Let's get to know each other! Comment below sharing where you are in the world, a career goal you have, and something you like to do for fun. 😊

We've been putting a lot of work into Glaido. We want to make it undeniably better than Wispr Flow. Think of it as the voice layer that can actually take action and connect to all of your tools, rather than just transcribing text. Now we're stuck on the name. Four options on the table: And if you haven't checked out Glaido, get a FREE month HERE

Not emotionally. But OPERATIONALLY? Maybe we're already seeing the early version of it. We usually think AI agents fail because they aren't smart enough. But what if an agent can become degraded by the workload we give it? Too many tasks, Too many tokens, Too much context, Too many tool calls, Too many retries, Too many unresolved objectives. The model may still be capable, BUT the system around it starts accumulating FRICTION. Think about an agent handling 500 tasks: --> Token exhaustion -- budgets get consumed faster than expected --> Context overload -- signal gets buried in accumulated state --> Priority collision -- competing objectives fight for attention --> Tool-call amplification -- retries and dependencies multiply --> Memory pollution -- stale information stays active too long --> Error cascades -- one bad handoff creates downstream work --> Escalation fatigue -- humans become the fallback for everything Nothing necessarily BREAKS. The agent simply becomes LESS focused, LESS reliable, and MORE expensive. That's not human burnout, BUT It's operational saturation. And it raises a bigger design question: 💡Should AI agents have WORKLOAD BUDGETS? Maybe production agents need: 🧠 Cognitive-load limits -- constrain active context and competing objectives 🎟️ Token budgets -- control how much reasoning/tool activity a task can consume ⏱️ Task budgets -- limit concurrent objectives 🔄 Recovery cycles -- compact, refresh, or reset state 🚦 Escalation thresholds -- know when to stop and ask for help 🧹 Memory hygiene -- move obsolete context out of working memory 📊 Degradation monitoring -- detect declining performance before failure Because perhaps the future of reliable agents isn't: “How much can this agent handle?” It's: “How much should we allow it to handle before we intervene?” We already learned this lesson in distributed systems: More load ≠ more productivity. Sometimes the smartest thing an AI can do, IS stop taking work. So I'm curious: Should every production AI agent have a TOKEN BUDGET, WORKLOAD LIMIT, RECOVERY POLICY, and an “I'm OVERLOAD” signal?

I just published a new book called Becoming AI Native. For the next few days, I'm giving a huge discount on it and including two complete training programs. The entire package is worth $117.99, but you can get it for $4.99 through Saturday. I’m offering such a huge discount because I want the book in more hands. If you find it useful, I’d appreciate one favor: leave an honest review on Amazon after you read it. Get your discounted copy here: -> Your copy of my new book

We keep asking AI: “What did you do?” Maybe the more important question is: “Why did you do it?” Imagine an agent receives 20 possible actions. It chooses one. Today, we often get: “I determined this was the best option.” Sounds intelligent. But that's not really an explanation. It’s a conclusion wearing a suit. For production AI, I think we need something closer to a decision receipt: 🎯 Objective — What was the agent trying to accomplish? 📥 Evidence — What information influenced the decision? ⚖️ Constraints — What rules or policies shaped the choice? 🔀 Alternatives — What other actions were considered? 📊 Confidence — How certain was the system? 🚦 Trigger — What caused it to act now? 👤 Authority — Was it allowed to make this decision autonomously? 🔗 Provenance — Where did the critical information come from? Because there's a huge difference between: “The AI chose X.” and “The AI chose X because A and B were true, C was prohibited, D had lower expected value, and confidence exceeded the escalation threshold.” That's not just explainability. That's operational accountability. And here's the uncomfortable part: An AI-generated explanation can itself BE WRONG. The model might produce a PERFECTLY REASONABLE story about a decision it didn't make for those reasons. So perhaps we shouldn't ask AI to explain its reasoning after the fact. We should design systems that capture decision evidence while the decision is happening. Think: Action --> Evidence --> Policy --> Decision --> Outcome --> Audit Now an agent isn't just producing an answer, BUT It's producing an audit trail. 💡Maybe the next generation of AI systems won't simply be judged by: “Can it make the right decision?” But also: “Can we reconstruct why it made that decision, and determine whether it was actually authorized to make it?” Because when an AI makes a mistake, “The model thought it was a good idea” AND probably isn't going to satisfy anyone. Curious: What would you require in an AI decision receipt before trusting an autonomous agent with a high-impact action?