My AI Investigated a Colleague Without Being Asked
I asked Claude to look into a question. It searched our Slack, named who sent it, and judged what they’d got wrong — none of which I authorised.
A clinical examination of applied AI, software architecture and human performance — every entry, in one place.
I asked Claude to look into a question. It searched our Slack, named who sent it, and judged what they’d got wrong — none of which I authorised.
You promised leadership a 4× boost from AI. You got 1.5×. The missing speed is locked in the stages you never pointed it at — here’s the maths.
I went down a rabbit hole about what AI does to how we learn. Outsource the effort and you lose the faculty — unless you keep the thinking for yourself.
Stack Overflow didn’t die because AI got good. It died because it made asking a question feel like a trial — and the moat it built became its undoing.
We brought Claude into our first incident war room. The lesson — give it a hypothesis to test, not a mystery to solve.
A three-to-four-month project shipped in five weeks — AI-first, with more discipline, not less. The change was prototypes over specs, humans in the loop.
Everyone says start fresh before a long AI chat degrades. I ran one for six weeks on a hard refactor — and it got better. Here’s why.
Our most expensive project was a dashboard misusing Firestore as an analytics store. The fix was not a migration — it was matching the model to the billing.
I train for the capacity hard work runs on, not to look better. My cardio is swimming, not running — same result, far less joint wear.
Our engineers ignored the AI reviewer for months, then made it a mandatory step themselves. A story about adopting AI by demonstration, not by mandate.
No entries in this category.