The people most worried about AI are using it the most. The people using it least aren't worried — they've left the field. That quiet exit is the most expensive instinct in professional life.

I heard it inside the Fort Knox of plutonium, from some of the smartest engineers alive: "AI is just not there yet." Here's what that sentence actually costs.

The build took an hour. The insight took sixteen years. You probably have a number that would move your business and has never hit a dashboard — not because it's unmeasurable, but because no one ever named it."

What if the best AI economy isn't one person building a billion-dollar company, but a million people building businesses they actually care about? A guest essay from my Beyond the Prompt co-host Henrik Werdelin and his Audos co-founder Nicholas Thorne.

A reader wrote the same report twice — once with plain ChatGPT, once with his Teammate Stack. Same person, same AI model, same task. Only one of them sounded like him.

You wanted self-starters. You built a permission structure. No wonder everyone is waiting.

He had a tattoo that said "Call me a baby because dolphins make me cry." He also said he'd pour hot oil on a kitchen robot to keep his job. I met him because I turned down Dave Grohl to hold a sign in Washington Square. Here's what I learned.

The prompt before the prompt is noticing what deserves attention.

I asked my AI chief of staff to read 50 pre-event transcripts and write the FAQ I'd been avoiding for months. It took three minutes.

Reese Witherspoon asked her book club, "do you use AI?" Three million people watched. The internet split — and both sides were right, because they were arguing about the wrong word.

A real concern is not a valid conclusion. An EVP in finance emailed me last week about AI sycophancy. Most people raise that concern as an off-ramp. He made it the curriculum.

There are levels of AI augmentation: Some people use AI to draft emails. Josh used it to run 27 agents on a single problem, from his mobile on the road, with all the context of his laptop at home. Those are not the same thing.

Andrej Karpathy hasn't typed a line of code since December. That sentence has a blank in it — fill it with your word, and something shifts.

When Manu Ginobili raised his hand during a Spurs AI session and said "Could AI...?" — that was the ball game. The answer to almost every "could it" question is yes. The problem is most people don't have a question yet.

There are two fears circulating in the age of AI. One is fuel. The other is self-fulfilling. A neuroscientist recently explained why — and it changed how I think about every AI conversation I have.

This Week: Guest Post from Brice Challamel , Head of AI Strategy and Adoption at OpenAI — If AI can draft the memo, build the deck, and prototype the product, what exactly is the professional's contribution? Brice says it's not "less" — it's "different." Read his case for the shift from authorship to stewardship.

A 40% quality boost, available to anyone. Taken up by fewer than 3% of the workforce (and that number is going down, not up). At Wharton this week, I accidentally said the thing that explains why.

The engineer who experiments with 40 prompts shows up on the dashboard. The finance manager who quietly kills three recurring reports doesn't — even though she's the one who actually changed. A guest post from Logitech's Head of Global AI.

AI can make you 100x more productive at work, and make being present at home feel 100x more expensive. That tension isn’t just personal weakness. It’s a new economic reality.

I almost moved a family trip for two business opportunities. That moment made me ask a question I think every AI power user needs to sit with: What if your biggest AI risk isn’t bad output, but a misallocated life?