There's a particular kind of productive-feeling procrastination that the AI era has made very easy to fall into. It involves tabs. Usually many tabs. Reviews, comparisons, Reddit threads, YouTube walkthroughs, LinkedIn posts from people using tools you've never heard of. "Is this better than what I'm using? What is everyone else using? Am I falling behind?" An hour passes. No work has been done. But it feels like work, because you're learning about AI. The gap between what you're currently doing and what's theoretically possible feels like a problem you need to solve before you can get back to the actual work. This is one of the most underacknowledged time costs in AI adoption right now, not the failure to use AI, but the consumption of working hours by the pursuit of better AI. ------------- Context ------------- The pace of AI development creates a genuine psychological pressure. New tools are released constantly. Capabilities improve on timescales of months, not years. The thing that was cutting-edge in January can feel ordinary by April. For anyone paying attention, there's a persistent sense that the current setup might be suboptimal, that somewhere out there is a tool or a workflow that would produce meaningfully better results, if only you could identify it. That sense isn't entirely wrong. The tools are genuinely improving. New options really do appear regularly. Some of them are meaningfully better than what came before. But the question worth examining is what the search for those tools is actually costing. Every hour spent researching, evaluating, and switching tools is an hour not spent doing the work that makes a business run. And the time cost of staying current with the AI tool landscape has grown dramatically alongside the number of options available. A straightforward audit shows what this costs at scale. If someone spends ninety minutes per week researching AI tools, reading about new capabilities, watching demos, and evaluating potential switches, that's about 75 hours per year, nearly two full work weeks. Two weeks invested in understanding what's possible. Two weeks not spent executing.

In this video, I break down the new releases from Anthropic: Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5. While Mythos 5 is still not available to the public, Fable is (note: it's been removed and hopefully be back up soon), and I show you exactly what it's capable of right now. Enjoy!

Anyone else missing having access to Fable 5? I think I may actually be grieving! Crossing my fingers it gets made available again soon.

What’s the thing you keep saying you want…but your actions still don’t reflect? Not your intentions. Not your excuses. Your actual actions. Because the gap between the life you want and the life you currently have is usually hidden inside the habits you keep defending. So here’s a challenge for this weekend: Take 20 quiet minutes with no distractions and ask yourself these 3 questions: 1. What do I know I need to stop avoiding? 2. What would my future self wish I started now? 3. If I kept living exactly like this for the next 5 years… where would it lead? Don’t answer quickly. Sit with it. Awareness changes more lives than motivation ever will. Have an amazing weekend everybody 👊

Most people don't struggle with Gemini because they don't know what to ask. They struggle because they have to brief it from scratch every single time, and that quiet, repeated effort is what actually wears them down. Think about how a normal task goes. You open Gemini, and before you can get anything useful, you re-explain who you want it to be, the tone you're going for, the format you need, and the same background about your business or your audience that you typed yesterday. Then you paste in the same reference document, get a response that's close but not quite right, and spend another few minutes editing it by hand. The next time you need that exact kind of help, you start the whole process over. Same setup, same paste, same edits. Nothing carries forward. ---------- THE REAL PROBLEM ---------- The problem is not "Gemini isn't good enough." The problem is "I'm rebuilding the same assistant from scratch every time instead of saving it once." Every fresh chat is a blank slate. It doesn't remember your role, your tone, your standards, or your reference material, so you rebuild all of that context manually, every single session. That's not a tool problem. It's a setup problem. And setup problems don't get solved by switching tools or finding a cleverer prompt. They get solved by saving the setup. ---------- WHY THIS MATTERS ---------- When every task starts with re-explaining yourself, it costs you in two ways that are easy to miss. The first is time. Five or ten minutes of setup, repeated several times a day, quietly adds up to hours every week. You never see it on an invoice, but you feel it in how long everything takes. The second is consistency. Because you describe the setup a little differently each time, you get slightly different results each time. One day the output is sharp, the next day it's off, and you're never quite sure why. Inconsistent output is hard to trust. And anything you can't trust, you can't hand off. So the work stays stuck with you, living in your head and your retyping, instead of becoming something repeatable.