• How to Reduce the Gap Between Knowing and Doing

   
  1. Start  Small, Start Now
   
   
  • Break  large goals into quick, low-risk actions you can take immediately.
   
  • Example:  Instead of analyzing a process problem for weeks, run a quick trial  solution on one workstation.
   
   
  2. Make  It Safe to Try—and Fail
   
   
  • Reward  initiative, not just outcomes.
   
  • Treat  mistakes as learning investments, not career-limiting moves.
   
   
  3. Set  Short Feedback Loops
   
   
  • Replace  long, drawn-out project cycles with rapid check-ins and adjustments.
   
  • Quick  learning cycles make it easier to see progress and maintain momentum.
   
   
  4. Measure  Action, Not Just Ideas
   
   
  • Track  “execution metrics” like number of experiments run, pilot projects  launched, or issues resolved—not just meetings held or plans made.
   
   
  5. Recognize  and Celebrate Movers
   
   
  • Publicly  acknowledge employees who move projects forward, even in small ways.
   
  • Stories  of action create peer pressure to act.
   
   
  6. Simplify  the First Step
   
   
  • Remove  unnecessary approvals, overly complex templates, or ambiguous ownership  that slow down action.
   
   
  7. Model  It From the Top
   
   
  • Leaders  must be the first to move from idea to test. When the team sees action  modeled at the top, it becomes part of the culture.

• D’un côté, l’explosion de l’infrastructure et ses conséquences géopolitiques (data, énergie, eau…), et de l’autre, l’objet de fascination que représente l’espace latent (relire ma newsletter).

• la majorité de l’argent levé, prêté ou échangé s’est fait dans l’infrastructure.
• une partie du “seed money” de Microsoft à OpenAI s’est faite en crédits Azure pour le compute.
• Le crédit en compute est fascinant car il attache la destinée d’un acteur à un opérateur de cloud et d’IA spécifique
• Nvidia a une valorisation en termes de ratio P/E plus basse qu’il y a cinq ans. C’est-à-dire que ses bénéfices ont rattrapé son prix.
• La bulle des télécoms était surtout une bulle de la fibre noire. Bien qu’on ait surinvesti et surinstallé à la fin des années 1990, ce réseau de câbles était tout à fait utilisable des années après, quand la demande est arrivée.
• Aujourd’hui, le surachat en puces Nvidia, dont la durée d’amortissement est très faible, interroge. De plus, comme tout produit, dès qu’on l’ouvre pour l’installer (même si les puces Nvidia sont livrées par palettes déjà préconfigurées, un cloud dans le cloud, NDR), elles perdent une partie de leur valeur.
• C’est donc là que se pose la vraie question : l’investissement colossal en puces doit être amorti sur une durée courte, un an, deux ans, trois ans, cinq ans. Est-ce possible ?
• le deal entre OpenAI et Oracle (ainsi qu’avec AMD) s’est fait hors des circuits classiques des banques d’affaires. Les accords récents d’OpenAI (avec Oracle, AMD, CoreWeave…) sont des deals de CAPEX, pas des deals produits ou de financement traditionnels, et s’apparentent davantage à des échanges de compute, de crédits et de stock-options
• C’est sur cette base qu’OpenAI aurait signé ses engagements faramineux (jusqu’à 1 000 milliards $ d’infrastructure) sans disposer de revenus correspondants,
• • L’offre pléthorique et la capacité de compute n’ont jamais été aussi importantes dans l’histoire de l’humanité.
  • Mais pour que ça marche, il faut de l’eau, de l’eau douce évidemment, qu’il faut prélever aux autres industries et aux usages quotidiens, mais aussi de l’énergie.
• a véritable raison pour laquelle ces acteurs avaient besoin de lui n’était pas l’argent — qu’ils ont déjà —, ni le pouvoir — qu’ils ont déjà —, mais bien l’accès à l’énergie et une accélération des process par le gouvernement fédéral américain pour permettre la construction de centrales nucléaires
• le boom de l’IA aux États-Unis offre à Trump une véritable couverture politique : les retraites des Américains (et celles par capitalisation des Français) restent, pour l’instant, garanties par la flambée du NASDAQ.
• sans la dépense massive liée à l’intelligence artificielle — en particulier dans les data centers, les puces et le cloud —, l’économie américaine serait aujourd’hui proche de la récession, voire déjà en récession.
• En 2025, les investissements dans l’IA devraient représenter près de 40 % de la contribution à la croissance du PIB américain
• ce boom n’est pas soutenable : il ne pourra se poursuivre que si les dépenses technologiques deviennent « paraboliques », un scénario jugé hautement improbable
• si le CAPEX IA ralentit, la dynamique de soutien à la croissance s’essoufflera rapidement.
• Tech et administration américaines se tiennent désormais par la barbichette. La question qui se pose, c’est de savoir si la viabilité de l’économie américaine et, par extension, celle du reste du monde ne repose pas entièrement sur un pari sans plan B :
• Pourquoi vivons-nous dans un monde où, le même jour, OpenAI annonce travailler sur des chats érotiques, autrement dit des sexbots, tandis que Google et l’université de Yale utilisent une IA pour découvrir une nouvelle méthode permettant au corps de mieux repérer et attaquer certaines tumeurs cancéreuses ?
• les revenus des abonnements en Europe sont en baisse.
• il reste difficile de cerner précisément ses usages monétisables.

19 more annotations...

• At the same time, only 11% of organizations say they can currently enable effective co-learning, according to the report.
• “Closing the readiness gap isn’t just about adopting new technologies. It’s about building organizations where people and AI can thrive together,”

• Redesign roles and workflows for human-AI collaboration

   

  Close explains that companies need to rethink jobs, feedback loops and processes so people and AI can work seamlessly together.

• Embed learning into everyday work

   

  According to Close, future-ready organizations make skill development continuous, not an afterthought. More than 80% of execs, she says, believe learning is most effective when it’s built into employees’ everyday activities

• Design AI tools around people

   

  AI tools should fit naturally into employees’ workflows, Close says, adding that this strategy involves making AI work the way people work,

• Hardwire trust and accountability

   

  According to Close, clear governance and transparency are essential for adoption. She points out that nearly three-quarters of workers surveyed say they are more willing to embrace AI when governance is clear and transparent

• Lead with curiosity and creativity

   

  Leaders must model experimentation and innovation, encouraging teams to question assumptions and explore new ideas. Along those lines, she adds, more than 80% of executives told Accenture they are focused on building a culture of curiosity

5 more annotations...

• Agentic AI systems can autonomously manage complex tasks, optimize processes, and proactively identify opportunities or risks, reducing the need for constant human oversight.

• According to Pitchbook data there was a 265% increase in venture capital investment in agentic AI between Q4 2024 and Q1 2025.

   

• Gartner predicts that by the end of 2027, more than 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled.

   
• The main reasons include escalating costs, unclear business value, and inadequate risk controls.
• Gartner estimates that the market is still immature, with companies deploying either AI assistants or not having enough opportunities to use the technology to begin with.
• Business leaders must resist the temptation to deploy agentic AI indiscriminately and instead focus on use cases where agentic AI’s unique capabilities create measurable business value.

• Why Most Agentic AI Projects Fail

   

  The primary reason for failure is misalignment between the technology’s capabilities and the business problem at hand.
• Many deployments are little more than advanced chatbots or robot-process automation (RPA) tools with a conversational interface.

• Identifying the Right Use Cases for Agentic AI

   

  To avoid these pitfalls, Gartner recommends that business leaders first evaluate where agentic AI is truly the best fit. Not every workflow or customer pain point requires the autonomy and complexity of agentic AI.
• • Complex, dynamic environments: Agentic AI excels where tasks require ongoing adaptation, decision-making under uncertainty, and the ability to handle exceptions. Examples include supply-chain optimization, cybersecurity threat response, and dynamic credit approvals.
   
  • Multi-step, multi-agent collaboration: Workflows that span multiple systems, teams, or business functions, such as orchestrating end-to-end procurement or managing cross-functional incident response, are well-suited to agentic AI’s strengths.
   
  • High-value, low-frequency decisions: In scenarios where the stakes are high and the cost of human error is significant, agentic AI can deliver measurable improvements in quality, speed, and scale. Examples include warranty claims and hospital discharge.
   
   
• Conversely, use cases that are highly structured, repetitive, or well-served by existing automation should not be forced into the agentic AI mold.

• Making the Business Case for Agentic AI

   

  Leaders can evaluate the business value of an agentic AI implementation for a sustainable competitive advantage by considering the cost savings, quality, deployment speed, and scale.

• 1. Develop a strategic technology roadmap.

   

  Prioritize outcomes that enhance measurable efficiencies—speed, cost savings, scale, and quality—rather than chasing the latest AI trend.

• 2. Cut through the hype with composite AI.

   

  Rather than relying solely on agentic AI, explore composite solutions that combine multiple AI techniques such as machine learning, symbolic reasoning, and traditional automation to address customer pain points.

• 3. Conduct a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

   

  Before greenlighting any agentic AI project, estimate potential returns by considering both direct and indirect benefits, such as cost savings, revenue growth, and customer satisfaction

• 4. Evaluate feasibility and readiness.

   

  Assess the technical and organizational readiness for agentic AI. Do you have AI-ready data? Are workflows sufficiently mature and documented? Are risk controls in place?

• 5. Focus on enterprise productivity, not just user productivity.

   

  The greatest value from agentic AI comes from orchestrating actions across siloed applications and business units, not simply improving individual user experiences.

• The market will not reward those who pursue agentic AI for its own sake or succumb to vendor hype. Instead, sustainable competitive advantage will accrue to leaders who do the following:

   
   
  • Select use cases where agentic AI’s unique capabilities deliver outsized business value.
   
  • Integrate agentic AI thoughtfully into broader technology portfolios.
   
  • Continuously measure and communicate ROI to stakeholders.

16 more annotations...

• We argue that a cautious “wait and see” approach—motivated by gen AI’s flaws, such as hallucinations—is potentially dangerous.
• Nontechie employees can use gen AI without support from experts.
• What’s more, gen AI is increasingly being embedded into the tools people already use
• Value-creation opportunities exist now.
• Despite its flaws, gen AI can save time, reduce costs, and unlock new value. Holding off because the output isn’t perfect misunderstands the opportunity.
• Competitive advantage comes from using gen AI more strategically than others, not just faster.
• More perilously, your own customers and suppliers may disintermediate you by using it to take care of the tasks you previously performed for them.

• Where and When to Use Generative AI

   
• Rather than asking whether gen AI performs as well as a human, start by breaking down jobs into their component tasks and ask: Which of these is gen AI well suited to handle today?
• What distinguishes these examples from the first set isn’t necessarily the intelligence required but the cost of getting it wrong
• The suitability of gen AI for a given task depends not just on the capabilities of gen AI but on two deeper factors
• The first is the cost of errors:
• The second factor is the type of knowledge the task demands.
• Applying the Framework
• Rather than focus on the intelligence of gen AI (how smart it is and how fast it’s improving), organizations should examine its usefulness, which depends heavily on the task at hand.

• The no regrets zone.

   

  The lower-left quadrant, where the cost of errors is low and explicit knowledge is required, contains the clearest and most immediate opportunity for organizations. This is where gen AI should be deployed today and where AI agents will thrive in the future. Tasks in this quadrant rely on clear, documented data, and errors are relatively harmless. You don’t need perfect accuracy here. The real value lies in completing tasks faster, more cheaply, or at a greater scale than before.

• The creative catalyst zone.

   

  The upper-left quadrant, with a low cost of errors and a need for tacit knowledge, is where gen AI can serve as a creative catalyst, helping humans perform tasks that often benefit from originality. Crucially, the refinement of gen AI’s output and the final judgment on what to adopt rest with humans. Mistakes can be tolerated because the quality of the results is subjective: There is no definitive “best” marketing slogan or “perfect” product design because people’s views of what is best or perfect are personal.

• The human-first zone.

   

  The upper-right quadrant is where the stakes are highest. In this domain gen AI may act as an enabler but not a decision-maker. Tasks here involve subjective judgment, situational nuance, and complex decision-making—and mistakes carry serious consequences, whether financial, legal, reputational, or personal. Trust, ethics, and long-term strategy are often on the line. Errors can have lasting consequences:

• The quality control zone.

   

  The lower-right quadrant contains knowledge-heavy tasks that gen AI can technically perform well—because they are grounded in explicit, structured information—but for which even small mistakes could result in serious consequences. These are high-accountability domains such as law, finance, and software development, where information is clear and codified yet the standards for accuracy are extremely high.

• Anticipate the Impact on Your Industry

   

  The fact that your customers, suppliers, and competitors can access the same technology creates the paradox of access: Because everyone can use it, it becomes dramatically harder to capture value with it.
• Competitive pressure ultimately causes the gains to go to customers and suppliers through lower prices or better terms.

• AI-first entrants are coming.

   

  In the not-too-distant future your fiercest competition may not be your familiar peers but a new breed of solo entrepreneurs and micro-teams. Imagine starting a marketing agency today from the ground up. Rather than hiring dozens of people to conduct market research, write copy, design graphics, and answer questions from clients, a small team of experts (or even one intrepid entrepreneur) could eventually rely on AI for all these tasks.

• Customers and suppliers can use gen AI against you.

   

  Their access to gen AI can upend your bargaining power. Law firms have been dealing with a similar issue since the 1990s. Work that once required scores of paralegals and a complete law library could suddenly be done by one lawyer with an internet-connected PC.

• Building an AI-Based Competitive Advantage

   

  As we’ve noted, moving quickly is important, but speed alone won’t put you ahead of the impending competition.

• Mandate broad access to technology.

   

  Everyone in your company has tasks in all four quadrants of the framework, and so everyone has the potential to do more by using gen AI. Every single person in your organization should evaluate which tasks can be handled—better or even if just serviceably—by gen AI. Also have each person consider tasks that previously were too costly or time-intensive to do but that gen AI could perform inexpensively and quickly—for example, sending personalized holiday greetings to every business contact over the past year or summarizing every meeting attended.
• Start by removing the bottlenecks that keep these powerful tools out of the hands of your people. If access stalls at the IT desk or hides behind compliance forms, you cede ground to rivals whose staff can experiment in real time. IT departments understandably struggle to keep up with the relentless proliferation of ever-improving models and specialized applications.

• Ascertain where the data resides in your organization today and centralize it.

   

  All companies need to start centralizing data that has been scattered across or siloed in business units, functions, and geographies. Your infrastructure can anchor your competitive advantage.

• Identify the data that you aren’t yet collecting.

   

  Every activity of a business—from customer interactions to operational processes to internal emails and meetings—is a source of proprietary data to be tapped and leveraged.

• Redesign your organization.

   

  In the long term, it will not be enough to layer gen AI onto existing workflows. Organizations will need to redesign themselves around a gen AI–first vision of the business.
• Let’s look at data first. Even proprietary data eventually becomes commoditized. But it is hard for others to copy an organization that is tailored to continually exploit it.
• You also need to revisit how you get the most out of your people. Generative-AI tools free up chunks of time, but early research suggests that the windfall can evaporate into idle tinkering, low-value busywork, or outright downtime
• Managers should work with employees to estimate and track the hours AI shaves off their key tasks, set clear expectations for how those hours will be redeployed, and tie recognition or incentives to how effectively the saved time is used.
• In summary, strategic differentiation will come from three sources: (1) rapid and targeted deployment of gen AI across tasks, which is valuable in the near term if your competitors remain fixated on intelligence or paralyzed by concerns like hallucinations; (2) proprietary data that enhances gen AI’s performance or process fixes that prevent its value from being lost to organizational bottlenecks; and (3) unique people, processes, and culture—the “complementary assets” that make gen AI more valuable inside one organization than it is inside others.

32 more annotations...

• au fur et à mesure qu’une société évolue vers une plus grande complexité, les coûts de cette complexité imposés à chaque individu augmentent également, de sorte que la population dans son ensemble doit allouer une part croissante de son ‘budget’ (temps, attention, énergie, etc.) au maintien des institutions organisationnelles.

• chaque initiative collaborative introduit de nouveaux niveaux de complexité organisationnelle qui nécessitent des ressources dédiées pour être maintenus et coordonnés.

      
• L’organisation est plus complexe et nécessite un investissement considérable. Après des années à pousser cette évolution, le cabinet se rend aujourd’hui compte que la valeur ajoutée des nouveaux services ne couvre pas forcément les coûts de coordination induits, d’autant que ceux-ci ont été sous-estimés.
• elle crée un système de dépendances qui demande un entretien constant.
• Les réunions de coordination se multiplient, les canaux de communication se diversifient, et les processus de validation s’allongent.
• Cette ‘taxe’ collaborative ne représente pas juste un coût direct. Elle représente également un coût d’opportunité majeur : le temps consacré à la coordination est soustrait à la production de valeur directe.
• Plus une organisation développe ses capacités collaboratives, plus elle génère de procédures, de rôles spécialisés et de structures de gouvernance.
• L’entreprise se retrouve alors dans ce que Tainter décrit comme une spirale de complexité croissante, où elle doit investir davantage de ressources pour maintenir un niveau de collaboration qui devient de moins en moins efficient.
• La collaboration doit donc être abordée comme un investissement stratégique avec un calcul rigoureux du retour sur investissement.
• l convient d’identifier le point d’équilibre optimal où les gains de synergie compensent les coûts de coordination, avant que l’organisation n’atteigne son seuil de complexité critique
• Pour qu’elle devienne une réalité, la collaboration nécessite donc une approche disciplinée qui privilégie la simplicité des interfaces, la clarté des rôles et la mesure systématique de la valeur créée par chaque initiative collaborative.

9 more annotations...

• many leaders still end their days feeling overwhelmed and mentally spent
• I’ve found that often it’s how they’re using their brains.
• Most leaders rely heavily on one key region of the brain: the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which is responsible for high-order functions like focus, planning, self-regulation, and decision-making.
• . In fast-paced organizations, many leaders aren’t running out of time—they’re running out of cognitive bandwidth.
• We’ve structured work in a way that demands nonstop performance from a part of the brain that was never meant to run continuously.
• This isn’t a personal failure but a systemic design issue.
• To truly support better thinking, leaders must go beyond individual hacks and start redesigning the environments they work within—especially the spaces that drive attention, behavior, and collaboration.
• The solution isn’t more focus or more grit. It’s learning to leverage the whole brain, including powerful but underutilized systems like the default mode network
• When engaged strategically, these systems help leaders become more innovative, emotionally attuned, and able to make better decisions under pressure.
• When leaders rush from one meeting to another without space for synthesis, it’s often not by choice
• When decision-making becomes purely data-driven and there’s little space for pause or perspective,
• When strategic thinking is scheduled only once a quarter, it’s usually because the pace of daily execution crowds out the mental space it requires.
• When performance reviews fixate on KPIs, checklists, and immediate outcomes, leaders can miss critical shifts in tone, energy, or behavior—subtle but important cues often picked up not through dashboards, but through attentiveness and pattern recognition.
• We’ve built leadership cultures that push the brain’s task-focused networks hard and continuously while sidelining the neural systems that enable strategic depth, creative problem-solving, and relational intelligence.
• Leaders who continue to drive hard without cognitive variety experience what looks like personal failure—tunnel vision, short fuses, blank moments in meetings—but is in fact a neural bottleneck

• Try this cognitive audit:

   
   
  • What proportion of your day was spent on deep focus, surface scanning, switching, or emotional problem-solving?
   
  • When did your thinking feel sharpest? What conditions enabled it?
   
  • What work drained you disproportionately? Why?
   
   
• Research shows that switching tasks creates “attention residue,” and according to the American Psychological Association, even brief task switches can consume up to 40% of productive time
• Redesign your week to align deep work with cognitive peaks. Group similar tasks. Avoid decision-heavy mornings after disrupted sleep.

• Make Recovery a Visible Cultural Norm

   

• To make recovery visible:

   
   
  • Embed 10–15 minute buffers after cognitively intense meetings and label them as essential.
   
  • Block decompression space publicly in your calendar.
   
  • Rotate meeting-free half-days across teams—not just for productivity, but to protect neural efficiency.

• Interrupt Autopilot with a Salience Switch

   
• Leaders often default to speed, certainty, and gut feel when making high-stakes decisions. But under pressure, the brain’s emotional and fast affective network can override the salience network, which is built to evaluate what actually deserves attention.

• Try this exercise before making key decisions:

   
   
  • Step outside your current setting. Physically move, change your view, or remove visual inputs.
   
  • Ask, “What signal might I be missing because I’m too close to this?”
   
  • Step outside your usual work mode by sketching, talking through ideas, or using a metaphor. These non-linear approaches to thinking can surface insights you’d miss in routine tasks.

• Design Team Rhythms That Support Whole-Brain Work

   

• Try these tactics:

   
   
  • Label meetings as “focus” (decision), “reflect” (learning), or “connect” (alignment)—and avoid mixing modes.
   
  • Introduce a “30-30” system: 30 minutes of work, followed by 30 seconds to write down the key idea or next step. This aids memory encoding and task closure.
   
  • Schedule one team-wide “no new input” block each week. This should be a window to synthesize existing information, not consume new information.
   
   
• Simplify the System
• Your people can’t do their jobs if their brains are constantly cluttered. The average employee now juggles their actual role alongside a barrage of internal comms, invites to learning platforms, DEI updates, wellbeing initiatives, culture campaigns, policy changes, and systems rollouts—all well-intentioned organizational efforts, but rarely part of a coordinated cognitive strategy.
• • Run an “input audit” across your team. How many platforms, requests, or messages are they managing in parallel?
   
  • Set a rule that internal initiatives must align with business priorities and have clear mental bandwidth requirements. That means estimating how much attention, decision-making, innovation, or practice time it will take to reach the desired outcome. You’re essentially outlining what success requires from individuals.
   
  • Create and protect “focus zones.” Identify the core functions that drive performance—such as developing products, closing sales, delivering projects, or managing teams—and set aside time for them. In practice this may look like “no-meeting mornings” or “innovation Tuesdays.”

26 more annotations...

• OpenAI is planning to spend more than $1 trillion in AI infrastructure buildouts
• 800 million people are using the AI chatbot on a weekly basis, only roughly five percent of them are paying for a subscription,
• And even ChatGPT revenue may already be plateauing, in what could turn into a major inflection point for an industry already struggling to justify its astronomical spending
• European spending on ChatGPT has stalled since May, suggesting the poster child for the AI boom may be struggling to recruit new subscribers to pay for it.”
• That’s not to say ChatGPT is bringing in nothing.
• the value of OpenAI subscriptions “has flatlined in the major European markets over the past four months” after surging in early 2023.
• OpenAI could be forced to investigate alternative revenue streams

• The Altman-led company is already exploring online advertising, monetizing its latest text-to-video generator app Sora, and a new personal device with the help of former Apple designer Jony Ive.

      
• With ChatGPT spending growth grinding to a halt in Europe, the company could soon be looking for ways to attract new users

7 more annotations...

• Musk says "purely AI," but every company needs strategic decision-making, compliance oversight, financial controls, and quality assurance. So who actually does these things?
• When electricity was invented, businesses did the obvious thing - they electrified their existing machines. Factories replaced steam engines with electric motors but kept the same layout, the same processes, the same building designs.
• Sound familiar? Right now, <!---->most companies are in the "electrify the steam engine" phase<!----> with AI:
• Not "how do we add AI to what we do," but "if we rebuilt this from scratch with AI as the foundation, what would it look like?"
• These aren't tactical choices - they shape your organization's capabilities and competitive position for a decade or more.
• f <!---->Macrohard <!---->succeeds and becomes a platform choice (like Windows or Apple's ecosystem), companies will face another structuring decision: which AI platform ecosystem to build on.

• Smart executives hedge their bets:<!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ <!---->Parallel track approach<!----><!---->: Run AI-enhanced and AI-first pilots simultaneously  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ <!---->Reversibility checkpoints<!----><!---->: Define clear criteria for when to step back  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ <!---->Skills bridge strategy<!----><!---->: Cross-train key personnel in both traditional and AI-first methods  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ <!---->Vendor diversification<!----><!---->: Avoid single-platform lock-in during transition

• → <!---->Competitor AI job postings<!----><!---->: Are they hiring for AI-first roles or just AI-enhanced positions?<!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ <!---->Public AI partnerships<!----><!---->: Platform choices often signal strategic direction  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ <!---->Process automation announcements<!----><!---->: Are they optimizing existing workflows or rebuilding from scratch?  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ <!---->Customer experience changes<!----><!---->: New service models often indicate backend AI-first redesigns<!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

• Layer 1 - Infrastructure<!----><!---->: Cross-functional AI strategy teams with dedicated time allocation (not "when they can fit it in")<!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->Layer 2 - Processes<!----><!---->: Monthly AI capability reviews, quarterly transformation readiness assessments, and rapid pilot frameworks with 90-day decision cycles<!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->Layer 3 - Mindset<!----><!---->: Leadership development focused on comfort with ambiguity, and incentive structures that reward intelligent experimentation over perfect execution

• Months 1-6: Foundation<!----> <!----><!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ Assess current AI maturity vs. electricity-first readiness  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ Identify one high-value, low-risk AI-first pilot (not just AI-enhanced)  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ Build your transformation culture infrastructure<!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

• Months 7-12: Experimentation<!----> <!----><!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ Run parallel AI-enhanced vs. AI-first experiments  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ Develop internal AI-first operational expertise  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ Map your vendor ecosystem and platform dependencies

• Months 13-18: Strategic Decision<!----> <!----><!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ Evaluate results and choose your path: gradual AI enhancement or AI-first transformation  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ If AI-first: design your human oversight layer and governance model  <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->→ If AI-enhanced: maintain optionality for future AI-first transition<!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

    <!---->Decision criteria<!----><!---->: Can your AI-first pilot deliver 2x better outcomes than AI-enhanced approaches? Do you have the culture and skills to scale it?

• Most importantly, the cultural shift to "continuous learning mode" proves more challenging than the technology itself, but also more valuable long-term.<!----> <!---->

       <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->    

11 more annotations...

• 1. Build Optionality, Not Plans

  Plans assume the future is predictable. Options assume it’s chaotic. Stop pretending you can forecast what’s coming next. Instead, design adaptable teams, modular systems, and multiple paths forward. Real options theory isn’t academic theory—it’s survival strategy.

• 2. Master Signal Detection

  The next shift won’t arrive with fanfare in TechCrunch headlines. It’ll seep through capital allocation patterns, hiring freezes, and whispered conversations about down-rounds. The smart money is already repositioning, but they’re not broadcasting their moves.
• Learn to read between the lines. Follow funding flows, track talent movements, and pay attention to which companies are quietly scaling back their AI investments

• 3. Strengthen Your Permanent Assets

  Your reputation, relationships, and proprietary data aren’t just valuable—they’re irreplaceable. Guard them accordingly, especially the trust others place in you. In downturns, desperation drives bad decisions. The temptation to monetize private data intensifies when revenue goals start looking impossible.

• 4. Build Cultures of Judgment

  Everyone’s learning to write better prompts. But few are learning to think more clearly. Technical fluency is table stakes now; judgment is the differentiator.

• 5. Stay Grounded

  Hype is intoxicating; honesty is sobering. One builds unsustainable expectations; the other builds durable organizations. Keep your team informed, not high on their own supply.

• 6. Monetize Reality, Not Illusion

  When the music stops, unit economics becomes the only song that matters. Focus ruthlessly on paying customers, sustainable business models, and reliable value delivery. Test every assumption about “scale” and “engagement” and “network effects.”

• 7. Treat Vendors as Utilities—and Secure What Matters

  Foundation-model providers aren’t your strategic partners—they’re critical dependencies. Diversify across APIs and ecosystems, and harden your security while you still have resources to do it properly.

• 8. Design for a Long Winter

  Frugality is intelligent; cruelty is stupid. Cut waste aggressively, but protect human dignity religiously. Maintain psychological safety and fairness even when budgets are constrained. The talent you retain through tough times becomes your competitive advantage when conditions improve.

• 9. Invest in What AI Can’t Replicate

  When everything becomes automated, meaning becomes the scarcest resource. Double down on connection, curation, synthesis, and empathy—the irreducibly human capabilities that create lasting value.

• 10. Steward the Correction, Don’t Exploit It

  Market corrections hit different groups differently. Underrepresented workers typically suffer first and longest. When opportunities arise—acquiring talent, absorbing assets, expanding market share—do it equitably and transparently.
• Your job isn’t to predict the next hype cycle. It’s to build organizations that can bend without breaking, teams that can adapt without losing hope, and systems that honor both human potential and planetary boundaries

10 more annotations...