ᴅᴀɴɪᴇʟ ᴍɪᴇssʟᴇʀ 🛡️

I’ve been thinking about this all day and It keeps re-freaking me out. You can read the full blog, but here's the crux of it in a single example: Imagine there's an employee named Chris. He's been there for 13 years. He's basically an admin/coordinator for the company and helps with lots of different things, including putting together plans and summaries, organizing meetings, etc. His managers have been mostly happy with him, but he's not the best at writing reports, and he needs to get lots of help when he does anything technical. His new manager has just been onboarded, and he has a Claude Tag. Here's the prompt that he sends in: "We are about to fire Chris. I need you to: - read every email he has received or sent over the last 13 years - pull up all transcripts of all of his meetings - look at every document he's written - pull his entire Slack history - do a deep analysis of what all tasks he was doing, which ones he did well, and which ones he did poorly - put together a set of scheduled tasks that perform those tasks far better than he was doing them, with the outputs being sent to the same places that he was sending them at the ideal time." So, like, 37 minutes later, it comes back and says: " - Chris was writing three different reports per week. - He was sending an average of 48 emails per week. - He was doing coordination on the following 18 meetings. - He was doing a little bit of report analysis every month. - Here are 37 things he was asked to do over his time here that he was never able to get good at. I have looked at all those tasks, confirmed that no one else is doing them, and I have scheduled all the work that he was doing to happen at the ideal time, with the outputs being sent to the appropriate places, including scheduled tasks for all the things he was asked to do that he wasn't able to. Is there anything else that you need? -- This is what @karpathy was so on about in that post he got so much shit over. All these things that I just described are possible if you spend weeks or months assembling context throughout your company and you have a bunch of Claude Code wizards in your company that can go and harvest all the stuff. They basically work for management and they do a bunch of projects like this. This all is possible today, and it was possible a few months ago. But that is actually a lot of wizardry, a lot of context engineering, and scheduled task management. All sorts of things have to go into making that happen, and the friction is the reason most companies haven't done it. The difference here is that what I just described is a single fucking prompt inside of Slack. Let me say this a different way. Some manager just replaced an employee in a single fucking prompt. And it could very well be that the work produced by this new Claude instance will be far superior to the work that Chris was doing. And that's not even getting slightly silly with this yet. The moment that system comes back in 37 minutes and says, "Yeah, I just automated Chris," the very next thing they're going to ask is, "Oh, how about you do that for my entire department?" No, actually, why don't you spend some tokens and do it for the entire company? Or, "find me the people who are doing the least amount of work at the lowest quality and/or are creating conflict within the organization or acting against the organization's culture." All without leaving Slack. Again, doing all of this with a dedicated team of AI ninjas, writing their own scaffolding and building their own custom applications, is one thing. It's completely different for everyone in the company to be able to do things like this from within the system they already work in, never having to leave and go into an "AI interface". This surprised me. This is the exact same thing, but a hundred times more powerful because it's riding on top of Slack and Claude, which are already heavily accepted inside of companies.

@FutureDies I'm genuinely stunned by this type of reaction. This type of bifurcation in responses needs to be deeply studied. When I see this, I think optimism and hope, and many others see this and just feel and hear dystopia. Utterly fascinating.

I loved this ad, and it felt very Apple to me. It also perfectly captures how I think of Anthropic. I love how they start more negative and gently move more optimistic. And how the solution presented is not AI, but us humans continuing to ask the right questions.

@0xTib3rius Yeah, agreed.

True, but Google's history is that of throwing things against a wall and seeing what sticks. See: killedbygoogle.com Again, because they can afford to do it (delicious ad money), and because historically it has worked out for them. It may fail with AI, we'll see. If it does, they may just do the other thing they do: buy a company that's doing it well.

I don’t think most people realize how utterly strange it is that Google does not have an AI harness that is competing with OpenAI and Anthropic. Their ineptitude at product management has now gone from hobbling a company that was guaranteed to win to exposing it to existential risk. This is a company worth trillions of dollars that is medically unable to ship a product. Using any of their services as an administrator is the same type of torture that it was 15 years ago. Google’s inability to fix this should be studied in business books for decades to come. Starting now. It is the single strangest thing I’ve ever seen in business. They literally invented modern AI, and all they have to show for it is annoying pop-ups in Gmail and Google Docs that make everyone want to vibe code an alternative. The best evidence that ASI already exists is a theory that it’s at work inside of Google already, making sure they lose. What an absolute abomination.

@0xTib3rius Yeah, I think that's a fair point that there are different types of businesses, but Google seems to be in the process of trying to become an AI business in a lot of ways. What I'm saying is I don't think it's working.

I think the issue with your argument is that OpenAI and Anthropic are AI companies. Google is not. OpenAI and Anthropic existence is bound to how well they can make their AI and harnesses for it. Google's is still largely based on advertising. In short, they can afford to be slow. There's also the question of profitability.

The full blog: danielmiessler.com/blog/avoid-the…

The further away a topic is from your expertise, the smarter an AI will sound. khis is a blind spot that not enough people are aware of or take seriously. The best possible way to test the expertise of an AI system is to have it perform analysis or work in an area where you're a pinnacle expert. Stepping even a few degrees off from your center-mass expertise will make it sound smarter. And the further you go, the smarter it will sound. I recommend you have a series of deep questions within your area of expertise, where you know the arguments backwards and forwards. Using those as part of your core benchmarks for testing new AI will be a lot more useful than the feeling of throwing random tasks. Anyone with sufficient language skills can sound smart in areas you know little about.

I think the number one thing people could do right now to be more effective with AI is switch from Prompt Engineering to Intent Engineering...

There are a lot of things that they are best in the world at by a long distance, and two of them are SRE and Security. Definitely agree with you there. Notebook LLM is indeed pretty cool, but they haven't done nearly as much with it as they should have. The bigger problem is that given all the people they have, and all the money they have, they should be putting out like 20 products of that quality per year. But their absolute biggest miss is not having a harness in this fight. Closely followed by dropping out of the battle for top models. And it's so bad at this point that several of their top AI people have now left and gone to Anthropic and other places. There are other things where they are behaving absolutely brilliantly, such as YouTube and Waymo. I'm not sure how much trouble they are in overall, but this whole AI thing has been a nuclear own-goal.

I disagree, especially when it comes to googles flag ship products, they more or less drop new features weekly and that there is alot of both security and automation / usability involved around their workspace. Notebooklm is super good and there is a shitload if more ai powered tools that smashes. The harness is the niche if you ask me,

Wrong question: Tbe question was: "do people want to be able to use AI without leaving their current workflow, or would they like to break their current workflow and jump back and forth between multiple applications? "

I think the time gap between AGI and ASI is likely to be very short. Like months. But it depends if the measure is execution or creativity. Creativity is harder. I think it requires feeling something. The biggest obstacle I think is that AI doesn’t have evolution’s hand up its butt making it ache and long for things. And making it believe it’s the author of the randomness streaming out of its mind. Huge advantage.

I find it extremely fortuitous that API stands for Application Programming Interface, but Agent Programming Interface also starts with an A.

We're extending Claude Fable 5 access on all paid plans, as well as keeping Claude Code’s weekly rate limits 50% higher, through July 19.

And there we have it: Fable extended through July 19th! Plus a rate limit increase! And if the rumors are correct, that could potentially be when Opus 5 comes out to relieve the tension from gpt-5.6.

@SolBrah The policy was no cameras.

HOLY

Connor has like around 1.5-2 rounds to knock him out. After round 2 it’s Max’s to lose.

Full blog: danielmiessler.com/blog/intent-en…

Tibo (probably) just gave everyone Fable permanently, because now they have to keep it in the sub in order to compete with 5.6 Sol. Opus is no longer good enough. Especially with Grok now in the arena. Love it.