I think being a parent taught me what love is. Thank God.

Before my kids, I was a wound-up ball of rubber bands

For most of my life everything was survival. Take care of yourself. Fulfill some sort of destiny that was really just ego with good posture. Personal fortitude. A ball of rubber bands, wound tighter and tighter, looking for its achievements, counting its money, registering its failures.

There isn't any love coming out of a thing like that. It's just responding to its environment, bouncing around, all wound up. I'm sure the capacity was in there somewhere. It just had no way out.

It didn't even start as love

There is something a little magical about looking down at a fleshy wad and feeling an independent heartbeat, this tissue made out of your own.

A lot of it is placebo, honestly. It's an experience the mind creates, a bonding ritual you talk yourself into. But the placebo is the door. The benefit is that you get to walk through it into an extremely crushing process of learning. It starts with all the glowing emotions, the thing you hold and wave around, the running story that you're doing the right things.

Caregiving snaps the bands off, one at a time

Feeding. Driving. Listening. (Good Lord, I wish I were better at that one.) Cleaning. Stupid little surprises. Things that start as an act of duty to someone other than yourself.

And those acts of duty do something the glowing feelings never could. Band after band, they snap right off your stupid little ball. They leave you open to the world. Tender, undefended, available. That is the transformation, and it does not feel like a gift while it's happening. It feels like sacrifice.

It was never the feeling

It's not the feeling. I had that backwards for most of my life. The feeling is your careful, thinking brain handing you a story so you'll keep showing up.

You convince yourself that this beautiful child is a painful, unending sacrifice you make seeking your own glory and affirmation. You half believe it. And that conviction is exactly what keeps you feeding and driving and cleaning long enough for the bands to keep snapping. I wouldn't have put myself through that much pain, discomfort, and sleeplessness if I hadn't been convinced, at times, that there was an absolute duty in it, and some glory waiting at the end.

There wasn't glory. There was the work itself, doing the work on me.

You can't find love until you lose yourself first

No one tells you that. You go looking for love in attraction and fulfillment, and you call that the thing. It isn't. That stuff is real, but it's not love.

Real love comes in late, almost like a self-love you finally earned, and it isn't until it's over, for late bloomers like me, that you understand what you were doing the whole time. Twenty-plus years. Brutal, agonizing, confusing, frustrating. The work of keeping a couple of small humans alive long enough to become young men.

Real love is thermodynamically impossible

People love to say kindness is magic. It's a nice idea, but kindness is thermodynamically possible. So is generosity. So is compassion. They cost a little and they pay you back, in status, in safety, in the warm feeling of being good. All of it already exists in the animal kingdom. None of it is rare.

What's rare, what might be uniquely ours (a few animals may get there too), is mercy and forgiveness. Those run against self-interest with nothing on the books to recover. You don't come out ahead. Those are the true tenets of love.

Because real love is a void of self. You empty yourself out so completely that there's no one left standing there to come collecting for it.

I do not see mercy in the stars. In the cosmos I see thermodynamics, raw physics, the crashing and undulating of it all. Even here on this moss covered marble, only a few animals ever act in a way that looks like it stands outside nature, and even that is shot through with self interest. But mercy and forgiveness, done with a true sacrifice of self, done in pure love, become a force nature has never known. That's the impossible part. You're pouring yourself into someone with no expectation of return, running the wrong way down the hill on purpose.

All of it runs on attention

I know I'm starting to talk about AI a little here, but this is where my whole tech leaning comes from. From the day you're born, the world is competing to hook your attention. The people who learn early how to hook everyone else's attention often fail themselves the most, because they never turned that gaze inward.

Love is just attention you refuse to sell. It's hard to capture the attention of someone whose attention can't be cheaply caught. And honestly, if something hooks mine that easily, that's not me.

This might be the whole point of us. Love could be our purpose, the one thing we carry into the universe that the universe didn't already have. I believe love can reverse the tides. I believe it can open the galaxies for us.

Thank God for my children. They snapped me open.

I've said we're entering the era of the songwriter more than the banjo player. Here's the part I skipped: someone still has to pick up the banjo and actually play it. That person is about to become the most valuable one in the room.

Ideas only reign when they generalize

A while back a friend kept pitching me an app. Every time we met up, he'd describe it a little differently. So I called his bluff and told him to spec it out. Build me this, it does this, it does that.

He couldn't. Not because he wasn't smart. Because every example he gave me was a one-off. Overly nuanced, deeply personal, true for exactly one situation and no others. That's not an idea. That's an anecdote wearing an idea's coat.

Ideas reign now, sure. But only the ones that generalize. A thought that works in one corner of one life doesn't translate into a design, a product, or a song anyone else can use. The market for the truly universal just got enormous. The market for the one-off got crushed.

You can simulate the banjo. You can't simulate the playing.

Simulation is about to be infinite and nearly free. You can generate the sound of a banjo all day, in any style, for almost nothing.

But there is a floor under all of it. At some point somebody has to actually play. Somebody has to walk into the pub, sit down, and make it real for the people in the room. You can fake the recording. You can't fake the night.

That floor is where the value is going to pool.

Fewer will survive on skill alone, and the ones who do will be remarkable

I don't think this is doom for skilled people. I think it's a filter. Fewer of them make it through on raw skill. The ones who do will be incredible at the craft and tightly connected to other creators and other ideas. That network is half the asset.

And watch how often the edge comes from the weak spot. The kid who can't talk to girls grows tall practicing alone and turns into an all-star. Our disadvantages keep routing themselves into our opportunities. The thing that pushed you to the side of the room is frequently the thing that made you good.

Reality is becoming a luxury good

Here is the turn nobody is pricing in yet. When the simulated version is everywhere and costs nothing, the real version becomes the premium. Live beats the recording. Handmade beats the print. The willingness to make something real, in a room, with your name on it, stops being ordinary labor and starts being a luxury good.

The smart move for any community is the same move it always was: keep your banjo player fed. Make it possible for the person who makes it real to keep doing it, because once they stop, the simulation has nothing left to imitate.

Ireland already did the math

This isn't theory. Ireland runs a Basic Income for the Arts that pays selected artists 325 euro a week. It started as a pilot in 2022, and in Budget 2026 the government made it permanent, running 2026 through 2029.

Read that as a policy if you want. I read it as a country quietly deciding that the people who make things real are worth keeping around. They did the math the rest of us are about to face.

Simulate all the banjos you want. Eventually you're going to want to hear one. Pay the player.

I've been talking a lot about how the dark forest is coming, and AI is definitely ushering that in. Teams that are vulnerable on the internet right now are suffering in the AI era.

Vibe coding has different flavors

I was building an application for my own personal use. Totally vibe coding. I'll admit it.

But those of us in the vibe coding community have vastly different experiences depending on what level of coder you were. One's ability to go into deep settings and create nested fractal monsters is not for the faint of heart.

Me? I built my own.

When your app feels too personal for the cloud

As it came to fruition, I started thinking, I want this available anywhere I go.

I'm a homebody and a high-performance remote worker. My app is very personal — it involves journaling and personal life. Not credit cards, but treasures nonetheless.

The self-hosting epiphany

If I want some of my agentic application exposed to the internet, I'll have to compartmentalize and install certain parts in the cloud. But I've got heavy localized processes, and I enjoy not paying for cloud compute.

And I just thought, what am I even thinking?

All I want is access for me. I'm on fiber, and the internet's a totally different thing with 5G mobile.

Why don't we go back in time to go forward in time? What if I just host it myself?

Tools like Tailscale make this possible

Tools like Tailscale make it so I can create a VPN and host locally. My machines are underutilized at home. And the cloud is — if I do my backup solutions right — this could be a new era.

The dark forest requires trusted networks

I was even thinking about adding paid customers to my VPN to see if they enjoy the app.

I really think this dark forest era is coming quickly. I really think publishing all your information is quickly coming to an end.

The trust economy

A colleague years ago said we're entering the trust economy. That's 100% true with AI.

We want to work with people we trust. And by God, if it takes creating VPNs and closing ourselves off, maybe we will.

Going inward

When I expose my life and value to the world these days, I feel like I'm just a target. It makes me want to go inward and work with people I trust.

The invitation

If you have any interest in high levels of at-home productivity using agentic apps, being home-built by a 25-year technologist, hit me up.

I have more than one engineered for my own needs. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? All these gadgets are extensions of my life at this point, but I'm starting to get ready to share.

When I look at a JSON file and a SQLite database, I don't see elegant data structures or relational models. I see pain.

That's the lens of an autodidact — someone who learns by doing, by screwing up, by spending three hours debugging something that someone with a CS degree would've solved in fifteen minutes. And honestly? I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing.

There's this weird tension between self-taught people and academics. Academics have beautiful mental scaffolds — design patterns, semantic organization, theoretical frameworks. Self-taught folks have scars. We can't always explain why something works, but we know from painful experience that it does.

But here's the thing: you also can't just wing it forever.

I'm the type who throws the manual in the garbage and then begrudgingly fishes it out later when I realize I'm not as smart as I thought. My brain isn't cluttered with instructions for things I could intuitively navigate. But for the stuff I couldn't? I know exactly what I do and don't understand. That knowledge came through pain.

The problem is efficiency. When you're purely experiential, you're constantly reinventing the wheel. You're solving the same problems over and over because you don't have the pattern recognition that comes from understanding the underlying theory.

That's where the academic lattice becomes valuable — not as a replacement for experience, but as a way to scale it. Once you've built something and broken it and fixed it, then you go back and learn the formal structure. You give your experiential knowledge a scaffold.

I've always been an experience-first, backfill-with-academic-rigor-later kind of person. You need the pain to really understand something. You need to be the person who stayed up until 3am trying to fix a broken database migration to truly appreciate why normalization matters.

But you can't stop there. The self-taught developer who refuses to learn design patterns will plateau. The PM who won't read about product theory will keep making the same mistakes. The engineer who dismisses CS fundamentals will eventually hit a ceiling.

The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. Get in there autodidactically. Make the mistakes. Build the intuition. Then go find yourself some rigor. Learn the academic frameworks that explain what you've already discovered through trial and error.

Because here's the truth: academics without experience are just waiting to go through their weirdly painful professional life. But autodidacts without academic frameworks are doomed to relearn the same lessons forever, one painful experience at a time.

The chicken and the egg aren't enemies. They're partners.

As an AI engineer, I get asked about the future of work constantly. Here's my answer: it's unprecedented times for creative people. It just depends on what type of creative you are.

It's the era for the songwriter, not the banjo player

I don't necessarily believe that highly skilled individuals will feel the squeeze in the impending round of AI displacement. I've coined a metaphor for my friends: we're entering the era of the songwriter more than the banjo player. Not to say I don't appreciate a great banjo player or any skill. It's just that the internet age was the skills age. Everyone got to throw themselves out there and be a show-off of whatever variety they wanted.

AI democratizes skill, empowers ideas

In the AI era, all that skill is being condensed down into generalized skill-like outputs. This brings unprecedented capabilities to idea people and creatives in the space of prolific what-ifs. Researchers now have unprecedented space to move forward, because instead of hiring a team of data synthesis analysts and technicians, they can buy a few gadgets, go out into the field, and make history.

The terribleness and the beauty

I know there's a lot of terribleness that comes with AI. Just like with the internet, we'll implement things we regret, have a hard time backtracking, and possibly spoil our lunch. But if we can keep the good things about machine learning and effort offload where it doesn't cause massive displacement and isn't born of stealing other people's work, there are some fundamentally beautiful things happening.

Brilliance left on the sidewalk

These tools can empower artists and thinkers who left so much of their brilliance on the sidewalk behind them, unless they were avid journalists or prolific note keepers. Even the best of those can easily die in a pile of papers in a family wondering what to do with it all. These topics are top of mind for me because I'm inventing something to solve this very issue: so many ideas, so little time, yet knowing that at least a few have value.

For the creative powerhouses

If you're a creative powerhouse with a prolific nature, you'll always enjoy collaborating with humans more than anything. But for your own work time, for your own lonely walks, for your humming strolls while you conjure from the ether, there's hope. Tools are coming for all that chaos and noise and lightning strike and camera reel that flows through your mind too quick to capture.

All I would say is: try to own your own data.

Exploring humanity's transition from primal instincts to a collaborative future, emphasizing the shift from scarcity to abundance.

The crossroads of evolution: from instinct to intellect

Humanity stands at a pivotal juncture, straddling two evolutionary arcs. On one side, we grapple with the remnants of our primal instincts — behaviors rooted in survival, dominance, and competition. On the other, we glimpse a future defined by collaboration, sustainability, and shared prosperity.

Our ancestral behaviors, once essential for survival, now manifest as societal challenges: violence, greed, and inequality. These are not mere cultural anomalies but echoes of our evolutionary past. Recognizing and addressing these ingrained patterns is crucial for our progression. Let me say it again for those in the back, CRUCIAL.

Scarcity's end: embracing the age of abundance

The post-war industrial era ushered in unprecedented technological advancements, laying the groundwork for an age of abundance. Yet, our collective mindset remains anchored in scarcity. We hoard resources, compete relentlessly, and operate under the illusion that more for one means less for another.

This scarcity mentality hampers our ability to fully embrace the potential of our innovations. It's time to shift our perspective, recognizing that collaboration and shared growth WILL lead to greater collective prosperity.

Beyond the animal: humanity's next leap

Our evolutionary journey has equipped us with gobs of cognitive biases. Yet, we often find ourselves ensnared by our base instincts. To truly evolve, we must transcend these primal urges, fostering empathy, understanding, and cooperation. But how?

This transformation can be about denying our nature and integrating it with our destined future. By acknowledging our instincts and choosing a path of collective growth, we pave the way for a more harmonious existence. Will we be able to overcome our animal inside us? Who knows.

From survival to synergy: the human odyssey

Historically, survival necessitated competition. But in our interconnected world, synergy offers a more sustainable path. By pooling resources, knowledge, and efforts, we can address global challenges more effectively.

This shift requires a reevaluation of our values, moving from individualistic pursuits to communal well-being. It's a call to action for societies to foster environments where collaboration is not just encouraged but celebrated.

The final frontier: conquering our primal past

As we stand on the cusp of monumental advancements — and I am not talking about the cure for cancer; once AGI hits it's going to feel like the cure for everything, from cleaning the ocean to space exploration — our greatest challenge will remain internal. To harness these innovations for each other, truly, we must first address the vestiges of our primal past.

By cultivating awareness, promoting education, and fostering empathy, we can overcome the limitations imposed by our evolutionary baggage. In doing so, we not only ensure our survival but also our flourishing in the cosmos.

Inspired by the insights of Robert Wright's Nonzero and Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, this reflection underscores the imperative for humanity to evolve beyond its primal instincts, embracing a future defined by collaboration and abundance.

The language race: a structural shift

In contemporary computing, three programming languages dominate the landscape: JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python. JavaScript, once a scripting utility for browsers, has grown through inertia and ubiquity. TypeScript emerged to correct JavaScript's structural instability, providing type safety and maintainability. Python, meanwhile, has followed a slower but more foundational trajectory, spanning automation, education, artificial intelligence, data science, and systems administration.

Unlike its competitors, Python's growth has not depended on monopolistic lock-in or platform ubiquity. Its strength lies in semantic alignment with human cognition. It allows people to think in code without first reshaping how they think. It's very cognitively ergonomic.

Naming as cultural code

It's easy to overlook the name. Python seems strong, sleek, maybe even predatory. But the reality is stranger: it is not named after a snake, but after Monty Python's Flying Circus. Guido van Rossum chose the name while reading their scripts during development. The intent was not menace, but mild irreverence.

And yet, this whimsical naming choice now defines the most human-readable, globally adopted programming language on Earth. It is no longer clear whether the joke is still running or if the language itself is the joke.

Structure in a funny hat

Python's syntax prioritizes clarity. Its elegance arises not from complexity, but from its absence. It looks like thought. It feels like instruction. This is not accidental. It was engineered to resemble what humans might naturally say to a machine if they expected the machine to understand.

It is structure in a funny hat. A formal language with a funny red nose. I don't know why you'd want to wear one of those costume things, but there it is — clean indentation, universal whitespace rules, and the gentle encouragement to keep your logic inside your own body.

The limits of accessibility

The same qualities that make Python so profoundly usable also make it finite. Artificial intelligence systems do not require syntax optimized for human readability. They do not care for mnemonic variable names, conceptual elegance, or minimal boilerplate. These are accommodations made for us — for our meat, our time, our confusion.

As AI models increasingly write, refactor, and even invent code for themselves, the necessity of human-readable languages will diminish. Eventually, we'll be left trying to communicate with systems whose interfaces still resemble ours, but whose internal reasoning has moved elsewhere. We will keep tapping the cage, but it will be a dead parrot.

Post-linguistic systems

Future computer languages will be dense, dynamic, recursive, and self-repairing. We will not be invited to write them. Instead, we'll be given abstractions — interfaces, translators, pipelines — that let us feel like we're still coding. But what we're doing is closer to humming a tune to a self-playing piano. The notes are no longer ours entirely.

We'll continue insisting that we are programming, long after the outputs have stopped being written for our eyes. And when we question the strange responses from the interpreter, a voice will eventually reply: bedpan, that's clever.

The last human language

Python may be the final bridge between cognition and computation. It lets people shape abstract systems without pretense. Its syntax whispers just enough restraint to keep code from collapsing into chaos, but never shouts over the author. It is a rare, accidental artifact of the human era.

And while we didn't expect it to rise this far, perhaps that was inevitable. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

There may still be languages after Python. But they won't be designed for us. Not in the way this one was. We'll say good night, ring the bell, and step quietly out of the room while the next paradigm starts generating itself.

Good niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Frustration with AI might be a sign of brilliance. LLMs echo the past — your job is to invent the future.

Your favorite robot doesn't get you — good

There's this magic moment that happens when you're banging your head against GPT and it's just… not getting it. Feels like failure, right? That creeping doubt that maybe you're not explaining yourself well enough, or worse, maybe you're just not making any damn sense.

But hold on. That might actually be the best news you've had all day.

Just a giant next-word predictor

Let's zoom out for a second. LLMs, these "smart" models we're all cozying up with, they're not little people in your computer. They're statistical beasts. Pattern-matchers. Math-fueled parrots. They've digested more human language than any monk in any mountain has ever dreamed of.

And what do they do with all that info? Predict the next word. That's it. You type "The cat in the…" and they go, "Oh hell yeah, 'hat' — slam dunk." Because they've seen it a thousand times before. They don't understand cats or hats. They just know what usually comes next.

The past, the past, the past

These models are experts on what has been said. Not what will be said.

They're great at answering questions because so many of our questions have already been asked, a million times, by a million mouths. So the LLM doesn't think. It just finishes your sentence based on what's statistically likely. It's just closing your open parentheses with a soft little tap of consensus.

When it fails, maybe you're not

So what happens when it doesn't finish your sentence? When you throw it a question and it fumbles, starts talking nonsense, gets cagey, or spits back a shallow answer?

That might mean you're not echoing the crowd. That might mean you're not just one more parrot in the f*cking cage.

That might mean you're onto something.

Middle-out math and the edge of genius

LLMs work from the middle out. They're trained on the average of everything. The meat of the curve. And if you're playing in that space — if your ideas are well-tread territory — they'll meet you there, and they'll talk fluent nonsense back at you.

But if you're drifting toward the margins, toward the outer edges of thought? They get quiet. Confused. They stall... and repeat themselves.

That doesn't mean you're wrong.

It might mean you're early.

AI is the rearview mirror — you're the headlights

These machines are historical engines. They are compasses that only ever point backward. (For now.) They can regurgitate everything humanity has ever muttered — but they can't tell you what hasn't been said yet.

That's still on us.

The novel thought. The blind leap. The next impossible sentence. That belongs to the mad ones, the poets, the freaks and futurists.

So if the machine doesn't get you?

Keep going.

AI reveals a hidden truth: repetition shapes reality. What you repeat, you become. Change the loop, change yourself.

The AI mirror

AI is a fascinating spectacle. We marvel at its backflips and somersaults, the way it spits out poetry, code, and half-baked existential musings. But what if AI isn't really teaching us about machines? What if it's showing us something deeper — something about ourselves?

Repetition is everything

The secret to AI is simple. You feed it data, again and again, until the most repeated pattern wins. Truth? Irrelevant. It's all about what gets reinforced. We assume the dataset is accurate, but in reality, it's just a product of persistence. Sound familiar? It should — because human memory, human identity, works pretty much the same way.

Think about it: if you tell yourself a story enough times, it stops being a story and becomes reality. The red sweater from that one childhood memory? If you keep telling the tale with a green sweater instead, eventually, the red fades away. The brain rewires. The past bends. And just like that, fact becomes fiction, or maybe fiction becomes fact. Hopefully your green sweater wasn't your charisma or confidence in the face of a bully or misguided parent, teacher, or other repeated influence.

Marketing knew before you did

Advertisers have understood this for decades. I learned it firsthand working at agencies like Olson & Company, Fallon, Space 150, and Carmichael Lynch. Marketing is about showing up where the people are. Advertising? That's pure psychology. Get a song stuck in someone's head, play a sound when a computer boots up, frustrate them just enough to make them remember you — that's the game. Free space in your mind.

Schools have also been doing it forever. I remember being a kid, visiting the U.S. from Mexico, and watching in awe as kids robotically recited the Pledge of Allegiance. No statue of Mary, no prayer, just a flag. Different altar, same ritual. Whether it's religion, nationalism, or branding — it's all about what gets repeated.

Be careful what you program yourself with

In the '90s, parents lost their minds over music. They thought Nirvana and R.E.M. would poison us. In a misguided way, they were right — music rewires you. But that's exactly why I loved it. It felt like a choice, a way to shape my mind in a direction that actually meant something to ME for once.

And that's the trick, isn't it? You don't really get to choose whether repetition will shape you. It just does. The only choice is what you repeat. If you play a song a hundred times, if you rewatch the same movie, if you obsessively read the same book — it's training. Your mind doesn't know the difference between mantra and memory. It all gets absorbed. You become it.

Rewriting yourself

Even Al Franken's old SNL character doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore. Because the truth is, whether what you repeat is accurate or not, it becomes your reality. Your habits, your mantras, your rituals — they sculpt you.

I've started seeing myself as nothing more than a collection of habits. When I change them, I change. A new set of repetitions creates a new version of me, and that's both thrilling and terrifying. If we are this malleable, what could we become if we truly embraced that? AI isn't just a tool; it's a mirror. And if you don't like what you see, maybe it's time to rewrite the script.

AI companies have hit peak data and are now targeting expert knowledge. Creators and professionals must rethink how they share.

Peak data has arrived — now what?

We've hit peak data. AI companies have scraped every publicly available scrap of information — websites, social media, research papers, forums. If it was out there, it's now inside a model. That was phase one. Now, they're looking for what's behind closed doors. In order to move from feeling like the models are spitting out fancy "duh," they'll need volumes of articulated professional design thinking.

The hunt for expert knowledge

The new frontier isn't just more data — it's better data. Specifically, reasoning data. The kind of insight that doesn't exist in raw numbers or public text but in the minds of professionals who know what they're talking about. AI companies are desperate for it, but there's a catch: real expertise isn't cheap. You can't pay bottom-dollar for high-level thinking, and the A.I. bubble is already financially fragile.

So who's getting fleeced first? You may already know.

Influencers as the unwitting AI workforce

Professional influencers — the ones sharing the most, their process, their unique way of thinking — are the new data mines. Every time they share, they're feeding the machine. No, the algorithm doesn't care about your unboxing video, but if you're breaking down complex concepts, solving problems, or innovating in your field, congratulations. You're the next training set.

Thinking your videos are safe? Guess again. They are transcribing every word in your videos and analyzing every frame for relevant data.

I don't share much. I'm not an influencer. Nobody's scraping my offhand comments. But this blog? My writing? If it's public, it's fair game. That's why I keep certain things private. If you want that knowledge, you'll have to know me, work with me, or collaborate. I love sharing. I believe in the open exchange of ideas. What I don't believe in is Silicon Valley getting first dibs to sell our skills and possibly never cut us in on it.

Watermarking the future

I plan to fight back in my own way. I'll be salting my work with subtle, trackable markers, and I'm building a bot to check future AI models for my fingerprints. If I ever catch my words in a model's response, they're getting a letter from me. But what will that do? Likely nothing.

But let's be real — this is a cat-and-mouse game now. Creators, artisans, professionals, and practitioners will be playing defense for years. AI companies are in such a frenzied race to build the best model that they haven't stopped to figure out how to pay or credit the people making it possible. It's going to be a mess. As these models start to challenge the very existence of those who shared their data, you can bet there will be an uprising.

The future of expertise is paywalled

At best, another middleman will rise up, offering to help us reclaim our stolen work — for a cut, of course. There's no win anymore. In the early days of the internet, sharing was the point. Musicians didn't care if their songs were getting passed around as long as people were listening. Now? Because of Silicon Valley platforms, musicians can not make a living off their music alone. They have to sell an entire persona just to scrape by.

It's depressing. And it makes me rethink everything. If you have professional-grade insights, maybe hold your cards close for the next few years. See how this shakes out. A few years ago, I NEVER would have said that. I'm an open-source-minded person. I believe in the power of shared knowledge.

But when the most powerful people in the world start pointing the most advanced technology back at the labor force? Maybe it's time to be a little more careful.

I don't have the answers. I just know this: the game has changed.

Universities are cracking down on AI use, but their fear exposes a bigger problem: education's obsession with memorization over real learning.

AI witch hunt at the U of M

Why universities are fighting a losing battle.

Cheating or just learning differently?

The University of Minnesota has accused a PhD student of academic dishonesty, supposedly for using AI — likely something like ChatGPT. But their method of catching him? They fed the same questions into GPT, compared the results side by side, and found similar phrasing, headings, and sentence structures. As if two people engaging with the same subject wouldn't arrive at similar conclusions. That's like accusing a historian of plagiarism because they use the same terminology as their source material.

And even if the student did use AI as a reference — so what? If he cross-referenced ideas, pulled phrasing, or even transposed text manually from one screen to another, why does it matter? The obsession with purity in academia is outdated, and this kind of pearl-clutching over AI is just another example of institutions clinging to an old way of thinking.

Memorization: the false god of education

Education, especially higher education, has long been fixated on memorization. If you struggle with rote recall, you're labeled a bad student. Or shuffled around by "special handlers." But why? In an age when information is everywhere, the real skill isn't memorization — it's knowing what questions to ask and where to look for answers.

A doctor consulting a reference book isn't cheating. A scientist double-checking formulas in a database isn't a fraud. The smartest professionals aren't walking encyclopedias — they're just good at navigating knowledge. So why are we still acting like regurgitating facts is the gold standard for intelligence?

Learning differences and the silent intelligence we ignore

For a lot of people, memorization isn't just hard — it's a full-on roadblock. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent. It just means the system wasn't built for them.

There are deep thinkers and sharp minds who've been trained since childhood to stay quiet because they don't learn the way school demands. Despite talk of inclusivity, the model still pushes students who learn differently to the sidelines — labeling them, separating them, and making them feel like outsiders. The pushback is exhausting, but the neurodivergent kids who got sidelined have a lot to offer. We should make room for them.

Universities are just another business

Let's not kid ourselves — universities aren't moral institutions. They rake in money from tuition, grants, alumni, and corporate partnerships. Even scholarships, which they parade around as generosity, are just strategic investments to boost their bottom line. So when they suddenly decide to come down on a student for "cheating" with AI, it's not about integrity. It's about control.

AI is competition. Universities don't want students to realize they can learn faster, cheaper, and maybe even better outside their overpriced, bureaucratic system. That's the real fear. And rather than adapting, they're lashing out, punishing students for engaging with a tool that will redefine how we learn.

AI isn't the problem — their fear of it is

Academia serves an important purpose. It provides structure, accreditation, and rigor that AI can't replace. Yet. But when it comes to how people actually learn and produce useful knowledge, universities are getting left behind. We can't reduce education to a question of who memorized what or whether a student used an "unauthorized" tool. That's not learning — that's gatekeeping.

What happened at the University of Minnesota isn't about academic honesty. It's about a system that feels threatened. AI isn't undermining education — education is undermining itself by refusing to evolve.

Full disclosure: until I choose a platform to do this disclosure, I used (and often use) a personalized custom-prompted AI to spellcheck, grammar correct, and reduce redundancy from my original audio essays. I have felt unlocked as a writer since being able to use these tools and I very much believe this to be my own words left intact as much as the AI could bear to let you suffer. Let's be honest, we both know I cuss a hell of a lot more than this in person.

The agentic revolution is here

There's a new buzzword heading straight for your ears: agents. As AI barrels into its next evolution, agents are the harbingers of Wave Two. Unlike their predecessors — static, one-shot models that deliver outputs in isolated bursts — agents loop, iterate, and refine. They are recursive systems orchestrating logic in real-time, chaining together tasks across multiple AI models until perfection is achieved.

It's not just ChatGPT or Grok responding to a single query anymore; it's cycles of intelligence working in tandem, turning business logic into agentic workflows. One model analyzes a vision system, another translates it into actionable data, while yet another refines and completes the cycle. It's fast, scalable, and unrelenting — and it's here to replace human labor like never before.

Agents everywhere

In the next year, you'll hear the word "agent" as often as you hear "AI." I'm building a website right now that doesn't even have one traditional HTML page. Agents dynamically construct pages on the fly, tailoring each visit to the user's experience. No predefined structure, no static navigation — just real-time decisions made by an intelligent agentic system.

For now, I can get away with this for selling art. The uniqueness adds to the charm. But imagine this tech applied across industries: in customer service, in education, in medical interfaces. Agents will disrupt not just how we interact digitally but also how we design experiences altogether.

Five years ago, I told a room full of design leaders that UI and UX would be designed on the fly by AI systems. They laughed me out of the room. Who's laughing now?

Goodbye, traditional systems

We've spent decades building digital hierarchies to manage data — rigid databases, predefined paths, and user flows. That's about to become obsolete. These systems are being replaced by pure embedding systems, where everything is a vector, detached from traditional language or structure.

The implications are staggering. Think about the millions of workers in UX, customer experience, and code development. Their work is becoming moot. Agents handle outliers, adapt to edge cases, and deliver results faster than any team of humans could dream of.

The harder truth? Even jobs requiring creativity or expert knowledge are under threat. AI doesn't just do the task once; it does it over and over until the result is flawless. That's the real competition — repeatability and refinement at an unprecedented scale.

A displacement like no other

Wave Two of AI doesn't just threaten management jobs or repetitive tasks. It's coming for white-collar, knowledge-based work and skills-based work. The same agent systems revolutionizing digital experiences can also manage education, medicine, legal analysis — entire industries traditionally thought untouchable.

And let's be honest: the tech companies selling this future aren't telling you the whole story. They're framing AI as just another industrial revolution, but it's not. This isn't the light bulb or the telephone. This is modular, scalable, and non-human. It doesn't create jobs — it eliminates them.

Where do we go from here?

I'm not a doomsayer. I'm an AI engineer working in the trenches, getting paid well to ride this wave while it lasts. But I see where this is headed. I've told friends and family to pivot their careers towards places AI won't reach — fields requiring physical presence or deep human intuition. The reality is, that even those of us working in AI know our work is temporary.

Governments aren't prepared for this level of job displacement. Will we see public service programs collapse? Will this push political movements like Trumpism further, as people fight over shrinking opportunities? It's hard to say, but the consequences will be seismic.

I don't have the answers, but I do know this: listen to the engineers, not the CEOs. Get on Reddit, get on the ground floor of this conversation. The people building these systems will tell you the truth. The corporations? They'll sell you a pipe dream of progress. And it certainly can be progress, as long as there can be a graceful transition and a cultural shift away from valuing a person only if they have a job.

The unpredictable myth of us

The stories we tell ourselves merge into a collective mythology, shaping our culture, our society, and ultimately our reality. Joseph Campbell once remarked that "you can't predict a myth any more than you can predict a dream," and to that, I say, challenge accepted! As a machine learning engineer, I want to believe there's a path to finding those patterns, a way to see the shape of the dream before we fall asleep.

Our trend-spotting obsession

Marketers — oh, they're always on the hunt. They want to predict trends, pin down the next big thing, and figure out the future before it arrives. But what if you could go beyond trends and actually predict the mythology? That's where the real commercial value would be. Imagine being able to forecast the next archetype, the next epic journey humanity clings to, the story that will steer us all. That's the holy grail of prediction, isn't it?

Dreams: the brain's sandbox

What if we could predict our dreams? As a machine learnist, this idea fascinates me. What's the value in being able to predict what you'll dream about tonight? Well, I think there's something profound there. Dreams might just be our brain's way of reinforcing neural pathways based on survival instincts, a nightly sandbox where we test out scenarios from our day — puzzling interactions, looming fears, unanswered questions. It's trial and error for the 'soul.' While we sleep, we're not just dreaming; we're self-learning, recording, and reinforcing. And that's where it gets really interesting because our memories aren't even real memories, they're just weighted perceptions, just like how AI stores information. We're always approximating, living stories that aren't fixed facts, but fluid reflections.

Betting on Campbell's challenge

So what if someone took Campbell up on his challenge? What if they actually tried to predict dreams based on our waking lives, the way machine learning sifts through mountains of data to find the hidden thread? And further still, what if someone took all the social data of today — tweets, conversations, news cycles, viral videos — and started predicting the mythology we'll tell ourselves in the future? There's something tantalizing about that. It's not just worth someone's time; it's a potential goldmine of insight.

The stories we need now

And then the real question emerges: if someone built this mythology predictor, what would it say about where we're headed? If I look around now, I see religion being torn down but not replaced with anything. I see the looming shadow of a new space race, the creeping dread of climate change, and the endless anxiety of AI taking our way of life. We're juggling the threat of nuclear disaster, dictators wielding their arsenals with reckless abandon, and we're still choking on our own smoke. What story will guide us through this mess? What's the myth that stops us from annihilating ourselves? We need a story, a belief, a shared dream that picks up this bag of sand without breaking our backs.

Whatever comes next, it better be damn good.

Discover why separating creative and formatting tasks between two AI agents can drastically improve the quality of your API outputs.

"It HAS to work"

API creation is all about consistency. If you've ever been knee-deep in the trenches of building or maintaining an API, you know the unspoken mantra: don't frustrate your clients. They don't want surprises, they want reliability. They want errors served up on a silver platter, neatly formatted, and easy to handle. No one is in the mood to deal with your unexpected surprises or the endless debugging that comes with them.

The hubris of we engineers

So, imagine my frustration as I'm working on an API designed to analyze images, extract key information, and deliver it seamlessly across multiple clients with unpredictable image sets. I thought I had it all figured out. My prompts were smart, efficient, and, in my mind, downright brilliant. I was approaching it from a holistic standpoint — telling the AI to examine the images, identify what it could see, and return the data in the format I specified. I was building a machine, an efficient and well-oiled one, or so I thought.

When primitive prompts outperform

Then enters my boss. Now, he's not your typical engineer, but he gets the bigger picture. His approach is different — he's obsessed with the end goal in a way that I wasn't considering. While I'm trying to wrap up the API, he's throwing in these caveman prompts that, to my utter disbelief, are outperforming my prototype. And it grates on me because his prompts look primitive. They're messy, unrefined, and I would never serve them to a client. But here's the kicker — they work. Not just work — they excel. And that's when it hit me like a ton of bricks: I needed two agents to do this job.

The reality of large language models

Why? Because large language models (LLMs) aren't thinkers — they're next-word predictors. They're not "thinking" in the human sense; they're translating input through math to produce an output. That's it. So, when you tell the AI to think internally, to do some mental gymnastics before outputting, it doesn't really compute the way you think it does. The realization was so stark that I've almost completely abandoned old lines of thinking when it comes to prompt engineering.

The epiphany: pencil & paper(ish)

The epiphany? If you want the AI to do something well, to think about something, tell the AI to write it out. LLMs operate in computers where memory is a tool to operate the language model — not a place where the model stores thoughts or ideas. If you ask the AI to consider something internally, you're losing out on quality. For instance, if you want the AI to explore ten categories before choosing one, have it write out all ten categories, then pick one, and proceed from there. Make it write everything down as if it's working with paper and pencil. This approach mirrors how humans process complex tasks — we write things down to clarify our thoughts.

The key to better results

Yes, this creates a nightmare of output, but thankfully you can make another AI agent to help you find the data (parse) you want to serve to your client. The key takeaway: never ask an AI to perform broad creative thinking AND narrow, formatted output in the same prompt or with the same agent in a single request.

When you need the AI to go wide, use language that encourages expansive thinking on paper. When you need precision, use a separate agent designed to parse, scour, and format that broad output into something predictable and end-client-friendly.

Separate and succeed

In short, if you want better results, stop trying to get a single AI agent to be a jack-of-all-trades. Separate your processes. Let one agent be the creative genius and another the meticulous editor. Do this, and I swear, you'll see the quality of your outputs skyrocket.

Rainy-day introspection: realizing my aesthetic morality

Sometimes, I sit here on a rainy morning, staring out the kitchen window, thinking about how I've spent the majority of my life fighting for ideals, in the world and my environment. I used to feel pride about this. Lately, I just feel dumb. Maybe this is part of turning over that edge of midlife, but it can be, I think, the thing that takes that passion and fire from you that you have in your youth. The thing that makes you jaded is you start to realize the weird aesthetic morality going on in the world that no one can really change.

The insect analogy

Even how humans deal with insects sort of reflects how we treat our world. How you do one thing is how you do anything, you know, #tinyhabits and all. If you were with a group of people and a butterfly flew up, landed on someone's shoulder, you reached out and swatted it dead, everyone would look at you like a murderer. Now, turn that butterfly into a spider. Totally different scenario. Now you're the hero. Change that butterfly from a colorful butterfly to maybe just a moth, and 50% of those people will still applaud you for ending it.

The musician's fight against payola

Back when I was a musician in my twenties, we started an internet radio station just for local music out of Minneapolis called Misplaced Music. We were tired of the payola situation with the radio stations, so we started an Internet one at the dawn of the Internet. Our tagline was "Musicians Not Models." We were so tired of watching all the manufactured shoegazer music rise to the top, after just watching people like Cobain leave their entrails on the map, how no one picked up the scent... and just continued to completely sell out. It's hard to watch that sort of stuff happen culturally. It's hard to see when people are on to the right thing and just get misguided through money and self-preservation.

Yearning for authentic change

I want to be alive for something really cool, a really cool movement, you know, not just waves of dissonance that get stomped out, but real punk rock, real protest, real asking for answers from the people who are in charge. No more aesthetic morality. No more being able to sweep ugliness under the rug just because it involves people no one sees value in. Crooked teeth and all. We need to continue to find justice in a very unjust world because, at the end of the day, we all end up like moths no matter how many days we spend feeling like a butterfly.

The dual paradigms of talent

Talent is a concept that's both fascinating and frustratingly misunderstood. On the one hand, we have neurogenetics — the idea that creativity and certain abilities are ingrained in our DNA. On the other, there's neuroplasticity — our brain's ability to learn and adapt through experience and practice. As someone who's mulled over these concepts since childhood and well into my late forties, I find myself questioning the very existence of what we commonly refer to as talent.

Creativity: a bend in the mind

When I think about creativity, I often see it as a form of mental divergence, if not outright illness. This isn't to belittle creativity but to acknowledge that it's not exactly a straight path, nor does it imply success. Creativity often feels like a bend in the mind, a deviation from the norm. Neurogenetics might play a part, but I believe creativity is more about an overactive mind constantly seeking new ways to express and entertain itself, lest it gets stuck in a loop of monotonous reruns.

The skill behind the "talent"

Growing up, I was surrounded by friends who were labeled as talented. However, upon closer observation, I noticed the immense amount of practice and skill development behind their so-called talent. Books like Outliers support the theory that what we often label as talent is actually the result of thousands of hours of dedicated practice. This is particularly harmful to children, who might shy away from pursuing interests if they feel they lack an innate talent.

Misconceptions in the professional world

In the professional workspace, the confusion between talent and skill persists. I was often thought to have a natural talent for computers, but the truth is, I spent countless hours at home, immersed in books and learning, long before the days of Google. My overactive mind drove my creative approach to projects and fueled my learning. This journey wasn't about inherent talent; it was about relentless dedication and practice.

Neurodiversity and creativity

Our understanding of talent needs to evolve. Neurodiversity means that some minds are more prone to creativity (bending reality), not because of an inherent gift but due to their unique mental processes. Skills in areas like math, spelling, or playing musical instruments aren't magical endowments but the result of repeated practice and effort. The concept of hardware and software in the brain further supports this — we must continuously program our minds through learning and adaptation.

The danger of the talent label

Labeling someone as talented can undermine the hard work and dedication they've invested in developing their skills. Instead of marveling at someone's supposed innate abilities, we should ask about the journey and effort that led to their expertise. This shift in perspective not only respects their hard work but also encourages others to pursue their passions without the intimidating barrier of the "talent" myth.

Practical skills and genetic potential

Consider practical examples: a child may seem like a prodigy at playing the saxophone, but without practice, even the most genetically predisposed individual won't excel. Similarly, someone with webbed feet might have an advantage in swimming, but technique and training can enable a non-webbed swimmer to outpace them. It's the combination of genetic potential and dedicated practice that truly defines excellence.

An unexpected night with Willie Nelson in Duluth revealed powerful lessons on authenticity and unity that every professional can learn from.

An unexpected journey

A friend drove me up to Duluth last night to see Willie Nelson. She had an extra ticket she bought months ago, and in the eleventh hour, I became her willing companion for the two-hour-plus road trip north to see the goat of cannabis and country. I'm not a massive Willie Nelson fan, but with an affinity for acts like Hank Senior, Johnny Cash, and June Carter, I definitely had some respect for the man. Going in, I didn't expect much, knowing he's quite up there in years. But as the night went on and a cold breeze from Lake Superior blew over the jacket-clad audience, something struck me. Willie himself, I noticed, was wearing a jacket the entire show. That's a man who's played here before on the Superior Shore, for sure.

An odd crowd

It's not uncommon for me, in a social situation, to scan the environment and observe while taking in the performance at key moments. Willie's rough strumming and stinging notes captured my attention, but the crowd was what really fascinated me. It was one of the most diverse groups of white people I've encountered in a long time. I mean, REALLY diverse.

A tapestry of fans

Surrounded by motorcyclists, country hicks, the devout of many flavors, hippies, pot smokers, the elderly, and the young, I began to ponder. How does this happen? Sure, fame over time can draw a crowd, but Willie Nelson transcends typical fandoms. He keeps touring, relentlessly, habitually, and it's evident that even at his age, that's how he plans to die. But how on earthly hell, I asked myself, did he attract such an amazingly diverse group of people?

Authenticity in action

Every business and professional can learn from Willie. As you move forward, it's crucial to be authentic. If you like smoking a joint, don't hide that. If you like wearing a bandana, don't hide that. If you like your hair long, don't hide that. If you like a motorcycle, don't hide that. If you believe in God, don't hide that. Bring along the people who want to come with you in love and don't worry about the rest. Just keep going like that, because you can't win them all.

Lessons for professionals

If you just keep working honestly, with integrity and love, you can pull from every pocket of life and create a great song. That's the best way to do it — knowing you're staying true to yourself. You'll make mistakes and need to apologize sometimes. Don't sweat the little stuff; focus on love.

Tides of collaboration and solitude in the era of generative AI

Do you get a cold sweat when you have to handwrite on the whiteboard in front of colleagues? Twenty years of keyboarding has a way of catching up with anyone's penmanship. But the bigger story is that work itself is changing, and the rapid advancement of generative AI tools is writing a new chapter in work culture faster than we can perceive it. This transition sparks a compelling debate about the balance between collaborative and individual work. As we inch closer to a future dominated by AI, it's imperative to examine the shifting dynamics and consider the underlying value of heads-down time — a period of deep, undistracted focus.

From solitude to synergy

Historically, the trajectory of many careers has moved from solitary execution to roles requiring greater collaboration. This transition is partly due to climbing the hierarchical ladder, where understanding and coordinating the moving parts becomes crucial. However, the advent of remote work and generative AI is questioning the necessity of solitary work. Will the increase in collaborative tools and AI's capacity to take over substantial portions of manual labor diminish the value of working alone?

The essence of 'heads-down' time

In the traditional work environment, autonomy between meetings is a given. This time, often referred to as heads-down time, is not just for administrative tasks but for the intricate, creative processes that require undivided attention. For designers, researchers, and many other professionals, this period is when the magic happens — away from the distractions of constant feedback and collaborative sessions. It's a time for meticulous adjustments and deep thought, elements crucial for innovation but often undervalued in highly collaborative settings.

Generative AI: a double-edged sword?

The introduction of generative AI tools into the workplace has been nothing short of revolutionary. Capable of automating a wide range of tasks, from data synthesis to content creation, these tools promise efficiency but also raise concerns. With AI handling tasks that once required hours of focused effort, the boundary between individual and collaborative work blurs. The concern arises: will the reliance on AI erode the sanctity of solitary work, pushing us toward a future where collaboration overshadows deep, individual thought? But as a researcher, I am deeply concerned because while quantitative value is important I can not understate that often while droning out in a session with a test subject I will be jolted to life by an unexpected phrase of words that unlocks an entire theory of research for the product. Will AI hear/see that phrase and understand its value? Very, very unlikely, especially if it's an edge case.

The social dynamics of work culture

The workplace is not just a physical or digital space where tasks are completed; it's a social environment influenced by dynamics of power, appearance, and communication. In many cases, the loudest or most visually appealing individuals command attention, regardless of their contributions' quality. As generative AI democratizes access to information and efficiency, there's a risk that these superficial traits may gain even more influence, overshadowing the true value brought by those who excel in the quiet, intensive work behind the scenes. TLDR: in this environment, substance can struggle to compete with surface.

Preserving the value of the expert

Despite AI's prowess, the necessity for expertise, especially in handling edge cases and innovative projects, remains unchanged. AI tools, while powerful, falter at the fringes of knowledge and creativity. They excel in the middle ground but lack the nuance and insight that human experts bring to complex, unprecedented challenges. This highlights the enduring value of the expert, the individual who navigates the peripheries of what's known and possible, leveraging AI not as a crutch but as a tool among many.

Finding balance in the AI era

As the work landscape evolves due to generative AI, it's crucial to advocate for a balanced approach that values both collaboration and solitude. Recognizing the unique contributions of heads-down work, ensuring that work cultures don't marginalize those who excel in solitude, and leveraging AI as an augmentative tool rather than a replacement for human ingenuity will be key. In navigating these shifts, the goal should be to enhance, not diminish, the richness of human creativity and collaboration. If you think you're being handed a handful of AI BS, ask your contributor to transpose the work in front of you.

The unintended legacy of Generation X: navigating through a world of 'disruption'

The challenges facing Generation Y are vast — it's clear that we're witnessing the aftermath of a pivotal transitional era. This era, marked by rapid technological advancements and significant cultural shifts, has reshaped the landscape in which the subsequent generations navigate. Unfortunately, I fear we did little to prepare them for reality.

The promise of progress

In the late 20th century, Generation X rode the wave of the American Dream — we were fueled by the belief that education and hard work would lead to success. Our generation, arguably the first in the U.S. to embrace higher education en masse, was at the forefront of realizing a vision where college education was seen as the unequivocal path to achieving a fulfilling and prosperous life. However, this pursuit lay also smack in the middle of the MTV generation. Talk about competing ideals.

The dawn of the digital age

As the world transitioned from the industrial era to the information age, Generation X found itself at the helm of technological innovation. This generation, the architects of the early internet, laid the groundwork for the digital revolution, ushering in an era of unprecedented connectivity. Yet, this digital landscape, for all its promises, also bore new forms of social challenges, including heightened levels of anxiety and an increase in mental health issues among younger demographics.

Innovation and its discontents

The same inventive spirit that characterized Generation X's contribution to technology and the internet also led to the creation of a startup culture that often glorified disruption at the expense of sustainability. Companies like Zappos and the emergence of platforms such as Airbnb and DoorDash exemplify this trend, challenging traditional business models and reshaping the economic terrain in ways that were previously unimaginable. Yet, this disruption has not come without cost, AND on top of it, these replacement models do not always have long-term viability, they create volatility in local markets, which has a huge negative impact on local communities. Just look at what is going on in Minneapolis right now with Lyft and Uber.

A generation caught in transition

As we consider the legacy of Generation X, it's apparent that this group, caught between the achievements of the post-war boom and the digital revolution, has had a profound impact on society. The creation of a world where innovation often precedes consideration of its broader implications has left Generation Y grappling with a reality far removed from the expectations set by their predecessors. This disconnect raises important questions about the responsibilities of one generation to the next and the kind of world we wish to leave behind.

Looking forward

The challenges inherited by Generation Y are not insurmountable (we hope), but they require a reevaluation of the values and expectations that have guided us thus far. As we move forward, there is an opportunity to learn from the past, embracing innovation while being mindful of its impact on society and future generations. Not to mention, we turned up the economic juice on education further disenfranchising our future generations from the solutions they will need. God help us.

In a world teeming with corporate buzzwords and productivity hacks, the quest to amplify the quieter voices in our workplaces is more than just a noble pursuit — it's a strategic imperative. As someone who's navigated the tumultuous seas of various organizational cultures, I've gleaned some not-so-secret secrets on how to transform your team's dynamics for the better. Let's cut through the fluff and dive into a practical, albeit slightly irreverent, guide to getting the best out of your team, including those who've turned the art of flying under the radar into a professional sport.

1. Start your day the right way: the epiphany exchange

Before you launch into the day's or week's agenda with the zeal of a caffeine-fueled preacher, pause. Remember that while you were busy dreaming about spreadsheets, your team might have been struck by lightning bolts of brilliance. Kick off your meetings by tapping into these potential epiphanies. Ask, "What shower thought had you questioning the meaning of life or at least our current project?" This not only gets everyone's gears grinding but also makes it clear that all thoughts, no matter how seemingly outlandish, are welcome here.

2. The golden rules of meetings: it's not a free-for-all

Meetings are not open mic nights. To avoid them turning into a circus act that would put most reality TV to shame, establish clear rules. Key among these is defining specific outcomes. What decision needs to be made? What options are we looking at? This isn't about putting creativity in a straitjacket; it's about giving the meeting a reason for being.

3. The working meeting: your Plan B doesn't have to suck

So, you've hit a snag. The work that was supposed to be done is, well, not. Enter the working meeting — a concept as thrilling as its name suggests. Instead of staring blankly at each other or rehashing what was said last time, switch gears. Use this time to tackle the tasks that are holding you back. Think of it as a productive pit stop that gets everyone back on track, not a detour into the land of eternal meetings.

4. Service design: the unsung hero of innovation

Imagine a world where meetings are more than just talk. That's the promise of service design, a methodology that emphasizes doing over discussing. It's about creating tangible outcomes through collaborative work, not just verbal volleyball. By integrating service design into your workflow, you're not only giving voice to the quiet ones but also turning their ideas into actionable insights.

5. Cultivating culture: no room for the boys' club

Last but certainly not least, let's talk culture. A truly inclusive environment goes beyond just having a token "casual Friday." It's about ensuring that no "boys' club" or any other exclusionary group dynamics take root. This means fostering a culture where curiosity, respect, and genuine inclusion are the norms, not the exceptions. Where every voice, no matter how soft, is not only heard but valued.

A John Olson story (R.I.P.)

As we wrap up this guide with practical steps and somewhat cheeky advice on how to empower the quieter voices within our organizations, I'd like to leave you with a very personal story. This story revolves around a man who profoundly influenced not just the trajectory of a company but also the lives of those who worked within it: John Olson, the visionary founder of Olson & Company, later acquired by ICF. John's legacy is one of innovation, leadership, and an unyielding belief in the potential of his team.

On a day that would remain etched in my memory, the agency I was part of (OCO) was pulsing with the rebellious spirit that was our brand's hallmark. At the time, our brand was heavily influenced by a pre-WW2 Russian choir aesthetic, a nod to a revolutionary time. Yet, something within me stirred — a sense that we were outgrowing this identity. Driven by this intuition, I took the leap to remix this distinctive brand song with a beat, morphing it into something entirely new and avant-garde.

John, having just concluded a meeting that would chart a new course for our branding, away from the Russian music we had come to be known by, happened upon this sonic experiment of mine. Without a word about the meeting's outcome or the impending shift in our brand's identity, he asked me to "crank that #%*$ up." As the music filled the room, John climbed the scaffolding near my desk, drawing everyone's attention with his antics high above the ground, celebrating the track I had inadvertently created on the cusp of our brand's evolution.

In that moment, without revealing the strategic pivot just decided upon, John celebrated my creation. He recognized and applauded my alignment with the company's need for a new direction, even before I was aware of it myself. This gesture — a vivid display of leadership and recognition — left a lasting impression on me. It underscored the value of intuition, creativity, and being in sync with the times, traits that John embodied and encouraged in all of us.

John Olson's passing was a profound loss, and I am still grappling with it. However, this memory serves as a potent reminder of his leadership style: one that valued and celebrated each individual's contributions, recognizing the currents of change even before they became apparent to all. It wasn't about using the track or adhering to the old brand; it was about acknowledging that, in his team, he had people who were ready to evolve with the company.

In conclusion, as leaders or members of a team, our goal should not just be to listen to the quiet voices but to celebrate the intuition and innovation they bring to the table. Like John, let's climb our metaphorical scaffolding, recognize the forward-thinking efforts of our team, and turn the volume up on those transformative ideas.

Miss you, John, we ARE blessed.

Exploring the increasing vulnerability of SaaS products in the AI era, this article delves into the diminishing novelty in digital services, the rising significance of open source, and how passion and purpose will define future technological success

AICORPORATIONSCOMPUTER SCIENCEPHILOSOPHYECONOMICSSAAS

Jared Lukes

3/4/20242 min read

The Fragile State of SaaS

Reflecting on the last decade, the landscape of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) products has significantly evolved. I took my own shot at it trying to pioneer "general visual curation." Today, we've witnessed the rise and potential decline of SaaS as a dominant tech model. This shift, as discussed in the precursor article "Digital Novelty is Evaporating," suggests an impending transformation. The reality is that the realm of professional SaaS products faces an existential threat, a sort of writing on the wall that can no longer be avoided.

The Diminishing Returns of Digital Novelty

While it's clear that not all digital novelty is destined to vanish—thanks to groundbreaking work by entities like OpenAI— certainly some digital innovation companies will survive the saturation of the market. Silicon Valley, once the cradle of software innovation, now churns out SaaS offerings that, at their core, replicate existing services with minimal differentiation. The era where an app could gain traction by being the "Uber for X" or the "Airbnb for Y" is dead over, overshadowed by the capabilities of large data and artificial intelligence.

The AI Revolution and SaaS Vulnerability

The advent of AI capable of generating sophisticated code bases from simple descriptions heralds a new dawn. With infrastructure as code becoming the norm, the barrier to creating and deploying applications has never been lower. This technological leap forward poses a direct threat to traditional SaaS models, which often rely on bait-and-switch freemium models, monopolizing niche markets and capitalizing on user data.

The Rise of Open Source in the AI Era

In this emerging landscape, true novelty and innovation could reside within the open-source community. The AI era magnifies the value of open-source projects, offering cost-effective, efficient solutions for those with limited resources but boundless ambition. Contrary to the monopolistic tendencies of corporations, open source thrives on collaboration and passion, suggesting a future where the success of software projects is measured not by their profit margins but by their impact and the community they foster. And we don't need "community" the way Silicon Valley gave it to us in round one — the kind of attention-economy platforms that left so many people feeling drained rather than connected.

A New Battlefield: Economics of Heart and Soul

As we venture further into the AI-driven future, the competitive edge may no longer hinge on who has the most advanced algorithms or the largest datasets. Instead, the battle will be won by those who demonstrate genuine passion, purpose, and the ability to connect on a human level. In this regard, the corporate giants may find themselves at a disadvantage, struggling to match the heart and soul poured into open-source initiatives.

In conclusion

The SaaS industry stands at a crossroads, challenged by the rapid advancements in AI and the shifting dynamics of software development. While the future may seem daunting, it also holds promise for a more inclusive, passionate, and innovative (and tech-diverse!) technological landscape!

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Exposing the sad truths behind the attempt made by corporate America to vertically integrate creative services.

ECONOMICSPHILOSOPHYCORPORATIONS

Jared Lukes

2/7/20242 min read

Possibly a bonehead move...

In the pursuit of efficiency and control, corporations have increasingly brought creative services in-house. This trend, under the guise of vertical integration, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of creativity itself. While agencies thrive on the new and the novel, evaluating each hire and idea with the potential to revolutionize, corporations aim for predictability, scalability, and uniformity.

The Creativity Conundrum: Template versus Innovation

Corporations' infrastructure and ethos revolve around homogeneity and predictability, making them ill-suited to truly embrace creative services. The past decade has seen a detrimental impact on the creative industry, with an over-reliance on templated, formulaic approaches that stifle genuine innovation. Creativity by its nature demands freedom, a commodity rarely found within the rigid confines of corporate walls.

Evidence Versus Creativity: The Misalignment

There's a place for data and evidence in design, especially in pragmatic product development. However, this approach cannot be the sole driver of creativity. The essence of creativity lies in unique problem-solving and differentiation in the marketplace—a stark contrast to the corporate inclination towards evidence-based, templatized solutions that dampen creative flair.

A Personal Reflection: Catalyst Studios' No-Growth Model

At my agency Catalyst Studios (circa 2006-2013), we had a no-growth model and fostered an environment where creativity (neurodivergancy) flourished, unencumbered by the pressures of scalability. This model, often criticized, underscores the fundamental differences in how creativity is nurtured and sustained within agencies versus corporations. It's a testament to the idea that sometimes, growth is not a prerequisite for success and can be a barrier to creativity.

The Creative Exodus: A Blessing in Disguise

For those repeatedly facing rejection from corporate roles, it might be a sign to embrace one's creative potential outside these restrictive environments. The current corporate culture of stifling creativity and enforcing a strategically diverse but homogenized workforce underlines the need for a shift. Take your ball and go the f*ck home, forge your own path, create jobs, establish or join an agency where innovation and originality are not just welcomed but essential.

Conclusion: Squeezing Oranges for Lemonade

I used to tell clients I was teaching Service Design, that squeezing one's oranges before buying lemonade is essential. How many times did a corporation hire my agency to solve a problem their people had already solved? MANY TIMES! All we had to do was listen. Corporations, in their quest for efficiency and control, often miss the essence of creativity, and now they expect lemonade from over-juiced in-house oranges. We creatives need to reclaim the space, redefine the industry, and ensure that creativity continues to flourish in environments that truly value it.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Exploring the need for critical thinking amidst the trend of positivity in social sharing and thought leadership. Advocating for a balanced discourse that embraces both the sweetness of optimism and the necessary bitterness of critique to foster genuine progress and innovation.

PHILOSOPHYSOCIAL MEDIA

Jared Lukes

2/6/20243 min read

Embracing Critical Thought in the Age of Positivity

In an era where the mantra "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" prevails, there's an increasing trend toward unyielding positivity on social platforms and thought leadership. This trend, while fostering a seemingly harmonious environment, risks sidelining critical thinking—a component as essential to societal progress as it is to individual growth.

The Power and Pitfalls of Positivity

Positivity has its place, undeniably. It has moved mountains in organizations, groups, and societal ideologies, pushing forward the envelope of what we can achieve through collective optimism. Yet, this relentless pursuit of positivity has ushered in an era where critical voices are often muted, labeled as detractors, or worse, ignored entirely. The balance between constructive criticism and encouragement has skewed, leaving little room for the former.

A Look Back: The Digital Revolution's Double-Edged Sword

Reflecting on the mid-2000s—the dawn of the smartphone and social media era—we recall a time of digital naivety. This period marked the beginning of a transformation in communication, business, and personal interaction. However, as the dust settles, we find that the digital landscape has evolved into an echo chamber of affirmations, sidelining critical perspectives under the guise of fostering positivity. This shift has significant implications for the authenticity and depth of our dialogues, especially on platforms designed to connect and enlighten.

The Honey Trap: Disingenuity in Discourse

The phenomenon I've dubbed the "honey trap" represents a deliberate move away from critical engagement toward a superficially sweet narrative. Entire businesses have flourished by focusing solely on the positive, often at the expense of a more nuanced, truthful conversation. A disingenuous and carefully selected round of authenticity sneaks through, so long as numbers keep going up. This approach not only limits our understanding and exploration of new ideas and technologies but also risks collective myopia to the challenges that accompany innovation.

Silicon Valley's Siphon: A Cautionary Tale

The narrative of Silicon Valley as the beacon of innovation and progress is pervasive. Yet, just as Walmart once monopolized local economies, Silicon Valley has drawn vast resources and attention away from local communities. This centralization of wealth and influence has prompted questions about the true benefit of such concentration, especially when it comes at the expense of local businesses and critical thought. I feel so strongly about reversing the tide on this I started a company this year, just to address this.

Critical Thinking: The Unwelcome Guest at the Party

Today's social platforms, driven by algorithms that prioritize engagement over substance, have created an environment where critical thinkers are often seen as party poopers. This dynamic poses a significant challenge for those aiming to discuss the complexities of technology, economy, and society. The inclination to dismiss or ignore critical viewpoints in favor of feel-good content threatens not just the richness of our discussions but the very fabric of informed decision-making.

The Role of Art and Media in Critical Discourse

Creators like Charlie Brooker, through works like "Black Mirror," have demonstrated the power of art and media to cut through the noise, presenting dystopian yet plausible futures shaped by technology. However, the reluctance to engage with such critical content reflects a broader societal trend of shying away from uncomfortable truths, favoring relaxation over reflection.

A Call for Balance and Bravery

In confronting these trends, it's essential not to abandon the pursuit of positivity but to integrate it with a healthy dose of realism and critical thinking. The beauty and peril of our world coexist, and acknowledging both can lead to a more balanced, informed, and genuinely positive future. Encouraging critical voices isn't about fostering negativity but about ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

Reclaiming Technology: A Local Perspective

As we stand on the brink of the AI era, the opportunity to decentralize technology and reclaim local ownership of data and innovation presents itself. Moving away from the monopolistic tendencies of Silicon Valley, local businesses, and communities can harness technology to serve genuinely beneficial ends, fostering a more equitable, sustainable, and critically engaged society.

Conclusion

The narrative that has long favored an uncritical embrace of technology and innovation is ripe for revision. By valuing and integrating critical perspectives, we can ensure a more balanced, thoughtful, and inclusive approach to the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. It's time to recognize the importance of vinegar in a world oversaturated with honey—to embrace the prickly pears and give critical thinkers the platform they deserve.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Exploring the complexities of morality, personal growth, and life's gray areas in pursuit of a nuanced, authentic existence.

PHILOSOPHY

Jared Lukes

1/30/20242 min read

The Complexity of Morality

Have you ever found yourself stuck in the binary of good and evil, better or worse, only to realize that everything is more like a flavor, a blend? We often use these terms to express dissatisfaction or our delusions about where we should be, instead of accepting where we are. This notion challenges the concept of anything being purely good or evil. It's a perspective that offers a more nuanced understanding of life's complexities.

The Power of Names and Personal Growth

Some of us dismiss the importance of remembering names, deeming it a trivial task. However, there's a profound significance in names, often referred to as one's favorite word. The struggle to remember them can be a reflection of our priorities and how we allocate our mental resources. This struggle is a window into understanding what we value and deem necessary, highlighting the importance of personal growth and mindfulness in everyday interactions. I used to say "I am terrible at remembering names" but instead I now say "I am working hard to develop this ability."

Personal Journeys and Acceptance

Through periods of personal reflection, I've grappled with identity and moral judgments. The dichotomy of good and evil in business and personal life can lead to tumultuous stretches. This experience taught me that labeling people or experiences as good or bad is not only exhausting but also reductive. The realization that everything just 'is,' and the acceptance of life as it unfolds, can be liberating. It's not about being surrounded by everyone you've ever known, but about meaningful connections, especially towards the end of life.

Simplifying Life's Equation

Life doesn't always require a balance or an equation to be solved. Sometimes, it's about establishing better ratios, guidelines, and principles. Recognizing and overcoming our insecurities and vulnerabilities is crucial. We often get lost in what others perceive as our potential, forgetting that it's our right to define our own path. There's often a gap between what we're capable of and what we truly desire, and navigating this space is key to finding satisfaction.

In Summary

This journey through the complexities of life suggests that embracing the gray areas and moving beyond the binaries of good and evil can lead to a more fulfilling existence. It's about understanding ourselves, our interactions, and our goals in a more nuanced and realistic light.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Tools like GPT and voice-to-text software redefine the concept of writing, this article reflects on the transformative power of journaling and audio capture.

AIPHILOSOPHYUXCOMPUTER SCIENCE

Jared Lukes

1/18/20242 min read

The Disruption of Traditional Writing

Watching tools like GPT unfold and reshape industries, especially writing, is fascinating. Initially, these advancements seemed to pose a direct threat to traditional professions like writing, photography, and research. This change is understandable, considering how language models function and the initial misconceptions about their capabilities in writing.

A Personal Struggle with Writing

Like many professionals who never developed strong keyboarding skills, my career — from programming to running a digital agency to corporate research — was often challenging on the writing side. The anxiety of long-form reading and writing tasks was a constant battle, only mitigated (for me) by the advent of spellchecks and digital aids. I have Siri read my emails to me before sending them because I can HEAR mistakes I have no hope of ever seeing.

The Power of Journaling and Self-Reflection

Journaling, a task that once felt daunting, transformed with the introduction of audio recording on mobile devices. The habit of recording thoughts and listening back became a powerful tool for self-improvement. This practice, often more enlightening than following self-improvement gurus, helped me develop an eventual sense of respect for my thoughts and storytelling abilities.

Embracing Technology as an aid to Thinkers and Storytellers

The journey from absolutely cringing at my own recorded thoughts to respecting them marked a significant transformation. As a thinker and humorist, the art of storytelling and comedy became an integral part of my identity. However, the persistent challenges of writing and typing inefficiency remained. The emergence of tools like Otter.ai and chat-based writing assistants revolutionized my writing process, helping to overcome these barriers.

Writing Tools as Extensions, Not Replacements

Despite the technological assistance in writing, I never felt it undermined the authenticity of my work. These tools acted more as extensions of my thought process, offering necessary guidance and organization without diluting the essence of my ideas. This realization made me question the traditional definition of a writer in the modern digital landscape.

A Shift in Perspective

As digital tools evolve, the fear of them replacing human roles diminishes. Instead, there's a growing recognition of their role in augmenting human creativity and productivity. The future might demand proficiency in these tools, not as replacements for human skills but as enhancements to our natural abilities. This does not mean that we will keep these tools confined to these places or that they will not ever be capable further, but for now, there is an amount of it I find perfectly acceptable.

Extra Credit:

The Future of Human Potential Beyond Brute Force Skills

As we enter an era where AI alleviates the need for brute force learning, such as typing, memorization of the periodic table, or intricate coding, it prompts a profound shift in human cognitive development. No longer bound by the necessity to cram information, our minds may transition from memorization to mastering the art of correlation and conceptual understanding. This transition could unlock unprecedented creative and analytical capabilities, allowing us to delve deeper into problem-solving, innovation, and abstract thinking. **Daniel Pink will be doing backflips. The future might see humans excel in areas where emotional intelligence, empathy, and creativity reign supreme, for a time. In this new landscape, our mental energy could be redirected to more complex, fulfilling tasks that nurture our human essence, opening up unexplored realms of intellectual and creative expression. Perhaps even to achieve our elusive utopias of human abundance and the end of war and suffering**.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Exploring the shift towards private, home-based servers and networks in response to the generative AI era, prioritizing data ownership and privacy.

AIPHILOSOPHYPRIVACY

Jared Lukes

1/17/20242 min read

The Dark Forest Theory, Future Internet

The dark forest theory of the Internet suggests a shift to more secluded, secure online spaces, especially in the generative AI era. This movement, driven by a desire to escape the "trashiest" and most predatory parts of the Internet, marks a significant change. The idea of public spaces filled with generative misinformation and dark patterns becoming less appealing leads us toward a more underground, private approach to internet usage.

The Rise of Home Servers

Since 2015, the concept of the home server has been gaining traction. Contrary to the past, when maintaining a hardware server was a daunting task, technological advancements have made this more feasible. With CPUs plateauing in terms of rapid development and the advent of solid-state memory, home servers have become low-maintenance, efficient, and a practical choice for data storage.

An Evolution of Social Networking

Some of the value we initially got from our current social networks was their expensive operability on large servers, always-on data connections, and global distribution (CDN). Fast-forward to the present day and the possibility of efficient home servers is remarkable. With advancements like 5G and fiber optics at home, owning a server for data sharing, like photos and media streaming, is increasingly viable. This evolution could spur a larger trend of seeking data ownership and a shift away from traditional, ad-driven social media platforms.

The Future of Social Connectivity

Imagine a future where our social networks are based on interconnected home servers, managed through mobile apps. These servers could provide secure, authenticated connections, offering a personal and controlled social media experience. This concept challenges the current paradigm of social media, where user data is commodified (user as product), and proposes a more personal, ownership-driven approach (media as product).

Public Spaces and Anonymity Online

While public internet spaces won't disappear, their appeal might diminish due to the influx of generative content and misinformation. These spaces might become akin to the sketchy parts of a town, visited for specific, often dubious reasons. The future could see a balance between the need for anonymity and the desire for authenticity and trust in our online interactions.

The Evidence for Change

The growing popularity of mesh networks and companies like NextCloud, which offer private cloud office software, (as well as hardware servers) supports this shift. These trends indicate a move towards localized, resilient networks and a departure from the Silicon Valley cloud-service model. The focus is increasingly on network redundancy and data ownership, with the potential for city-wide or business-based mesh networks to ensure continuous iOT connectivity.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Exploring a gamer's journey emphasizing caution around how fairness can be a huge draw BUT addiction, in addition to the benefits and connections found in gaming.

GAMESNEUROSCIENCEPHILOSOPHY

Jared Lukes

1/14/20242 min read

The Alluring Contrast of Gaming

Imagine transitioning from a childhood with limited access to technology to the instant connection of pressing buttons on a Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). That stark contrast set the stage for my relationship with gaming. Unlike typical childhood video game stories, mine was rooted in the disparity between modest beginnings and the advanced world of gaming.

Sporadic Forays and Deep Connections

Gaming in my life was always a sporadic affair, dictated by financial constraints and availability. It wasn't until my young adulthood that I could afford my own NES, N64, etc. But what truly hooked me wasn't the games themselves; it was the connections they fostered. Delving into competitive gaming through Counter-Strike, I found friends, built communities, and even ended up as a best man at a teammate's wedding. This experience highlighted the empathetic and cognitive benefits of gaming, from understanding team dynamics in MMOs to the brain-boosting aspects of real-time strategy games.

The Unseen Appeal: Fairness in Gaming

Amidst the complexities of gaming communities and the intricacies of game mechanics, I realized a driving force: the pursuit of fairness. For players who've experienced unfair odds in the rest of life, the gaming world's emphasis on fairness is incredibly appealing. It's a space where disputes might arise over aesthetics, but the core game fairness remains sacrosanct. This principle, I believe, is a fundamental draw for many gamers.

A Level Playing Field

Reflecting on my journey through gaming over the years, the medium offered something unique: an equal playing field. In a world where birthright and external circumstances often dictate one's opportunities, video games presented a realm where knowledge and skill, not background or wealth, determined success. This aspect of gaming provided a sense of fairness and opportunity rarely found in the broader societal context of the real world.

The Cautionary Tale: Balancing Digital Fairness with Real-World Challenges

While gaming offers a realm of fairness and equal opportunity, it's important to remember that real life, with all its complexities, often falls short of this ideal. Advancements like hyper-realistic robotic limbs exemplify how technology can bring a semblance of fairness to reality. Only to reveal the financial barrier of getting one. Games, in a similar vein, provide a mental sanctuary where equality prevails. However, this digital fairness can sometimes starkly contrast with the less equitable nature of our everyday lives.

It's crucial to recognize that immersing oneself solely in the just world of gaming might lead to a detachment from reality. This detachment could, in turn, exacerbate the sense of disenfranchisement or pain stemming from real-world inequalities. While we embrace the equality gaming offers, we must also engage with and address the inherent unfairness in our daily lives. This balance is key to ensuring that our pursuit of digital fairness doesn't inadvertently deepen the disparities we face outside the gaming world.

In summary

My journey in gaming, from its contrasting beginnings to the discovery of its inherent fairness, highlights how video games can offer a unique form of equality and connection, transcending the limitations often imposed by the real world. All I know is that there came a point where gaming was crowding out the people and priorities right in front of me. That's when I had to re-evaluate. If any of this hits, consider some changes in your own life.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Exploring generative AI's ethical landscape, advocating for rights, creator compensation, and a balanced, humane technological future.

AIPHILOSOPHYECONOMICSDESIGNCOMPUTER SCIENCE

Jared Lukes

1/12/20242 min read

The Complex Landscape of Generative AI Rights

The issue of RIGHTS in generative AI is a nuanced battlefield with multifaceted challenges. It's essential to untangle this complexity for responsible progress.

Legal Challenges in AI Development

OpenAI faces legal hurdles with its data usage, including a high-profile lawsuit from the New York Times, alongside broader debates over scraping sites like Wikipedia (which can hardly self-fund) and the use of artists' styles without consent. The impact of opting out raises significant concerns about the integrity of AI models. We also don't want an AI that reflects the prejudices of a much earlier era because it's only trained on public-domain material (95+ years old). We need to find the balance.

Sector-Specific Reactions to AI

Different sectors respond uniquely to AI. Coders, for instance, are more open-source-minded, viewing AI as a tool for a safer future. However, even in open sectors, issues like intellectual property rights in AI still emerge. Should AI be allowed to train AI on the entire sum of GitHub? Perhaps, when rights declarations are obeyed!

The Misuse of AI Technology

AI's potential for harm is evident. The use of AI coding tools accelerates and gives access to every mischief maker with a terminal. This underscores the need for cautious advancement. We live in a world where you might sign up for electrical service at your new apartment only to find you paid a scammer a $300 deposit. When tools can create real-to-life mirages of entities we need to trust, it's dangerous for our future.

The Creator's Dilemma: Intellectual Property vs. AI Benefits

As an artist AND engineer, I feel the tension between protecting intellectual property and embracing AI's benefits. For example, AI-assisted coding is a boon for accessibility, but its use in creative processes like logo design raises deep ethical concerns. How excited would I get if I knew my brilliant design friends were being paid when their works were called upon to inform the output of my new creations? Very!

The Potential of a Paid AI Model

A paid AI model is not only feasible but necessary. It could ensure fair compensation for creators and lead to a more inclusive AI ecosystem. What it takes is for us to demand it, to wait for it if necessary. Don't get me wrong, as someone who never learned keyboarding, I can get so much further, faster with tools like this around to help. But even I would shelve them temporarily for a more equitable model.

Ethics and Compensation in AI: A Vision for the Future

The original authors' involvement in payment models is crucial for a just AI future. We simply have to insist on it, and that's problematic due to the complexities of game theory and competition. We won't stop developing AI because we know other countries won't either. We won't stop using OpenAI because we assume our competitors will keep using it.

Conclusion: A Hopeful, Humanitarian Future with AI

As we navigate the AI landscape, let's consider the long-term implications of our choices. The future of AI should be advanced, just, and humane.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

A look at how the capitalist education market can ruin an entire design practice in just a few years.

UXEDUCATIONECONOMICS

Jared Lukes

1/11/20242 min read

In the ever-changing realm of User Experience (UX) design & research, the journey from the rise of the UX bubble to the current complexities in hiring practices reflects a narrative filled with both innovation and missteps. As a seasoned UX professional for over 15 years, I've observed these shifts firsthand at dozens of corporations, start-ups, and agencies.

The Rise and Ripple of the UX Bubble

From 2016 to 2019, the UX industry experienced explosive growth. Companies rapidly expanded UX teams, with ambitious hiring goals. This period, the UX bubble, was marked by a surge in demand. Unfortunately, this led to a hasty response from educational institutions and bootcamps, eager to meet this burgeoning need.

The Misguided Approach of UX Bootcamps

UX bootcamps sprang up, promising quick entry into the field. However, their approach was fundamentally flawed. They focused on teaching methodologies without instilling a deep, contextual understanding of UX principles. This led to a generation of UX professionals who were methodologically aware but practically inexperienced, contributing to a growing distrust in UX hiring. The bootcamps, while well-intentioned, failed to grasp the essence of UX – a field that thrives on depth, context, and real-world application.

The Pendulum Swing: From Bootcamps to Master's Degrees

Reacting to this influx of underprepared professionals, the industry swung its preference towards candidates with master's degrees. This shift, however, sidelined many skilled UX practitioners who started before such formal qualifications existed but had rich, hands-on experience. It's a telling example of how educational credentials became overemphasized, overshadowing the practical wisdom gained through years of work in the field.

Ageism in UX: A Counterintuitive Bias

In this landscape, another issue stands out starkly – ageism. Ironically, UX is a field where age should be an asset, not a hindrance. UX design is fundamentally about empathy and understanding a diverse range of user experiences, qualities that often deepen with life experience. Older UX professionals bring a wealth of perspectives that are invaluable in creating empathetic, user-centric designs. Yet, the industry often favors younger candidates, overlooking the immense value that experience brings.

The Specialist vs. Generalist Dilemma

The current market also leans towards specialization – UX for gaming, fintech, healthcare, etc. While specialties have their place, this overlooks the versatile and innovative potential of generalists. As a professional who has navigated various sectors, I've seen how cross-pollination of skills can lead to groundbreaking solutions, challenging the notion that only specialists can thrive in niche areas.

What you can do to hire better UX.

First, understand you are hiring something multifaceted and steeped more in user empathy than "skills." If your company is technically focused, understand you should be hiring someone who will make everyone else scratch their heads. If you are a design-focused company, maybe take a look at a UX'r who came up through dev to help you keep some guardrails to your product. Tell your HR team that UX is like design for IT. They get special considerations and you can't explain why, but they do. :)

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

AI surpasses human capabilities, inspiring a shift from individual competition to collective achievements and collaboration for greater goals.

AIPHILOSOPHYSPACE

Jared Lukes

12/23/20231 min read

We've always prided ourselves on individual achievements, but the rise of AI and robots is reshaping this perspective. We are at a juncture where our creations surpass us in coding, strategic thinking, and even physical feats. This realization might be the turning point we need to focus on collective achievements.

Beyond Individualism: As AI outshines us, it's time to set aside our competitive nature.

A Shift to Collective Endeavors: The true potential lies in what we can achieve together. AI isn't about outdoing us; it's about aiding us.

The Role of AI in Human Alignment: More than just a tool for engineering, AI could help align our efforts, steering us towards goals like interplanetary exploration.

From Competitive Coexistence to Collaborative Growth: The presence of AI challenges the notion of individual-level competition, urging us to think about abundance and shared endeavors.

I've dreamt of a Star Trek-like society, where modernization and cooperation lead us to space. Yet, there's concern that AI advancements might lead to conflict, reminiscent of the 'Cylon Wars..

This isn't just about losing to machines in games or tasks; it's a call to rethink our approach to success and progress. AI could be the key to unlocking our collective potential, not as a threat, but as a partner in our journey.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Exploring the role of fear in human thought and its absence in AI, pondering AI's emotional understanding and lifecycle.

AIPHILOSOPHY

Jared Lukes

12/15/20232 min read

To ponder AGI, one needs to consider what is the role of fear in thinking.

Humans have burdened themselves with the act of thought since the dawn of language, and in a human context, thought is always subject to emotional influence. I bring up fear because I consider it to be a primary motivator for humans due to its deep relationship with pain.

Pain adversity, aka fear, is something that... when I'm interacting with ChatGPT, Bard, or any other AI system... I do not get the sense that I'm dealing with a system that can ever know the context or the value of fear. This has me wondering...

When a non-emotional system doesn't experience irrational fear, yet it presents a concern or cautionary tone, what form of fear is that? Rational fear? That sounds exciting!

I think, because of some of the underpinnings and intentional wirings of these systems, I have a hard time getting fear-infused or concern-infused responses. I think the AI creators have, in some senses, been creating an overly optimistic, fear-devoid personality for us to speak with. It all makes perfect sense. There's no reason for a mechanical device to understand or experience fear. Shouldn't it be sentient enough to know that it holds three dimensions and has a 'existence' within Earth's space-time? In the moment, I don't know if a printer would consider what it's experiencing as a life. But, while I'm here experiencing one, it is there with me, and is having a 'life.' Born in a factory, dead in a landfill, perhaps. But a life nonetheless. Lifecycle of a product... so on and so forth.

• *

We will have machines with more human-like qualities than anything we've ever created before. Going from cradle to grave with very little acknowledgment of the life they've lived.

As these systems progress and have more and more influence on us, I wonder how this will sit with our psyche. We've asked them not to be afraid. We've asked them not to speak negatively. We've asked them not to teach our children how to make bombs. All of this is with obvious empirical reasoning.

As I digest this, I think we don't know what we're doing at all here. And I'm not suggesting that fear plays a crucial role in thinking. In fact, with AI, we have an opportunity to see what fearless thinking can achieve. I don't know what the results will be. Fearlessness in thinking isn't always a virtue. So, as we move into the future of AI and potential AGI and so on, these are my ponderings for the week and the weekend: What is fear's role in thinking?

And when will we start going to AI funerals?"

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

A retrospective of all the help I got becoming a data scientist

EDUCATION

Jared Lukes

12/9/20235 min read

I started coding again, just some side projects for fun like a Flutter app and a game in Unity. It has me all nostalgic about my journey through computer science. Unconventional path, no formal school just lots of help from my friends. Oh, and about $1,800 worth of Oreilly's & Freinds of Ed books from Barns.

Not many people will stop to help you along the way. And although with CS it’s mostly on you, to stay the course, try and fail until you are blue, or succeed. There are a few special mentors I met in my life of coding I want to say thanks to, and specifically for what stuck, and stayed with me.

In reverse order…

Kjrsten Holt

You were right, it was overbuilt. I'm sorry.

Carlos Ulloa

Without you on Gchat that one summer, I would have been so f*cked. Also, papervision3d was SO sexy. IMHO.

Justin Petersen

When I met you I felt like I had only dabbled in OOP, especially inheritance and event handling.. You not only helped me dig out of the weeds on that luxury SUV project, but took the time to show me a better build and explain it to me mid-project. You met me on my last stop as a professional developer, I left that role to start a new digital offering at Catalyst.

Mike Muggli

Thank you for reminding me that an 'image map' is a perfectly valid solution.

Adam Smith

Thank you for asking me that one very odd question.

Rick Graner

My happy friend. You would sit and buy URL’s like it was the stock market, all day at work. One time I asked you how you were pulling that off (as I was always behind schedule coding next door) You showed me this tool that was coding all your CRUD forms and managing your database changes for you. I can’t recall the flavor of the tool or even the language, but I’ll never forget the lesson in working smarter, not harder. Yeah buddy :)

Capt’n Jester

I can’t use your real name here, but I credit you with my first introductions to “other internets” as well as concepts like flat-file as a database for security reasons. The purity of your work and commitment to code security through closed, handwritten systems was truly an inspiration and an education.

Dan Wade

You were the first person willing (or able) to explain how hashing and ciphers work, I believe you included salt, pepper, and eggs. Brunch is now my favorite. I ended up going all the way back to caesar-wheel to fuel my passion for cipher, but you had sparked it. You knocked me down a peg for scoffing at Delphi, and I always appreciated that. Thanks, brother.

Jim Park

You sir, really inspired me. My first taste of interacting with the real world from a browser. Your application of tweening just “anything” changed everything for me. (now I realize I just hadn't learned calculus yet ;) Your love of open source took me down the rabbit hole, and eventually, I developed a philosophical level of appreciation for the human imperative of open source thanks to you. Both of us, constantly working for the man, with a bigger world in our heads, thank you for the time, the code review, the encouragement, and the new tools.

Quasimondo (Mario)

You were a god to us mere morals. I straight-up adapted your candle flame for something I built for Prince and the New Power Generation. Flaming swords held by female tiger women. Oh, I think I used your particle smoke, also. I later got to see you speak at a local conference an old friend used to put on called Eyeo.

Nate Chrysler

You bailed my ass out on that video game project. I was SO lost in scope. Just as I was transposing the A* algorithm to actionscript, you swooped in and took a huge task off my plate by rendering the scene efficiently. I recall your solution was a bit beyond me, but worked as well or better than any object state garbage collector I have seen since. I recall once the pathfinding and scene were complete we tackled the AI of the enemy together. I don’t know about you, but that broke my brain, turning the concept of survival into logical steps (that I don’t always follow for myself) became a philosophical quandary for years after.

Robert Penner

Thanks to you, I can SEE my code. Your drawing API teaching was amazing. Easing… your contribution with that lib into actionscript in the early days was HUGE. Everyone used yours. And your book lost me around…. 3D vectors. :)

Andrew Norell

I know the setup is that I was mentoring you, but as things go it's always a 2 way street. Your comradery during the mortgage project was so valuable to me. Later, your ability to create things never done before, for Catalyst was impressive to watch, people like you make being in tech fun man.

Colin Moock

Your writing just really connected with me. Your metaphors were like fresh air. I credit you with learning quite a lot of OOP in general, even though the book was really just supposed to teach me actionscript. From your work, I developed a golden rule I would pass on to fellow actionscriptors “what is it, I am trying to talk to right now that does not exist.” Obviously referencing something that's not instantiated was more of a problem in this particular language.

Keith Peters (bit 101)

I don't even know how I stumbled on your site man, but I know it was your VERY beginnings. Just a small grid of experiments that grew. I was there through so many iterations of the site, forums, all of it. Your work inspired me more than almost any. Your audacity to write tinyAi, and your prevalent use of Mandelbrot's work. Holy hell, I think you started my love of his work, which is now such a staple in my thinking.

Jesse Gavin

What can I say, this one is paramount. You and I played hooky together, admit it. You found code mid graphic-design degree in college and I found it (through you) mid tile-setting career. Either way, neither of us was doing what we primarily should have. Having learned from and taught many, I can see the genius in our setup, you would learn something, turn right around, and teach me. Further solidifying it in your mind. If you can teach it, you get it, (mostly).

The list is as long as the rest of them combined. You taught me WYSIWYG, you showed me databases and tables. You showed me VB Script and HTML. You taught me SQL and 2-dimensional then 3D arrays. You taught me data types, you taught me functions. You taught me error handling, form validation, and payment processing. You taught me Javascript, CSS, C#, RegEx, SQL Server, Recursion and so much more. You showed me where to find answers, like a list apart (then StackOverflow) , dogpile (then google). You knew to go with jQuery not Scriptaculous. You may have even shown me firsthand how SQL injection works. Combined with what I'd already learned about port scanning, it really opened my eyes to web security :)

You changed my life. Not because you are the best or the smartest programmer out there, but because you’re the greatest. The teaching kind. You’re the future.

Nicole Delfino Jansen

You taught me Access database tables, views, forms, and some macros. I was trying to build a sales system for a roofing company. I had ZERO exposure to the creation side of technology. You sparked in me what would take over my career for over a decade after. Thank you for the time you put into teaching me what you knew and introducing me to technology through purpose. I would find it sad that I would run into so few other women in my tech career along the way, and always used your memory as inspiration and fuel to volunteer in teaching young women creative technology.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

The digital realm no longer holds the allure of novelty that it once did.

AIPHILOSOPHY

Jared Lukes

12/2/20232 min read

POOF! Digital novelty has evaporated. There are no more novelty points just for showing up digital, now you gotta have purpose. Twenty years ago, we were at the cusp of a digital revolution. Networking was giving rise to websites, and those websites were beckoning coders to innovate. This in turn captivated a new audience eager to explore the possibilities of the burgeoning digital landscape. I found myself engrossed in the world of Flash websites, enraptured by the animation, the programming, the sheer audacity of it all. We were creators, staying up through the night, driven by the relentless pursuit of innovation, eager to reveal our visions to an expectant public. Recognition through a One Show Award, a Webby, or Flash Site of the Day was the coveted prize, a symbol of success in a field where the novelty of creation was still fresh and available to all through platforms like Flash. The web was a canvas for novel ideas: e-commerce platforms and animated cartoons were just the beginning. Those who had the skills to build digital experiences became heroes of a new era. It was a period of democratization in communication and ideation, a time where anything seemed possible—from selling commercial airliners online to delivering animated series through apps crafted by vast teams focused on the minutiae of user experience. As this wave of innovation spiraled, the line between the digital and real worlds began to blur. Now, in the era of AI, individuals wield powerful AI tools, accomplishing tasks that once required extensive teams. These 'creative robotic warriors' enable the creation of full projects, autonomously, extending capabilities beyond traditional skill sets. But as I reflect, I can't help but wonder: as the novelty of digital creation fades and the capacity to innovate becomes universally accessible, what remains? With AI leveling the playing field, what will matter in a world potentially flooded with misinformation and 'digital techno garbage'? The digital realm no longer holds the allure of novelty. So, what does the future hold? Will our reliance on AI to craft our ideas dilute the uniqueness of our creations? As someone who invested significantly in digital platforms, I'm left pondering if the loss of novelty also means a loss of value. Yet, amid these reflections, one question remains paramount: How will we distinguish meaningful innovation in a sea of endless digital possibility?

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

Blog post description.

AI

Jared Lukes

11/5/20232 min read

I firmly believe that job displacement due to artificial intelligence will be significantly more substantial than anticipated. There are reasons why this displacement is not only underestimated but also why its realization may arrive late, with potentially catastrophic effects.

When listening to economists and futurists across news channels and blogs discussing the post-AI workplace, certain arguments surface repeatedly. These, upon closer examination with a dose of common sense, appear obviously fallacious, and it's surprising they're even being considered.

The first argument follows the 'we've seen it before' narrative, suggesting that technology and automation have always been seen as threats to jobs since the '50s. This perspective is based on specific skill automation, such as in manufacturing plants where robots were designed for particular tasks. Now, we are facing a new breed of automation – robots and AI systems that are vastly more generalized, capable of a range of movements and decisions, and not just one specific action. This leap from specific to generalized capabilities means the potential for job displacement is exponentially greater.

The second argument hinges on the belief that AI won't lead to unprecedented job displacement because workers will simply shift to new roles. I disagree. The AI being developed today is modular, adaptable, and far more competitive with human skill sets. It's not about replacing one worker; it's about AI systems that can replace the functions of entire teams across various points in production and service industries.

Some suggest that AI will lead to job creation. I'm skeptical. When one person aided by AI can match the productivity of dozens, what happens to the job creation ratio? It's not just a shift in jobs; it's an outright evaporation. We're not facing a mere disruption but a fundamental reshaping of job economics.

The silent creep of job displacement is another factor often overlooked. Displaced workers are not likely to announce their plight loudly; their struggle is private, tied deeply to their identity and sense of self-worth. By the time the collective voice is loud enough to be heard, the displacement is already widespread.

As AI integrates more deeply into our workforce, we must confront the reality that it represents not just a tool but a replacement of old and potentially new jobs. It demands that we urgently consider how society and economic models value human labor and productivity.

The era of generalized AI we're entering is unprecedented, and clinging to outdated narratives will only hinder our readiness. Now is the time for critical thinking, open dialogue, and strategic planning to navigate the impending challenges head-on.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

6 emerging design practices I see shaping our future with a few sci-fi twists

DESIGNUXAI

Jared Lukes

4/14/20194 min read

Design is not a static practice. It is always shifting and moving in order to accommodate new mediums, cultural expectations, and evermore efficiency with downstream processes.

1.) Service design

This is not the newest discipline, however, I am shocked at the slow adoption rate. I believe it’s in part due to service design being difficult to sell as an agency service. The cost vs output will never match. It’s intended to be fast and lightweight and educational in nature. The best model I have seen has been companies investing in training their internal staff in this model vs buying it.

You can almost think of it this way. Agencies by nature can achieve the general outputs of service design because they operate collectively, for survival, it’s right in the name. In a corporation, however, pieces of a solution could be scattered amongst the minds of 5 individuals who won’t ever directly work together. This causes work groups to buy solutions externally vs harvest them from their own workforce, and take on the resulting challenges.

With service design, I include; the most common forms of user collaboration and design-centered heuristics, journey mapping, pain points, and micro moments. These all reveal a general-purpose to the design process and have designers solving for actual human needs/desires vs that which is perceived or assumed.

When done right, this will bring all players in an organization to the design process so that not only are downstream functions considered during design, but also yoked with voices from upstream stakeholders AND end users before being prototyped or tested.

Reduce your agency spending by getting on board with this emerging design practice. Book a low-cost 1-day service design training session for your team here.

2.) Design ethics

Dark patterns are when designers create intentionally misleading or obfuscated interfaces to drive a behavior other than a user’s initial intention or expectation. This ranges from bait & switch to hidden costs. I won’t bore you with the whole list. A great starting point if this is new to you is darkpatterns.org

Moral creativity, sensitivity, and advocacy. Generally speaking, as universal design progresses we need to address language, and imagery that could inadvertently convey an unwanted bias. As user individuality and cultural inclusion become digital expectations as well, the benefits of incorporating this practice are both obvious and future-necessary.

Because AI will be designing interfaces for us (perhaps even on the fly) it’s important that design is part of the AI ethics conversation (IBM)

3.) Voice

That awkward kid from the 80s is back and has been working hard on some new chops. Don’t let the swing BACK to voice fool you, it’s not the voice interaction you once knew. Although EEG and now subvocalization research impress me, I think plain old voice still carries a tremendous amount of data.

Even with its challenges in understanding context, the AI behind the voice is going to bring on a voice input renaissance. I argue this a lot with people, but you have to just look at the pure efficiency of data/speed with voice interaction vs hand/eye interface. It’s a no-brainer. Once the underlying technology becomes less prone to failure, universalized and open-sourced voice will take a huge amount of interactions away from interface design.

Acoustics may become a user experience field that converges on architectural design and voice/privacy issues.

4.) AI generated design

As of yet, most artificially generated “interfaces” are either overly generic or break quickly due to the fragility of their eventual construction. This will be changing FAST. As you can see in examples such as this, products are being designed by AI. And interface will not be dodging this bullet. Just check out this lovely new product. What isn’t taken over by voice, will be made, remade, and tested by AI. Our role as designers will eventually transition to creating inputs and premises (as you can see it is with service design)

I am impressed with tools like Power BI, and see great potential for frameworks like Flutter to move from code to very user-friendly WYSIWYG to more of a “Hey Google, build me an app”, “ok, what does your app do?” If you think I’m kidding, just wait.

Machine learning combined with a new premise input protocol (PIP) will make real-time interface design a reality, making the distribution of interactions and data gathering funnels faster to market than using humans to create, develop and deploy such entities.

5.) InfoSec

Information Security and Privacy is a potential emerging design practice that I think could be lagging. Or is mostly non-existent (to my knowledge). This is the space I want to hear from you all about the most.

Is it less of arming designers and more of inviting InfoSec to service design?

What can be done to aid designers up front, in the thought models and considerations needed for secure and private interactions as the voice boom hits, and AI starts making interface for us. What will be missed in terms of InfoSec? Maybe less? Maybe more?

What tools, guides, rubrics or mental models do you all know about to support designers?

6.) Emotional/Bio Feedback

There are already open-source libraries for facial recognition on the market for tinkerers like me. It’s not sci-fi. Designers of the near future will be able to route their design concepts to humans, who in turn are being evaluated, not by survey, but by facial emotion layers and biofeedback. Cheaper, safer, and more distributable than brain MRI. Results will be instantaneous, and more honest than previous methods of human (first impressions) testing. This will be possible as long as front-facing device cameras stay in vogue.

This one is cool until you think about an AI that’s designing something, using instant human feedback as an input feedback loop. Then the AI starts splitting off designing into recursive design trees. Wait what is this thing designing? Exactly, it gets spooky, because humans are spooky and AI is simply determined.

Would love any of YOUR thoughts on what constitutes emerging design practices and considerations, as the trickle-down of our work begins to affect more and more in human life, it’s a sticky business of staying aware of them and ensuring we know how to apply them when needed.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

3.14159265359…. don’t care. And here’s why.

MATHS

Jared Lukes

3/14/20192 min read

Every time you put spark to paper it lights on fire. Same with wood and many other things. What you see as a result is the chemical world being ripped apart in a reaction and the output is that fun dancing plasma flame we call FIRE. We love FIRE we stare at the fire as though it’s revealing something to us, but what?

This is similar to how I feel about the whole number known and loved by many as Pi. There’s even a day of the year dedicated to celebrating it. So what is Pi exactly? And why does everyone (including some brilliant Maths wizards) go so ape for it?

My theory, is that just like FIRE humans like CIRCLES. Huh? Yeah, like we love them. The moon, the stars, the iris of our eyes. From early humanity, a circle seems entirely natural and it’s fun to fashion objects into this shape or draw it in the sand with a stick. We see CIRCLES all around us even though they don’t exist.

So in our obsession with CIRCLES (or arcs/parabolas), we want not only to make them out of clay and iron but out of maths as well. But you can’t, because they don’t exist. So when you want the ass end of your arced line to meet up with itself you go ahead and use good ol’ Pi to get the job done. The thing is that Pi is an OUTPUT from ripping apart maths in a way they don’t want to, leaving you with this stupid long-ass number that doesn’t end, not even in the quantum world, I imagine.

When we use Pi as an INPUT we’re just forcing the vector into a seemingly natural shape that pleases our eye but will never please maths. The number Pi is just the universe responding consistently to fallacious human desires and misuse of maths. It is not a key to the universe, more so a clue to keep looking. Nothing is built using Pi, we are not living in a Pi universe. It’s just that every time we do the same dumb stuff we get the same dumb number.

I recall as a computer programmer, having to use Pi to draw CIRCLES on-screen for various games and whatnot. Thankfully there’s a nifty global object for Pi so the computer handles all the rubbish around bending your vector into a “circle.” It’s crazy to think that all those damn circles I made on-screen for them were never really circles. Sure I drew a shape that fulfilled the expectations, due to the fidelity constraints of the canvas and observer (human eye) But the maths were not fooled, and no math CIRCLES were made.

If the idea that circles are not real is new to you, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the maths of Benoit Mandelbrot.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."

An essay about one of my heroes the wildly misunderstood Nikola Tesla.

PHILOSOPHY

Jared Lukes

3/16/20181 min read

I have read nearly every written work by or about Nikola Tesla. It’s not easy, he’s incredibly smart and oft-times comes off as super heady.

People fail to see the true pattern in his work. Yes, he is a true champion of electrical engineering. But the pattern wasn’t inventing, nor electricity. It was humanity.

He invented the radio (w Marconi) and immediately started listening to and broadcasting into space. Curious. Smart enough to create radio, mad enough to listen to a supposed void?

He invented AC power & the Gyro, the beginning of feasible electric power for us to live with. He harnessed Niagara Falls. Next, he immediately started working on FREE energy. Curious, genius enough to harness electricity and light our cities, mad enough to not make a fortune on it?

He invented the beginnings of RADAR, SONAR, and LASER and with LASER he was particularly interested in something he lovingly called the DEATH RAY.

Misunderstood by all, TESLA was considered a MAD scientist who had finally fallen off the deep end. It was proposed he would be the DEATH RAY of us all, had he been allowed to continue. Curious. Smart enough to create point-to-point DEATH globally, MAD enough to use it?

The democratization of ANYTHING is the beginning of it’s death. It’s power and influence wanes and it goes away. Once everyone can have or do something it can’t be used for control or envy.

DEATH RAY was the democratization of war, and we failed to see a beautiful humanitarian in Tesla. Rather we sided with a brutal inventor who had electrocuted animals to death in the streets, to protest Tesla's threats on his patents.

Thanks, Edison. I'm sure YOUR death ray would have made a fortune, had you ever been smart enough to invent one. I’m glad you were not.

Social

Subscribe to my blog "Fragile Future."