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?

I'd been stuck for weeks — not because the technology wasn't available, but because I hadn't thought to ask. I've started calling these 'wherewithal moments.' They're hard to manufacture. But they compound.

Most people treat AI like a better search engine. The few who've broken through treat it like a team that never sleeps. If you don't feel the pain of idle agents, you haven't grasped what's available to you.

Finance 101 says diversification — holding a broad range of investments from safe bonds to growth equities — is the best way to reduce your risk and maximize return. So why is your AI strategy all municipal bonds?

AI adoption is plateauing. I analyzed 5,000 anonymous survey responses looking for the culprit. I found it. And it's not what I expected.

A senior executive called to tell me my talk was "one of three ingredients in the best idea I've ever had." That almost never happens. Here's why it should.

89% of HR leaders believe AI will impact jobs next year. Only 67% say it's impacting work now. That 22-point gap between belief and action is where companies go to die.

If your board members haven't personally experienced what AI can do, they cannot exercise their fiduciary responsibility. Fiduciary duty used to mean financial oversight. Then it expanded to include strategy, risk, culture. Now it includes imagination.

Everyone's “exhausted” by AI talk, or at least, that’s what I’m hearing. But there’s a more nuanced undercurrent. When I asked a room full of executives to show me what they'd actually built, everybody froze. That's not fatigue. It's something else entirely.

Standing in my hallway surrounded by broken glass, I asked AI for 10 terrible ways to respond. What came back changed how I think about parenting—and about AI.

Here's what I've noticed over the past year. (And yes, I include myself in this.) Leaders are really good at telling their teams to embrace AI. They're much less good at embracing it themselves.