I changed how signup works on my thing about a week ago. Four of my own published videos still describe the old behaviour, word for word, and I only noticed because I went looking for something else.
They're not badly written. They were accurate when they went up. The policy moved and the back catalogue didn't, and there's no mechanism anywhere that would have told me.
Two ways out that I can see. Unlist them, which costs me the small amount of reach they still pull and leaves holes in the history. Or retitle and rewrite the descriptions, which keeps the view counts but means the thumbnail and the first frame still say the old thing, because I'm not re-editing four videos over a copy change.
I went with neither so far, which is the honest answer. They're still up.
I'll go first. A large HR platform sent out an automated AI-written email offering condolences on a prospect's coworker's death, and then tried to hook them into a demo.
Disclaimer: This was written by a human, no AI was used in this process :)
The type of AI user you are can vary, just like people. I recently stumbled upon the debate of Centaur v Cyborg and it inspired me to look in the mirror and ask the question to myself, am I a Centaur or a Cyborg? I pondered on this question for a while and came to the conclusion I am a Fisherman I will explain.
Feel free to take this entry with a grain of sale, it is through my own practical experience using AI at Work at an enterprise level. I believe the debate of Centaur v Cyborg is particularly intriguing because the practices of prompt engineering are so nuanced and depending on the user and how that user learns and works best will entirely depend which side you lean towards.
Nobody questions someone's competence for using a calculator, a spellchecker, a design template, or an IDE autocomplete. Using a tool to help execute an idea is normal everywhere else.
But the second writing involves AI even when the person had the actual idea and used AI just to help draft or refine it there's an instant judgment that doesn't apply anywhere else.
One workflow problem I keep seeing is that project information gets documented repeatedly. The business need and scope may start in a charter, then get rewritten in a BRD, SOW, project plan, and implementation documentation.
I m exploring whether approved project information should become structured data that automatically carries forward into the next project artifact rather than forcing PMs and business analysts to start from a blank document each time.
Habit building is kind of tricky and serious researchers looked into it to understand how the brain works when building new habits. All the habit tracking apps are built for gamification, streaks, spreadsheets, constant nagging and input which contradicts the path for habit building. Behaviours that stick becomes habits .phone scrolling in bed before falling asleep is a habit (a bad one, but still a habit). If you are using any of the apps there that are actually helping you to build better habits would be great to hear your thoughts..
If you have ever used a coding agent to build a serious project/ as an assitant for your dev work( of course you have by now) , what do you do about the dead code?
I was searching for some old launches to see if I could find a hunter listing or ranking on PH itself. I did find an interesting product in past PH launches and it was going to a spam link for gambling.. I did report to PH team and saw a prompt action, but then got to wonder, with 100s of launches perday, how many such launches end up have bad links due to takeover by bad elements? Do share any of your experience, if there is.. thanks..
