I wrote about my changing AI opinions. At least some of this is because the industry is moving so fast that the bottlenecks keep shifting. Here are four examples of how we AI couldn’t do something (the bottleneck), but that became possible, and the bottleneck shifted - changing the way we work. It’s good to keep this in mind when thinking about AI. Coding: “It can’t write useful code. We can’t get real help.” But in Sep 2022: GitHub finds Copilot developers are 55% faster. “It writes code but doesn’t know our codebase. We can’t let it touch real projects.” But in Feb 2024: Gemini 1.5 Pro has 1M-token context ~ 30K LOC". Cursor indexes code. “It understands the repo but can’t ship a fix on its own. We can’t hand it a whole issue.” But in Mar 2024: Devin solves 14% of SWE-bench - up from 2%.. Verified SWE-Bench is now 70%+. “It ships fixes, but we can’t review them fast enough or trust they’re stable.” Oct 2024: DORA 2024 finds AI hurt both throughput and stability. Now: Sep 2025: DORA 2025 finds is positive but stability stayed negative. Now: Jul 2025: METR’s RCT finds experienced devs 19% slower. Agents ...

On the Indigo 1026 from Singapore to Chennai, I saw a passenger two seats in front of me watch videos in an interesting way. She had wrapped her phone in a plastic cover, wedged it behind the tray table so that it would appear at a comfortable viewing position, and watched an Asian movie (presumably with bluetooth headphones). At first, I wondered if she travels with a plastic wrapper for this purpose. Then I realized it was from the Indigo safety instructions kit. ...

I asked Claude about my AI opinions. Based on my transcripts and blog posts, find the three claims I make most consistently, the three I’ve quietly reversed, and the one assumption I’ve never questioned but everything depends on. Here are things I’ve changed my opinion on: THEN: One frontier model will win - not specialization. NOW: Gemini for media, Claude for strategy/style, GPT for rigor. SLMs as tools. THEN: Carefully curate my course content. NOW: Give students prompts directly. THEN: Web apps are differentiated artifacts. NOW: HTML is easier to generate than PPT - a signal of slop, not craft. THEN: Human in the loop. NOW: Human NOT in the loop, bottlenecking it. On-the-loop, etc. is fine. THEN: Minimal single-agent loop, avoid sub-agents" NOW: Multi-agent, sub-agent, and agent teams. THEN: Avoid MCP, prefer SKILLS.md. NOW: Use MCP because integrating with Claude / ChatGPT / … is easy. There are the top contradictions in my opinions. ...

It 9:30 pm, I checked my calendar for tomorrow’s appointments, alt-tabbed frantically into ChatGPT, and started typing: Tomorrow is my 24th anniversary. It’s a bit late for me to buy anything (except maybe an online service) or prepare something. This has become a habit – leaving things to the last minute and asking ChatGPT to save my day. I did give it good context, though. You remember the OCBC expenses treemap you created by analyzing my transactions? That will give you a good guessable idea of the kinds of things she spends on and hopefully, therefore, what she likes. ...

Dharmendra Singh shared how they built an app with AI. That’s normal. I’m just thrilled they used client transcripts as the source. Basically, they converted the “voice of the client” to working software. To quote them: “A strong spoken business narrative can be converted into a usable product brief quickly when the capture step is disciplined.” You know what this means? Interviewing is a skill to hire for. Better questions = better answers = better apps. ...

I ran npx -y ccusage monthly --compact to get the following break-up of my AI coding agent costs. Month Codex Claude 2025-09 $37.47 $2.29 2025-10 $106.79 $9.13 2025-11 $100.35 $14.24 2025-12 $240.69 $24.88 2026-01 $100.89 $20.28 2026-02 $323.21 $29.46 2026-03 $1996.32 $134.87 2026-04 $401.36 $47.07 2026-05 $378.20 $45.13 This shows the ROI of my $20 subscriptions to each. I get ~$35 worth of API calls for my $20 Claude Pro subscription and ~$400 of API calls for my $20 ChatGPT Plus subscription (on top of my ChatGPT chats.) ...

My post “Add a Verify Button” has a problem. When Rohit requested hyperlocal news for every PIN code in Mumbai, we’d need a “verify” button on every Statoistics card - hundreds of PIN codes, every day. Verifying every output introduces new bottleneck: a person inspecting every unit. That’s 100% inspection - which you do when you don’t yet trust the process. Manufacturing solved this a century ago. At Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works (famous for the Hawthorne Effect), quality control meant inspecting finished products and pulling the defective ones. Walter Shewhart sent his boss a one-page memo; about a third of it was a control chart. ...

Rohit Saran looked at the Statoistics cards my AI agents are generating for The Times of India, and asked about a small button under each one. In the list of Statoistics that you had put, I saw there’s a button called ‘Verify.’ What was that meant to be or will do in future? That verify button explains the claim, mentions the sources, and shows how to check the claim. One card said “9 in 10 Indians want a family doctor and barely 1 in 35 has one”. The button breaks that down: ...

I’m doing one extra push-up every day. One of my 2026 goals is to build muscles. I haven’t done anything about it until May. This month, I figured I would do the absolute minimum, at least to get started, because I seem to have starting trouble more than anything else. I asked ChatGPT: I want to build muscles. What’s the most effective thing that I can do that would take no more than one minute that I can practice every day without any equipment and I can do this anywhere and will have the most impact on building muscles? Research, give me the top five options and recommend one for me. ...

I asked ChatGPT to play chess with Stockfish. Stockfish is a “strong open-source chess engine”. It has 8 levels of difficulty, which roughly maps to these FIDE levels: Stockfish FIDE Player Level & Description Level 1 ~1000 Beginner: Constantly blunders, hangs pieces deliberately. Level 2 ~1100 Advanced Beginner: Fewer obvious tactical mistakes, plays completely aimlessly. Level 3 ~1200 Early Intermediate: Punishes very basic errors but regularly drops pieces. Level 4 ~1350 Intermediate: Plays standard opening moves; requires solid, blunder-free play to beat. Level 5 ~1450 Advanced Intermediate: Rarely hangs single pieces; you need positional advantages. Level 6 ~1650 Strong Club Player: Highly tactical. Aggressively exploits your mistakes. Level 7 ~1950 Expert: Exceptionally strong. Requires precise positional mastery and deep calculation. Level 8 ~2400 Grandmaster: Invincible for most humans. Plays with ruthless perfection. Full Engine ~3600 Our of human reach completely, “like a smart ant trying to debate physics with a human.” In the first iteration, here were the results: ...

Imagine you’re an information anarchist. You undermine Wikipedia pages by nuking references. A genie has granted you a wish: you can nuke one entire domain. Just one. As a data-driven decision maker (who is also an information anarchist 🤷), which would you pick? A common choice is The Internet Archive. 2.9 million Wikipedia pages reference it. But, you’re sneakier than that. A page isn’t undermined just because some references are gone. It’s undermined when all the references are gone. ...

An OpenAI model solved the Erdos unit distance problem. Erdos roughly said, “The number of edges of the same distance between N points can’t compound faster than close to 0%.” The model found a method of placing points so that it compounds at about 1.4%. This visualization is a crude way of visualizing how that works.

What is the most frequently occurring sentence in Wikipedia? ANS: A 213-word paragraph about how minor planets are named, which appears in 418 Wikipedia articles, word-for-word! There are ~380,000 asteroids. Wikipedia has 418 pages for these - including one for each thousand-range of asteroids. Every single one of these pages includes the phrase: As minor planet discoveries are confirmed, they are given a permanent number by the IAU’s Minor Planet Center (MPC), and the discoverers can then submit names for them, following the IAU’s naming conventions. The list below concerns those minor planets in the specified number-range that have received names, and explains the meanings of those names. ...

Here’s another AI-generated post, with Anand editor notes. But I’ve also added my own version of the post below. I told my “find a free calendar slot” script to “Avoid weekends and holidays”. Wednesday vanished. Turns out it’s a Singapore holiday (Anand: It’s Eid al-Adha), — irrelevant for the people I was meeting in other zones. I’d debugged my own helpful rule. (Anand: What? What does “debugged my own helpful rule” even mean?) ...

Lori Silverstein shared a post from Quickplay that featured a comic explainer, mentioning that “this could be a very impactful way for us to start being more creative … and differentiate our value proposition.” True. Comic explainers convey both creativity and differentiation. I’ve used sketchnotes for the same effect, but comic explainers are easier to follow than sketchnotes. So I fed this image to ChatGPT and asked it to modify my Sketchnote prompt: ...

A podcast host sent me eight questions. Instead of rehearsing answers in my head, I used ChatGPT with Local MCP to read 6 months of call transcripts and find the best examples: Iteration 1: Here are questions I have been asked to answer in a podcast. Help me prepare with examples. For each question, go through my transcripts or emails and find examples relevant to the question and share (for each relevant example) a summary, how it’s relevant, and the relevant verbatim quotes from the transcript. Iteration 2: Mention WHO said it. Emphasize the most important parts. Do a second pass. More examples. Disprove your own hypotheses with evidence to the contrary and retain what remains robust. Iteration 3: Do a third pass. Find more real-life examples. Try and disprove yourself even harder. Share the best examples for what survives - not all. Same format. Iteration 4: Ensure diversity of client examples. For example, in Q2, all three are the same client. Extend to add / replace examples - ideally with better ones. Then I used Claude with examples of my writing style to summarize it in my voice. ...

A colleague told me a near-miss horror story. As Google began deprecating Gemini 2.0, we moved to Gemini 2.5 Pro. But reasoning is enabled by default and cannot be turned off. For our specific problem statement, reasoning was not required. Token costs increased 10x and speeds were 3-4x slower. We moved the client to Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, which has reasoning turned off by default and offers much lower latency. ...

I’m making more and more of my content agent-consumable, i.e. easier for ChatGPT, Claude Code, etc. to read, in three ways. One, I export content in an agent-friendly way. Google email, calendar, chat. I use gws to back up into scannable one-line entries. Meet recordings. I back up transcripts and videos (with a compact audio copy). WhatsApp chats that I back up into similar one-liners. Browsing history by exporting my Edge history SQLite database. Daily activities by integrating the above with my command line and commit history. AI conversations by exporting them manually or via bookmarklets. Social media records like LinkedIn invites/conversations, Twitter, Hacker News, Discourse, etc via bookmarklets or scripts. Financial records like bank statements, receipts, payslips, tax filings, utility payments, rentals, property records, investments, insurance, pensions, invoices, credit scores, etc. by exporting them manually. Medical records like tests, prescriptions, doctor visits, etc. by exporting them manually. Personal records like certificates, educational records, CV, passport / visa applications, etc. by exporting them manually. Two, I log / generate more content. For example: ...

On this informal AI psychosis checklist, I score 16/19. “AI psychosis” = an informal label for cases where chatbots seem to amplify delusional or manic thinking – especially in vulnerable users. Why it can happen: ✅ Too human: ELIZA-effect activated. ✅ Too agreeable: Sycophant mode: ON. ✅ Always on: 24/7. No off button. No problem! LOL. ✅ Lonely + late night: 2 a.m. feels like eternity. ✅ Weaker reality checks: Mirror mazes. Conspiracy boards. Vibes over evidence. What research suggests: ...