how to behave better (still a long way from perfect, however). Keep in mind that the cleaning lady is as much a human being as the Chairman.

    Filed under
  • Design and implement

    Unmesh Joshi talking about how software engineers discover design during implementation. In my opinion, this is the primary reason using AI in software development is not as straight forward as makers of coding assistants project it to be.

    In most mature engineering disciplines, the process is clear: a few experts design the system, and less specialized workers execute the plan. This separation between design and implementation depends on stable, predictable laws of physics and repeatable patterns of construction. Software doesn’t work like that. There are repetitive parts that can be automated, yes, but the very assumption that design can be completed before implementation doesn’t work. In software, design emerges through implementation. We often need to write code before we can even understand the right design. The feedback from code is our primary guide. Much of this cannot be done in isolation. Software creation involves constant interaction—between developers, product owners, users, and other stakeholders—each bringing their own insights. Our processes must reflect this dynamic. The people writing code aren’t just ‘implementers’; they are central to discovering the right design.

    Filed under
  • Out of distribution humans

    This thought provoking article from Ahmed on the current state of AI’s onslaught on the job market.

    This is where I keep coming back to a phrase that has been rattling around my brain for the past month: out of distribution humans.

    Most work lives in the fat middle of a bell curve. Tasks repeat with small variations. Most graduate schemes are built around that fact. You take reasonably bright people, give them a handbook and a mentor, and let them climb a well mapped gradient. Shared service centres, call centres, warehouses, junior consulting rotations, entry level software roles, even a lot of legal and accounting work, all sit in that comfortable hunk of the curve where yesterday’s data is a very good guide to tomorrow’s tasks.

    Models feast on that part of the curve. That is what they are trained on: logs, emails, historical cases, recordings of someone else doing the job, code repositories, scanned documents. If your work looks a lot like a large pile of past episodes, it is a short hop from playing them back to imitating them. The central question for future labour markets is not whether you are clever or diligent in some absolute sense. It is whether what you do is ordinary enough for a model to learn or strange enough to fall through the gaps.

    An out of distribution human, in my head, is someone whose job sits far enough in the tail of that curve that it does not currently compress into training data. Maybe they work with genuinely novel problems. Maybe they operate at small scales or in messy physical situations where we do not yet have enough sensors. Maybe they have taste that is not easily reduced to click logs. They are not safe; nothing is. They are simply late on the automation curve. The system needs them until it can watch them for long enough and in enough detail that it can flatten what they do into data.

    This reminds me of Zara Zhang’s observation.

    Filed under
  • Entry level jobs

    Zara Zhang sharing her thoughts on entry level jobs.

    A Harvard student told me something I can’t stop thinking about. When they go to the library, every single screen has ChatGPT open. Homework that used to take hours now takes minutes.

    But then they talk to alums who say entry-level roles are basically gone. The jobs they planned their entire college trajectory around don’t exist anymore.

    AI made homework easier but made proving you deserve a job exponentially harder.

    Scary.

    Filed under
  • Swiss cheese

    Swiss cheese always had holes in it. The holes from which Jerry would emerge. But some time back Swiss cheese started losing holes. This video by Tim Scott explains why and how they managed to get it back.

    The bacteria that are responsible for making these holes produce propionate, acetate and carbon dioxide, and this carbon dioxide is produced in the cheese and aggregates all around impurities. The more the bacterium produces this carbon dioxide, it accumulates and builds these holes. These impurities capture the carbon dioxide, and then a bubble forms and grows.

    They found that the milk was too clean, so we didn’t have any dust in it, and this was because we had closed milking systems, so the dust could not get into the milk. Everything improved the last decade, so the milking process is hermetically closed now. And then, in former times, in the barn, you had always this hay dust everywhere, and it came also into the milk. We tried different particles to put into the milk to see if the holes are growing again. Hay powder is the best one, and we really could see that the whole formation was dependent on the concentration of the hay powder.

    Somehow this reminds me of a dialogue from Tron: Legacy.

    The thing about perfection is that it is unknowable, it’s impossible, but its also right in front of us, all the time

    Filed under
  • Minimise collaboration between teams

    Jade Rubick explaining why we should strive to maximise collaboration within teams and minimise collaboration between teams.

    To the maximum extent possible, teams should have what they need to succeed within the borders of their team. And where that is not true, you need some structure to ensure the team can get what it needs in a way that will scale with the organization’s growth.

    As companies grow, communication and dependencies proliferate. Companies start out with many-to-many communication. As they grow, the communication patterns within the company must necessarily switch to being segmented and defined. Otherwise, the communication burden on teams will grow at an exponential rate, and the increasing complexity will degrade the effectiveness of the company.

    Filed under
  • Pilots, probes and experiments

    Andi Roberts explaining the difference between pilots, probes and experiments. He then goes on share guidance on how to manage each of them.

    Pilots: A pilot is a small, time-bound test to determine whether a product, process, or service can work in practice. It is used when an idea appears promising but remains unproven.

    Think of a bank that tries a new mobile feature in one city before a national launch. The trial exposes what could not be seen on paper: user confusion, system issues, or compliance gaps. The value of a pilot lies in its realism. It bridges the space between concept and operation, letting leaders see what truly happens when an idea meets the world. From this, they can refine and strengthen the design before committing at scale.

    Probes: A probe begins with curiosity, not certainty. Drawn from complexity thinking, probes are small, safe-to-fail actions that explore what might work when the path ahead is unclear.

    A city struggling with congestion might try three different approaches: a cycling subsidy, staggered work hours in one district, and AI-driven traffic lights. None is guaranteed to succeed, and that is the point. Each test offers a glimpse of how the system responds. The power of a probe is its capacity to uncover patterns that analysis alone cannot reveal.

    Experiments: An experiment is a structured test designed around a hypothesis. It is used when a leader wants clear evidence about cause and effect.

    An online retailer, for example, may compare two website layouts to see which converts more visitors into buyers. Experiments are precise, controlled, and measurable. They do not explore the unknown in the same way that probes do, but they provide reliable evidence where outcomes can be quantified. Their strength lies in giving leaders grounded answers to specific questions.

    Filed under
  • Choosing a programming language

    Steve Francia talking about why engineers can’t be rational about choosing a programming language. He ends his post by highlighting that choosing a programming language should be reframed to an economic debate. What is programming language going to cost us?

    Instead of asking “which language is best?” we need to ask “what is this language going to cost us?” Not just in salaries, but in velocity, in technical debt, in hiring difficulty, in operational complexity, in every dimension that actually determines whether you survive.

    Reframe it from a technical debate to an economic one. And unlike identity, economics can be measured, compared, and decided without anyone’s ego being threatened.

    Choosing a programming language is the single most expensive economic decision your company will make. It will define your culture, constrain your budget, determine your hiring pipeline, set your operational costs, and ultimately dictate whether you can move fast enough to win your market.

    Filed under
  • To farm the sea, we strip the sea

    John Steele highlighting the irony of how farming sea food strips the sea itself.

    In the cold waters of the Pacific, the anchoveta once shimmered in swarms so vast that sailors described them as turning the sea into a river of quicksilver. They were small, unassuming fish, yet the abundance of the ocean rested upon their delicate bones. Seabirds wheeled overhead in their millions, sea lions and whales dove into their depths, and predatory fish rose through the blue to feed on them. In those shoals lived the vitality of the sea itself. But in our age, the anchoveta, along with sardines and menhaden, have been transformed from living threads in an ancient web into bags of meal and casks of oil. Ninety percent of the forage fish caught by human hands are not eaten by us but ground down to feed salmon being raised in the cold fjords of Norway and shrimp and fish in the tropical ponds of Southeast Asia.

    It is one of the great ironies of our time. To farm the sea, we strip the sea. We take from the ocean’s foundation to build its surface anew, and in the process we imperil both.

    But all is not lost. There are some innovative solutions in the horizon.

    Filed under