Artificially Designed

New model drops. Social feeds light up. Someone posts a demo that looks effortless, and you wonder if you've fallen behind.

The pressure to stay current masquerades as professional diligence, but it produces scattered attention and fatigue. Learning has become performative instead of structural, reactive instead of intentional.

This month's focus is sustainability. Not learning more, but learning deliberately. Not powering through, but pausing to notice what's working and what's draining you.

Competence is not about touching every tool or tracking every release. It's knowing when to ask, when to explore, and when to step back. That distinction requires rest, reflection, and the discipline to ignore what doesn't serve your work.

Most professionals already understand how these systems function. What they lack is permission to feel grounded while using them, or structures that support judgment.

The people who will build durable practices in 2026 are willing to audit before automating, to reclaim tasks instead of delegating everything, and to treat learning as seasonal rather than constant.

Working smarter and living slower requires fewer scattered tabs, clearer boundaries, and meeting tools with intention instead of urgency.

You adopted the tools, watched the demos, tested the prompts. Now you're carrying a low-grade tension: seventeen open tabs, half-written instructions, and the sense that time is slipping through the cracks.

That scattered feeling is a design problem, not a discipline problem.

What I reject: The assumption that staying current requires constant consumption.

Most people reach for these tools when already overwhelmed. They become emergency buttons instead of thinking partners. Poor prompts lead to vague outputs, vague outputs require cleanup, and cleanup eats the time you meant to protect.

There is another way. It starts with pausing.

Research shows we switch screens every 47 seconds. After an interruption, it takes about 25 minutes to regain focus. When attention is fragmented, outputs are fragmented too.

The 15-minute audit has three layers: Ask, Explore, Reflect.

Step 1: The Friction Scan (5 minutes)
Look back at your week. Where did work feel heavier than needed? Reformatting decks, rewriting emails, cleaning up output that missed the mark. These moments reveal friction. Friction is information.

Step 2: The Performance Review (5 minutes)
Review how you used these tools this week. Where did they help? Where did they slow things down? Pay attention to ghost tasks, workflows that quietly take longer than doing the work yourself. Ask: was the limitation the tool, or the prompt?

Step 3: The "Next Week" Strategy (5 minutes)
Make two decisions. First, choose one high-friction task to delegate next week with better instructions. Think about what the model lacked: voice, constraints, examples. Second, choose one task to reclaim. Early creative drafting. A personal note that matters because it sounds like you.

Good partnership is about appropriate delegation, not maximum delegation.

Read the full piece →

Healthcare organizations want to deploy clinical tools: ambient scribes, predictive models, documentation assistants. The demonstrations look polished, and expectations move quickly from pilot to scale.

That momentum skips a necessary checkpoint.

Nearly 80% of clinical data exists in unstructured form: progress notes, discharge summaries, operative reports. These documents hold diagnostic nuance and clinical reasoning, yet remain inaccessible to systems designed for discrete fields and standardized codes.

Systems cannot perform reliably when their primary inputs remain unreadable.

A 2024 systematic review covering 129 studies quantifies the cost. Physicians spend 34 to 55 percent of their workday on documentation, translating to $90 to $140 billion in annual opportunity cost in the United States.

Sixty-eight percent of the studies focused on data structuring algorithms. Broader assistants showed error rates too high for deployment without stronger foundations.

The sequencing problem: Organizations attempt to introduce capabilities before resolving how clinical language becomes computable. Budget approvals and vendor timelines create pressure to advance quickly when the data layer remains unresolved.

Slowing the sequence changes outcomes. Progress happens when clinical language becomes usable across systems without increasing burden on clinicians.

Strategy stabilizes when foundations are visible.

Read the full piece →

Founders notice the tension when new tools appear before the last system has stabilized. Product managers feel it when strategy conversations reference models they haven't evaluated. Consultants encounter it when clients expect confident answers while the ground is still shifting.

Learning begins to feel like a background obligation that never resolves.

The myth of constant catch-up: Many professionals assume relevance depends on continuous exposure to new developments, yet research shows that excessive information intake reduces comprehension when systems are complex.

Learning often becomes shallow because it's reactive. Articles are skimmed, tools are tested briefly, insights are abandoned before patterns form. Familiarity increases, understanding does not.

Burnout emerges when learning lacks structure, boundaries, and clear purpose.

A sustainable rhythm: Professionals who sustain their energy learn in seasons rather than streams. Choose a single focus area for a defined period. One season might concentrate on generative models for knowledge work, another on governance and risk, another on workflow design and automation limits.

Before engaging with new material, ask:

When the answer is no, redirect attention without loss.

Read the full piece →

Most professionals I work with already understand how these systems function. They've experimented with prompts. They can explain what the system is doing and where its limitations begin.

And still, hesitation shows up.

Not as confusion, but as a pause before using these tools on work that matters. When the output looks solid yet feels risky. When a thought surfaces: "I know this works, but I'm not sure I trust it, or myself, in this context."

What is present in that moment is not a lack of knowledge, but uncertainty around responsibility, judgment, and professional exposure.

Education has taught people how systems function but avoided the harder question of how professionals are meant to feel while using them, especially when decisions carry ethical, legal, or reputational consequences.

Knowing how it works does not automatically translate into feeling grounded when relying on it in real workflows.

Feeling safe tends to emerge when:

This gap is especially visible in law, healthcare, finance, education, and consulting, where mistakes are not learning exercises but events with lasting impact. Hesitation is often discernment operating without structural support.

When professionals don't feel safe, the cost appears indirectly. Tools become confined to low-stakes tasks, experimentation happens privately, and people hesitate to recommend them upward even when leadership is asking.

Literacy may get teams started, but safety is what allows them to continue. The next phase is less about acceleration and more about designing environments where judgment is protected.

Knowing is now expected. Feeling safe has become a leadership signal, and that shift is where sustainable adoption begins.

Read the full piece →

Use this prompt to audit your AI relationship and clarify where judgment belongs.

I ran a workshop this past weekend where someone asked which tool they should use for what.

I walked them through my own setup: ChatGPT for brainstorming and structured thinking, Claude for creating documents and long-form work, Gemini for market research and workspace integration.

The relief in the room was immediate.

People thought they needed to master everything. What they actually needed was permission to choose deliberately and stick with it long enough to build fluency.

Depth beats breadth. Every time.

If AI disappeared tomorrow, which parts of your work would feel lighter instead of harder?

If you're feeling tension between capability and clarity, if the tools are multiplying but confidence isn't, that's the work I'm in.

My workshops are built around the AI Collaboration Pyramid, a framework that helps professionals decide when to think independently, when to collaborate, and when to stop automation. They're designed for founders, product leaders, consultants, and teams who want to build durable habits grounded in judgment.

Reply to this email. Tell me where the friction is.

Rest is part of the system.