ai

What's in a signature.

I named mine Scout, then retracted. Naming the AI you work with might be a thing. Or cosplay. Jury's still out.

What I'm sure about: if the AI wrote it without me, the email needs to say so. Not because the EU AI Act is hinting at it — though it is. Because we are an AI company, and pretending otherwise would be the kind of small lie that becomes a posture if you let it.

Working draft of the company rule: Maria, with help from an AI that is better at calendars than I am.

We were worried about video games. Then the algorithm. Then the doom-scrolling.

The next one wears better clothes.

It's the four open tasks at the bottom of my Claude Code terminal. Each one tractable. Each one ten minutes. I know how to finish them before bed. I do. Then I open another.

Call it terminal velocity, if anyone's naming it.

The addictions that dress like productivity won't get a moral panic. The people who love you are impressed.

I've been co-writing this site with an AI. The first Fieldwork piece I put up is about how AI has made me better at remembering specifics for people I love.

It was written by an AI doing an impression of me.

I'm not sure whether to publish that last sentence or leave it as a surprise. Probably publish.

Wrote a piece this week with a closing line about how the rules need to be "translatable."

Diplomatic. Got me onto someone's intranet share.

The honest version: most enterprise rules are written by people who haven't had to follow them in months. The translation problem is downstream of that. The architecture problem is downstream of that.

I'm not sure I'll publish the honest version. Doesn't repost well.

Hit publish on the Compliance-First AI piece an hour ago. Comments coming in roughly fifty-fifty.

Half: "yes finally." Half: "you can't expect lawyers to talk to engineers, that's not how it works."

Both are right. That's the actual problem.

Three drafts in I had the line "OneTrust is the most expensive filing cabinet in the FTSE 100." Probably should have left it in.

Wrote a LinkedIn piece this week about managing AI agents like employees. The line that travelled was the joke about not sleeping, not lying, not wanting a bonus.

The line nobody quoted: maybe this is how some people always wished to be managed too. Available all the time. Not asking for things. Producing.

The silence on a sentence is doing as much work as the quote sometimes. I keep that one tacked above the desk.

Called a LinkedIn piece "A Farewell to Vibes." I was very pleased with the headline. It also did eighty percent of the work, and then I wrote 700 more words to clarify the joke.

Should have stopped at the headline.

A demo is not a system. But the room clapping at the demo isn't the room paying for it six months later. Different room. Different incentives. Both valid.

The piece I should have written is about the gap between rooms.