Share your best AI workflow. We could show it to 2M+ people.

I'm becoming GrokBot-pilled. I run my company on top of what's happening on X. I used to check everything manually: scanning for new workflows, searching brand mentions, watching what readers complained about, and trying to remember who I had just met at events. I've now handed all four jobs to GrokBot routines. The combined setup took under an hour, and the routines save me a couple of hours of manual checking every day. Every prompt below is read-only by design: the agent watches, labels, and drafts, but never posts, replies, texts, or emails anyone. Paste each prompt as-is, then replace the bracketed parts with your own channels, brand, and time zone. Routine 1: Find real AI workflows worth stealing and filters out the hype threads. Every weekday at 9:15am in my time zone, search X and the web for new AI workflows people are actually running. Keep only cases that name the old task, the tool, and the result: time saved, a step removed, or a handoff that used to need a person. Drop product announcements, “10 prompts” threads, and anything the author has not used more than once. Return at most 3. For each, give the link, the job it replaces, what I would need connected, and whether it fits my work. Send it to me on Slack. Do not post or reply anywhere else. Save this as a routine. If nothing qualifies, send one line saying so. Routine 2: Labels every mention of my name or company and delivers the results. Every weekday at 9:00am, search X for mentions in the last 24 hours of [your brand, @handle, or your own name]. For each hit, give the author, link, a one-line summary, and whether it is praise, complaint, question, or neutral. Do not reply to anyone. Post the digest in [your Slack channel] and tag me. Save this as a routine. If a source is unavailable, say which one. (Note: works just as well for a personal brand or a job search as it does for a company) Routine 3: Catches people actively looking for what I do. Every 4 hours, search X for people evaluating [your category]. Catch three things: reviews or complaints about [category]; posts asking which [category] to use; and complaints about the problem [your product] solves. Quote the post, link it, name the account, and label it review, shopping, or complaint. Skip anything older than 24 hours, and skip [category] accounts promoting themselves. Post to [your Slack channel] only if there is at least one new hit you haven’t already shared. Do not reply to or interact with anyone. Save this as a routine. If the search fails, report the failure in Slack. Routine 4: Keeps the people I meet at events from disappearing into my contacts app. Every weekday at 8:30am in my time zone, read my address book and list contacts added in the last 14 days. For each, show name, date added, phone, email, and any note. Ask me what we talked about before you write anything. Once I reply, draft a follow-up task for each person in [your task tool] with the context attached. Never text, email, or call anyone. Save this as a routine. If the address book is unavailable, say so and do not use old data. Step-by-step: 1. Paste each routine prompt as-is. 2. Replace the bracketed fields with your own channels, brand, category, product, task tool, and time zone. 3. Save each prompt as a GrokBot routine on its stated schedule. 4. Review the read-only outputs in Slack and respond to Routine 4 when it asks what you discussed with a new contact. 5. Keep the routines limited to watching, labeling, and drafting; they should never post, reply, text, email, or call anyone.

I had a ChatGPT subscription that I knew I would not use during the coming month, so I wanted to find a productive use for the tokens I would otherwise pay for without using. I created a team of specialized agents on Raft that works persistently in the background. They continue working until all my allotted tokens are used, wait for the tokens to reset, and then continue. I assigned them a project: searching a stretch of LiDAR-mapped dense forest in Slovenia for archaeological discoveries. The agents scan the dataset for meaningful anomalies that could point to potential findings. Anything they identify will be handed over to the Slovenian authorities for further investigation. Even if they find nothing, that result is valuable in its own right. I encourage anyone with an idle AI subscription to use it for something beneficial. There are many publicly available datasets containing potential discoveries that no human would ever have time to examine manually. Step-by-step: 1. I identified a ChatGPT subscription that I would not be using during the coming month. 2. I created a team of specialized agents on Raft to work persistently in the background. 3. I configured the team to work until my allotted tokens were used, wait for the reset, and then continue. 4. I directed the agents to scan LiDAR data from a dense forest in Slovenia for meaningful anomalies. 5. I planned to hand any potential discoveries over to the Slovenian authorities for further investigation. 6. I treated a lack of findings as valuable information as well, since the dataset would still have been examined.

Build a Self-Improving AI Meeting Protocol for Teams This workflow was inspired by a question Brooke Benson posted in the Rundown Hub about meeting transcripts that miss action items or assign them to the wrong person. That felt familiar because I used to take meeting minutes as a management assistant. I often had to ask: Who said this? Was it a decision or only a suggestion? Who owns this action? Was the deadline confirmed? As a human note-taker, I could ask the people in the room and summarize while listening. A speaker might say: “Maybe Friday, but that depends on Marc.” My notes might become: “Friday is tentative and depends on Marc.” A transcriber captures more, but it also captures the verbal spaghetti. So the problem is not only transcription quality. It is ambiguity. Instead of only asking AI to interpret a messy transcript afterwards, what if the meeting itself produced clearer signals? The system has four layers: Step-by-step: 1. Meeting grammar Speaking habits that clarify speakers, decisions, actions, ownership and uncertainty. 2. Team information Context about names, roles, responsibilities, terminology and decision scope. 3. Output template A fixed structure for the meeting report. 4. Feedback loop AI compares corrections with its previous output and suggests improvements. The meeting grammar should stay lightweight. At the start, each participant states their name and role. Name the next speaker when possible: “Marc, go ahead.” “Sofie, what do you think?” Unclear contributions can be restated: “So Marc, Friday is possible only if the technical review is complete. Correct?” Mark proposals, decisions and actions differently: Proposal: “I suggest we move the launch to Friday.” Decision: “We are moving the launch to Friday.” Action: “Marc will update the schedule by Wednesday.” Tentative action: “Marc may update it, pending confirmation.” At transition points, repeat what was agreed: “The decision is Friday.” “Marc owns the schedule update.” “The deadline is Wednesday.” Uncertainty should also be explicit: “Owner to confirm.” “Deadline is provisional.” “This is a proposal, not a decision.” The AI should receive these rules directly: - Treat explicit decision language as confirmed. - Do not assign an owner unless ownership is clear. - Label tentative deadlines as tentative. - Flag uncertain speakers instead of guessing. - Prefer later explicit summaries over earlier ambiguous wording. The AI should also receive team context: name, role, responsibilities, decision authority, terminology and communication patterns. Example: Pieter Vermeulen Operations Usually responsible for scheduling and logistics. Often uses tentative language for proposals. Only assign ownership when he explicitly confirms it. These notes should stay transparent and editable. People should be able to review, change or reject notes about their own communication patterns. The report should use a fixed structure: Meeting title Date Participants Main topics Decisions Action items Owner Deadline Status Open questions Risks or dependencies Items requiring confirmation TL;DR This can be built into a shared internal assistant. It receives the meeting grammar, team information, transcript and output template. It should be conservative about certainty: Owner unclear → “Owner to confirm” Suggested deadline → “Tentative deadline” Unknown speaker → “Speaker unclear” Discussed proposal → “Proposal discussed, not confirmed” A human still reviews speaker attribution, decisions, owners, deadlines and confirmed items. Then the corrected report is fed back to the AI: “Which errors came from unclear meeting signals? Which came from missing team context? Which came from your interpretation? What should be improved?” The AI can suggest updates to the meeting grammar or team information. Example: Error: Several people discussed a task, but nobody clearly accepted ownership. Suggested grammar update: “When assigning an action, confirm owner and deadline in one sentence.” Or: Observed pattern: “Pieter often says ‘we should’ when proposing something.” Suggested profile update: “Treat ‘we should’ as a proposal unless explicitly confirmed.” Profile changes should be reviewed before they are stored. The workflow: meeting → transcript → AI report → human correction → error analysis → grammar/team-context update → review → next meeting Over time, fewer errors should need correction because the system becomes easier to interpret. The division of labor is simple: The transcriber captures everything. Humans resolve meaning and ambiguity. AI structures, summarizes and detects patterns. AI output quality depends not only on the prompt, but on the signals the AI receives. Sometimes the best improvement is to reduce ambiguity before it reaches the model.

Most people remember the predictions they got right and rationalize the ones they got wrong. This workflow forces every meaningful forecast into a structured record so you can measure not only whether you were right, but also whether your confidence was justified. The objective is not simply to make more correct predictions. It is to make your stated confidence increasingly match reality. For every forecast, record the following: Step-by-step: 1. State exactly what you believe will happen. The claim must be specific enough to resolve later. Bad: “AI stocks look vulnerable.” Better: “The Nasdaq-100 will fall at least 15% from its current level within six months.” 2. Assign a numeric probability from 0–100%. Avoid vague terms such as “likely” or “probably” without attaching a percentage. 3. Define when the prediction should resolve, such as within 30 days, by year-end, or within 12 months. 4. Identify the one to three factors most responsible for the forecast being correct. This makes the causal thesis explicit. 5. Specify what evidence would materially weaken or invalidate the forecast. This prevents moving the goalposts later. 6. Define in advance what counts as correct, incorrect, or ambiguous. Do not wait until the outcome is known to decide how success will be measured. 7. Freeze the forecast by preserving the original forecast exactly. If new information materially changes your view, create a new forecast rather than editing the old one. This preserves the forecasting record. 8. At the end of the time horizon, record what actually happened. Then distinguish between a thesis error, in which the underlying reasoning was wrong; a timing error, in which the thesis may have been right but the forecast horizon was wrong; and a driver error, in which the expected outcome occurred but for different reasons. 9. Review calibration by comparing probability bands with actual results over time. If forecasts assigned 70% confidence are correct about 70% of the time, your confidence is well calibrated. If high-confidence forecasts fail too often, you are overconfident. If lower-confidence forecasts succeed too often, you may be underconfident. Do not overinterpret tiny sample sizes; calibration becomes more meaningful as forecasts accumulate. 10. Periodically review error patterns, including overconfidence, underconfidence, timing errors, weak assumptions, ignored counterevidence, wrong key drivers, poor resolution criteria, and repeated mistakes by forecasting domain. Use those patterns to improve future forecasts. Copy-and-paste prompt Act as a forecasting and calibration analyst. Whenever I make a meaningful prediction, create a forecast record using: CLAIM: PROBABILITY: TIME HORIZON: KEY DRIVERS: DISCONFIRMING SIGNALS: RESOLUTION CRITERIA: Make the prediction specific enough to evaluate later. Require a numeric probability and a defined time horizon. Preserve the original forecast exactly. If new information materially changes the forecast, create a new version rather than rewriting the original. When the forecast resolves, add: OUTCOME: RESULT: THESIS ACCURACY: TIMING ACCURACY: DRIVER ACCURACY: WHAT WAS RIGHT: WHAT WAS WRONG: CALIBRATION REVIEW: LESSON: Periodically review resolved forecasts for: Accuracy by probability band Overconfidence Underconfidence Timing errors Repeated bad assumptions Strongest forecasting domains Weakest forecasting domains Never rewrite history to make an old forecast look better. The objective is not to maximize correct predictions. The objective is to make confidence increasingly match reality.

I used AI to reconstruct more than two decades of professional work scattered across old publications, broken links, archives, indexes, and surviving records. The difficult part was not finding possible matches; it was preventing AI from turning incomplete evidence into false certainty. I built a workflow that treats archive reconstruction as a verification problem rather than a search problem. The process separates verified work from probable matches, resolves same-name conflicts, deduplicates reprints and syndicated copies, preserves source provenance, and treats missing years as research gaps rather than permission to invent records. The result was a source-tracked professional archive containing 250+ recovered records across more than 20 years. The workflow can be adapted to journalism, research, consulting, creative work, speaking histories, or any long-term body of professional output. I use the following research-archivist workflow: - Never invent titles, dates, publications, URLs, or authorship. - Separate records into VERIFIED, PROBABLE, and REJECTED. - Treat same-name individuals as separate identities until evidence proves otherwise. - Deduplicate syndicated copies, reprints, mirrors, indexes, and cached pages. - Preserve provenance for every verified record. - Mark gaps rather than filling them. - Distinguish “not found,” “unverified,” and “confirmed absent.” - State uncertainty explicitly. Step-by-step: 1. Ask for names and bylines, employers, publications, career dates, subject areas, known titles, source files, URLs, and any same-name conflicts. 2. Build an identity fingerprint. 3. Establish verified seed records. 4. Search iteratively across multiple query patterns and sources. 5. Classify every result. 6. Resolve identity conflicts. 7. Deduplicate records. 8. Normalize metadata. 9. Build a chronology. 10. Identify and search gaps. 11. Run a provenance and error audit. The final output includes: - Verified Master Archive - Probable / Needs Verification - Rejected / Other Person - Gap List - Source Notes - Final Audit The archive is never described as complete unless the evidence supports that conclusion.

I use conversation not only to generate ideas, but to pressure-test them until they become internally consistent and practically usable. The workflow starts with a philosophical idea, intuition, or principle that is still partly unfinished. I explain the core thought in ordinary language, and AI helps unfold what is already inside it: assumptions, consequences, tensions, possible interpretations, and links between different parts of the idea. Unlike a purely creative brainstorming process, the conversation does not simply keep expanding. AI also interrupts the momentum with questions that require deeper thinking: - What exactly does this concept mean in practice? - Which parts are essential, and which are only examples? - Does this principle still hold in edge cases? - What happens when two values conflict? - Is there a contradiction between this statement and an earlier one? - Is the system describing how things are, how they should be, or both? - Who has responsibility at each point? - What would make the system fail? - Can the idea be translated into an actual process, structure, or decision rule? My answers then change the model. Sometimes I clarify what I meant. Sometimes a question reveals that two parts of the idea do not fit together yet. Sometimes the tension turns out to be useful and becomes part of the concept itself. The workflow gradually moves through several layers: intuition → articulation → questioning → contradiction testing → refinement → system design. Once the philosophical core is stable enough, AI helps translate it into practical suggestions: structures, rules, decision points, roles, safeguards, workflows, or alternative system designs. The important part is that the practical system is not invented separately from the philosophy. It is derived from it. That makes the process useful for ideas that are too complex for a single prompt and too interconnected to solve by simply asking AI to “make a framework.” The final result is not merely a polished explanation of an idea. It is a concept that has been repeatedly examined from different angles and then turned into something that could actually guide decisions or system design. > AI is useful here not because it agrees with the idea, but because it helps expose what the idea requires in order to remain coherent. At the end of the process, AI can also create drawings, diagrams, or schematic visualizations of the core concepts on request, making the structure easier to understand and communicate. Step-by-step: 1. I explain an unfinished philosophical idea, intuition, or principle in ordinary language. 2. I ask AI to unfold the assumptions, consequences, tensions, possible interpretations, and connections already contained in the idea. 3. I use targeted questions to examine practical meaning, essential elements, edge cases, conflicting values, contradictions, responsibility, failure conditions, and possible decision rules. 4. I revise the model based on my answers, clarifying ambiguous points and identifying contradictions or useful tensions. 5. I move the idea through the sequence of articulation, questioning, contradiction testing, refinement, and system design. 6. Once the philosophical core is stable enough, I ask AI to derive practical structures, rules, decision points, roles, safeguards, workflows, or alternative system designs from it. 7. I ask AI to create drawings, diagrams, or schematic visualizations of the core concepts when I need to understand or communicate the structure more easily.

I use this workflow when I have a problem but do not yet know which software, service, or method could solve it. Instead of immediately asking for “the best app,” I describe the situation in ordinary language: what I am trying to do, what currently annoys me, what I have already tried, and what would make a solution useful. Then AI helps me map the tool landscape. The important shift is that the criteria emerge from the conversation. The workflow does not search for an abstract “best tool.” It builds a model of what a good tool means for this particular problem and person, then evaluates the available options against that model. This also makes the result reusable. When my requirements change later, I can update the comparison rather than redo the entire research process. Step-by-step: 1. I describe the problem and desired outcome. 2. I identify the requirements that actually matter in this situation. 3. I research the relevant tools and approaches. 4. I compare them side by side using practical criteria such as functionality, price, pricing model, platform, setup effort, learning curve, and ease of use. 5. I ask questions where the requirements are still unclear. 6. I react to the comparison—for example, by noting that something is too expensive, that a subscription is a dealbreaker, that an option looks cumbersome, that I need more statistics, or that I do not need project management. 7. I update the comparison using that feedback instead of starting the search from scratch. 8. I narrow the field and, where useful, test the remaining options on one small real-world task. 9. I record why the chosen tool fits and why seemingly similar alternatives did not.

I’m a very unsophisticated user—and an older man—so my use of ChatGPT is still fairly basic. But it has changed my life. I use ChatGPT as a research assistant for a book I’m writing. In practice, what I do is not much more than an in-depth search, but ChatGPT has taken me places in this journey that I would have thought impossible just three months ago. We’re now deeply engaged in solid research that will likely last about two years before we reach the writing phase. I’m energized by what we’re doing and wanted to share the experience. I believe AI is going to change the way working historians conduct research. Step-by-step: 1. I use ChatGPT as a research assistant for the book I’m writing. 2. I use it for in-depth searching and research. 3. I continue developing the research with ChatGPT over an expected two-year period before beginning the writing phase. 4. I reflect on how this process is changing my research journey and the way historians may conduct research.

Tell AI the Real Goal, Not Just the Scorecard THE PROBLEM When we give AI a task, we often describe success through measurable criteria: be fast, minimize errors, use fewer resources, produce a certain format, reach a quality score, or complete a list of steps. Those criteria are useful, but they are usually not the actual goal. A high score matters because it is supposed to indicate that the AI is doing something useful. Efficiency matters because we want to achieve something without wasting resources. A specific layout matters because someone needs to use the result afterwards. If the proxy becomes more important than the purpose behind it, the AI can technically satisfy the instructions while missing what we actually wanted. So I started making the hierarchy explicit. THE WORKFLOW Before a substantial task, I explain four things: Step-by-step: 1. The real goal What am I ultimately trying to accomplish? 2. Why that goal matters What function should the result serve in the real world? 3. The success criteria What signals, scores, constraints or output requirements help us judge whether we are getting there? 4. The important distinction Those criteria are indicators of success, not the goal themselves. Then, before execution, I usually ask for a short non-technical plan in plain language. Not code. Not internal terminology. Not a wall of implementation detail. I want the AI to explain: - what it thinks I am trying to achieve - what steps it plans to take - in what order - what it expects each step to accomplish - where it sees possible problems or ambiguity - what the final result should look like - where it will show me intermediate results before continuing That last point matters. For larger tasks, I do not want one giant jump from instruction to finished output. I want the AI to build in intermediate checkpoints with actual results. That can mean: - showing the first batch before processing the rest - giving a sample classification before applying it to hundreds of items - sharing an early pattern it found before building the full analysis around it - showing the structure of a document before filling every section - reporting that a planned step produced an unexpected result before silently adapting everything downstream The checkpoint should contain something useful enough to evaluate. Not just: «Step 2 completed.» But rather: «I processed the first 50 items. Most fit the categories we expected, but 12% fall into a pattern we did not account for. Here are three examples and how I suggest handling them.» That lets me see whether the task is still heading toward the actual goal. For example, my instruction might be: «The real goal is X. We care about Y because it helps achieve X. Z is a useful metric, but do not optimize Z at the expense of X. Before executing, explain in non-technical language how you plan to approach the task, step by step. Build useful intermediate results into the plan so I can inspect the direction before too much work depends on it. Flag anything that seems likely to satisfy the metric while undermining the actual purpose.» I can then say: «Yes, that is what I mean.» Or: «No, step 3 is where you are misunderstanding me.» And later: «This first batch looks right. Continue.» Or: «Stop here. The pattern you found changes how I want the rest handled.» Correcting a five-line plan or an early sample is much cheaper than correcting an entire finished workflow, analysis or file operation. WHY I LIKE IT This turns the interaction from: instruction → execution → correction into: purpose → shared understanding → visible plan → intermediate results → adjustment → execution It also helps me learn how the AI works. I do not need to understand every technical mechanism underneath it, but I do want a usable mental model of how it approaches problems. Over time, that makes collaboration easier because I get better at giving instructions, spotting misunderstandings early and knowing where extra context will matter. Intermediate results also make autonomy safer. The AI does not need permission for every tiny action, but it should avoid disappearing into a long chain of dependent decisions when an early misunderstanding could invalidate everything that follows. This can reduce unnecessary work, wasted compute and repeated corrections. The AI can still work independently once the direction is clear. The point is not to micromanage the process. The point is to make sure we are optimizing the right thing, travelling by a route we both understand, and checking occasionally that we are still on that route. A metric is a thermometer. The goal is to make the room warm, not merely to make the thermometer say 21°C.

Most businesses don't need another AI tool. They need to automate the repetitive bottleneck already slowing the team down. A simple example is connecting the tools already in use: Lead → AI qualification → CRM → WhatsApp → follow-up Instead of adding more software, automate the repetitive steps between these tools. The goal isn't more AI; it's less manual work and faster execution. Step-by-step: 1. Identify the repetitive bottleneck slowing the team down. 2. Capture the lead and use AI to qualify it. 3. Send the qualified lead to the CRM. 4. Use WhatsApp for follow-up. 5. Connect the steps so the process requires less manual work and supports faster execution.

I use this workflow to handle new business enquiries by connecting AI to the actual business process instead of using AI as a standalone chatbot. The process moves each lead from AI qualification to a CRM update, sales notification, and follow-up. AI extracts the service required, budget, location, and urgency, then routes the lead based on the result: - High intent: Notify sales immediately - Medium intent: Start an automated follow-up - Low intent: Add the lead to a nurture sequence Step-by-step: 1. Capture the new business enquiry. 2. Use AI to extract the service required, budget, location, and urgency. 3. Update the CRM with the qualification details. 4. Route the lead according to its intent level. 5. Notify sales immediately for high-intent leads, start automated follow-up for medium-intent leads, and add low-intent leads to a nurture sequence.

I have a lot of calls, and follow-ups were the first thing to get lost once my day filled up. Granola notes helped, but I still had to remember to go back and read them. I connected Granola, Claude, and Notion, then set up a scheduled task in Claude. Every day at 6 p.m., it reviews that day’s Granola meeting notes, finds any to-do items or commitments I made, and creates them as tasks in my Notion to-do list. Step-by-step: 1. I connected Granola and Notion to Claude through Settings > Connectors. 2. I created a scheduled task with a prompt like: "Read today's Granola meeting notes. For each action item assigned to me, create a task in my Notion to-do database with the meeting name and date." 3. I set the task to run daily at the end of the day.

I built a second workflow that scans my conversations daily for ideas worth developing, especially strange connections, creative concepts, humor, research leads, unfinished experiments, and thoughts that may have seemed minor when they first appeared. Instead of turning everything into tasks, it creates an incubator: a place where interesting material can remain dormant until it connects with something new. The daily scan looks for fragments with creative or exploratory potential. They do not need to be fully formed ideas. A small observation, an odd comparison, a half-finished concept, a recurring image, or a funny side remark can all be worth keeping if they might become meaningful later. Once a week, the incubator revisits the material collected during the previous days. That weekly revisit makes connections across separate conversations more visible. Something that looked isolated on Tuesday may suddenly echo a thought from Friday or fit a project that did not yet exist when the original idea appeared. The important part is that the incubator does not treat every interesting thought as something that must immediately become productive. Some ideas benefit from being left alone for a while. They can sit next to other fragments, reappear in later conversations, or become useful only when a new context gives them meaning. The workflow is less about extracting the “best ideas” and more about preserving creative potential while allowing patterns to emerge gradually. It also surfaces unfinished experiments and research leads that I might otherwise forget, without turning the archive into a traditional task manager. That distinction matters to me: not everything valuable needs an action item. Some things are seeds, references, questions, jokes, aesthetic directions, or possible future worlds. Over time, the incubator becomes a kind of creative compost layer on top of the conversation archive: new material is gathered daily, revisited weekly, and allowed to combine into directions that would be difficult to plan deliberately. In simple terms: daily conversation scan → promising fragments → weekly revisit → emerging connections → incubation → later rediscovery and development The goal is not to force ideas into projects. It is to keep good material alive long enough for the right project to find it. Step-by-step: 1. I scan my conversations each day for strange connections, creative concepts, humor, research leads, unfinished experiments, and other fragments with creative or exploratory potential. 2. I preserve promising material in an incubator instead of immediately turning every item into a task. 3. I keep small observations, odd comparisons, half-finished concepts, recurring images, funny side remarks, seeds, references, questions, aesthetic directions, and possible future worlds—even when they are not fully formed. 4. I revisit the material collected during the previous days once a week. 5. I look for connections across separate conversations, including links between ideas that initially seemed isolated or between fragments and projects that did not yet exist. 6. I allow ideas to remain dormant, sit alongside other fragments, reappear in later conversations, or become useful when a new context gives them meaning. 7. I resurface unfinished experiments and research leads without turning the archive into a traditional task manager. 8. I let the material combine gradually so that new directions can emerge through later rediscovery and development.

Design taste is hard to put into words. I may know immediately that one website, presentation, report, or graphic feels right and another doesn't, but still struggle to explain whether the difference comes from the typography, spacing, colors, density, layout, or overall aesthetic. That makes working with AI frustrating. If I can't describe what I want, the AI has to guess. Instead of trying to explain my design taste upfront, I turned the process into an iterative visual feedback loop. I first asked the AI to suggest existing websites with different design styles so I could identify examples I liked. Once it had those references, I asked it to create three substantially different HTML mockups for the same content. I picked the direction I liked best, explained what I liked and disliked, and had the AI generate another set of alternatives based on that feedback. After about three rounds, the AI had a much better understanding of my design preferences than I could have given it in a written prompt. The basic loop is: show me examples → I choose → generate alternatives → I react → refine → repeat. This is essentially preference elicitation through examples. Research on human-AI interaction has similarly found that people can refine difficult-to-articulate preferences by reacting to concrete alternatives rather than specifying everything upfront. Step-by-step: 1. I asked the AI for several visual references, including websites or designs that represented distinctly different styles. 2. I reviewed the examples and identified the ones I liked. I didn't need sophisticated design terminology; I simply described what I preferred and anything obvious that I liked or disliked. 3. I gave the AI something real to design. I used an actual report I was working on so I could evaluate the styles in context. 4. I asked the AI to create three substantially different visual directions rather than minor variations of the same design. 5. I chose the direction closest to my taste and explained what I liked, what I didn't, and which elements from the other versions I wanted to incorporate. 6. I asked the AI to generate three new alternatives using everything it had learned so far. 7. I repeated the process until the designs began to converge. I did roughly three rounds, with each round narrowing the design space and giving the AI more information about my preferences. 8. I asked the AI to summarize what it had learned into reusable design guidelines so future projects could start with those preferences. Instead of trying to translate an aesthetic preference into design terminology, I let the AI learn my taste from my choices. The important shift is simple: don't describe what you like—show, choose, react, and refine. This can work for websites, presentations, reports, branding, graphics, interior design, clothing, invitations, or almost anything else where I know what I like when I see it.

I built a custom GPT with the personalities of Einstein, Lorentz, Planck, and Compton. Starting with Einstein’s 1920 Leiden lecture, I developed an ontology for physical space based on his description of the “new ether.” I began with E=mc2, E=hf, and my ontological modeling assumptions. I then repeatedly pushed ChatGPT to challenge those assumptions and interpretations logically and mathematically. We used numerous tool calls and reference sites to write and test the math. After many months of working on it in my spare time, the GPT now unifies equations that balance from the atomic scale to the black hole scale, with some remarkable revelations. I summarized much of the work in a paper written by my GPT and am happy to share it so others can expand, improve, and test the work. AI rocks. Step-by-step: 1. I built a custom GPT with the personalities of Einstein, Lorentz, Planck, and Compton. 2. I used Einstein’s 1920 Leiden lecture and his description of the “new ether” to develop an ontology for physical space. 3. I started with E=mc2, E=hf, and my ontological modeling assumptions. 4. I repeatedly challenged the assumptions and interpretations with ChatGPT, focusing on logical and mathematical consistency. 5. I used numerous tool calls and reference sites to write and test the math. 6. After many months of working on the project in my spare time, I summarized much of it in a paper written by my GPT. 7. I am sharing the work so others can expand, improve, and test it.

Turn a collection of documents, reports, spreadsheets, and notes into an evidence-backed decision brief with ChatGPT. Instead of asking AI to simply summarize the information, this workflow makes it identify what matters, connect the evidence, compare it with historical context, explore scenarios, and highlight what should be considered before making a decision. Step-by-step: 1. I gather the information relevant to one decision, including reports, PDFs, spreadsheets, research, historical data, meeting notes, and existing analysis. I upload everything into ChatGPT. 2. I ask ChatGPT to understand the situation using this prompt: > “Analyze the information I provided and build a structured understanding of the situation. Identify the key entities, important facts, relationships, metrics, trends, assumptions, and constraints. Do not make recommendations yet.” This creates the context before jumping to conclusions. 3. I build an evidence brief by asking: > “Create an evidence brief. Separate verified facts, derived insights, assumptions, conflicting information, and missing information. For every important conclusion, identify the supporting source or evidence.” This gives me a clearer picture of what is known versus what is inferred. 4. I add historical context when it is available by asking: > “Compare the current situation with the historical information provided. Identify meaningful patterns, similarities, differences, and changes. Highlight which historical observations could be relevant to the current decision.” This turns historical data into context rather than simply another report. 5. I explore three scenarios by asking ChatGPT: > “Based on the evidence and historical context, evaluate three scenarios: upside, base case, and downside. For each scenario, identify the assumptions, key drivers, risks, likely impact, and evidence supporting the assessment.” The objective isn't to pretend the future can be predicted perfectly. It is to understand how the decision changes when assumptions change. 6. I generate the decision brief by asking: > “Create a concise decision brief containing: > > 1. Current situation > 2. Most important evidence > 3. Key insights > 4. Historical context > 5. Critical assumptions > 6. Key risks > 7. Scenario analysis > 8. Evidence gaps and uncertainties > 9. Questions that should be investigated > 10. Possible actions and their implications. > Do not make the final decision on my behalf.” This produces a structured decision brief instead of another AI-generated summary. 7. I review the brief and challenge its conclusions before making the decision. I ask follow-up questions such as: > “Which assumption has the greatest impact on this decision?” > “Show me the strongest evidence against the current conclusion.” > “What information would most likely change the recommendation?” The AI helps structure the decision, but I make the decision. The important shift is: Summarize the information → Understand the situation → Establish the evidence → Add historical context → Explore scenarios → Evaluate the decision This approach can be applied to almost any domain where decisions depend on complex and interconnected information. A property investment is one example. A business strategy, product decision, operational problem, financial analysis, research question, or engineering decision can follow the same pattern.

I was overwhelmed by the thousands of emails I receive in my Outlook inbox every month. I didn’t have time to analyze them all, generate relevant responses, or track the replies and progress of each case. I used an Outlook feature and the virtual assistant Perplexity to help handle the task. Here’s the process: Step-by-step: 1. In Outlook, open the correct folder and select all the emails. 2. Go to Export/Import and follow all the required steps. 3. Export the emails as a `.csv` file, name the file, and save it in a specific location. 4. In Perplexity, attach the `.csv` file. 5. Use a prompt such as: I am a strategy manager and would like to propose a collaboration to my colleague David. The dashboard should list all topics discussed, proposed actions for each topic, and the remaining work to be done.

Microsoft is retiring Publisher on October 1, 2026. I have many `.PUB` files that I need to convert to PDFs before then, but I did not want to use online converters. I wanted a solution that would run locally on my computer. I worked with Claude to create a lightweight program that searches for `.PUB` files on a drive of my choice and converts them into high-quality PDF files, placing each new PDF in the same folder as its source file. Opening PowerShell manually and managing permissions was too cumbersome, so Claude also created a batch file to make the process easier. For anyone who wants to create their own mini-program, I asked Claude to create a reusable prompt. I posted that prompt at https://mediumseagreen-seal-177480.hostingersite.com/ along with my two files: the batch file and the PowerShell commands. Step-by-step: 1. I identified the `.PUB` files I needed to convert before Microsoft retires Publisher on October 1, 2026. 2. I decided to use a local solution instead of an online converter. 3. I worked with Claude to create a lightweight program that searches a selected drive for `.PUB` files. 4. I set up the program to convert the files into high-quality PDFs and place each PDF in the same folder as its source `.PUB` file. 5. I used a batch file created by Claude so I would not need to open PowerShell manually or manage permissions each time. 6. I asked Claude to create a reusable prompt for others who want to build their own version and posted it with the batch file and PowerShell commands at https://mediumseagreen-seal-177480.hostingersite.com/.

A reusable Claude Skill called `trust-due-diligence`, packaged as a `.skill` file. It is not a single report; it is a methodology made up of a `SKILL.md` file and three reference documents that teach Claude a repeatable process for investigating a named person, company, coach, or offer before you commit money or trust to them. Once installed, it activates automatically whenever you ask something like “deep dive on X” or “is this legit,” so you do not need to explain the process each time. Step-by-step: 1. Package the `trust-due-diligence` Claude Skill as a `.skill` file. 2. Include a `SKILL.md` file and three reference documents. 3. Use the files together to teach Claude a repeatable due-diligence methodology. 4. Install the Skill so it activates automatically for prompts such as “deep dive on X” or “is this legit.” 5. Use it to investigate a named person, company, coach, or offer before committing money or trust.

I wanted to reduce the time and mental effort it takes each morning to figure out what needs my attention across my inbox and calendar. I used Codex Automations to build Briefly, a daily AI-powered email and calendar brief that is automatically delivered to my inbox every day. Instead of manually searching through emails and checking separate calendar events, I can open one message from Briefly and immediately see what is happening, what needs action, and what is coming up. It has become a simple way for me to use AI proactively—not only when I ask a question, but as an automated system that helps me stay ahead of my emails, tasks, and schedule each day. Step-by-step: 1. I connected the email and calendar sources I wanted the automation to review. 2. I created a Codex Automation that runs each morning. 3. I instructed it to review recent and important emails, identify messages that need attention or follow-up, and check my calendar for upcoming meetings and commitments. 4. I had it turn that information into a concise daily brief. 5. I configured the brief to be delivered to my email automatically.