Hey everyone, It's been a few months since I've posted here. During that time, I've been doing a lot of thinking about where I actually want my career to go. I got into the AI space because of how exciting everything was and, honestly, because of all the hype. But over the last few months, I've realized something about myself: I don't get the same excitement from AI as I do from writing software. Whenever I'm coding, I completely lose track of time. Solving problems, building applications, and writing clean code genuinely makes me happy. It's one of the few things that gives me that feeling of wanting to keep going for hours. I think I reached a point where I felt overwhelmed trying to keep up with how fast AI is moving. Instead of enjoying the process, I started feeling like I was constantly behind, and eventually I stepped away to focus more on school. Now I'm wondering if this is a sign that I should lean into software engineering instead of trying to force myself into AI. For those of you who've been in tech longer: - Have you ever realized you were pursuing something because of the hype rather than genuine interest? - If you discovered you enjoyed software engineering more than AI, would you fully commit to it or keep one foot in both worlds? - Would you pivot your personal brand, including LinkedIn, or would you keep AI as part of your profile? I'd really appreciate hearing your experiences. Thanks in advance! (Though am still a cadet and it's my major in the university)

Hey everyone, Cold outreach was one of the biggest pain points in your responses. Different words, same pain:​ “I’m sending emails. I’m getting no replies. Why isn’t this working?” Cold outreach isn’t broken. But there are 4 reasons it’s probably failing for you. 1. Your emails aren’t being seen. Most people send cold emails from their main domain with zero setup. No separate outreach domain. No warmup. No authentication. The result? Their emails land in spam. They send 100 emails, get 0 replies, conclude cold email is dead. Reality: most of those emails were never seen by a human. The other half is your subject line and the first few words you write. Even if the email arrives, if those don’t feel relevant to the person reading them, it’s deleted before it’s opened. Which email do you think your leads would be more likely to open? "AI Automation Solutions for [Company Name]" or: "[Company's Competitor] just automated this" Fix the infrastructure. Make the first thing they see feel targeted & personal. If it feels generic, it's probably going in the trash. 2. Your message is wrong. Most people try to close the sale in the first email. “We build AI automation systems. Here’s what we do. Want to hop on a call?” That message gets ignored every time. You're asking a stranger for trust they haven’t given you yet. The fix: sell the meeting, not the service. Compare these two: “Let’s schedule a 30-minute call to walk through our AI services.” “Mind if I send you a 2-minute video showing how a similar business is using AI?” The first one asks for a commitment. The second asks for curiosity. 3. You quit too early. Cold outreach converts at fractions of a percent, even when it’s done well. Most people send 50 emails, hear nothing, and walk away. But the math doesn’t work in 50 emails. It works in hundreds, with follow-ups. Industry research says it takes an average of 8 touch points to get a meeting with a new prospect. Most people send 1. Follow-ups aren’t optional. They’re where most of the conversions happen. Cold outreach isn’t a single message. It’s a sequence.

Done this activity

I think most builders are still thinking about AI agents as tools. In 2026, they're becoming teammates. We are moving from instruction-based computing, where we tell a computer how to do something, to intent-based computing, where we simply state the desired outcome and the agent determines how to deliver it. That's a fundamental shift in how systems are built. And the numbers back it up. The global agentic AI sector is projected to grow from $9.14 billion in early 2026 to over $139 billion by 2034, a CAGR of 40.5%. This isn't hype. This is infrastructure being built right now. Here's what that means practically for builders: What's emerging is not just smarter automation, but a new coordination layer, where different types of AI agents work together to run core business workflows at scale. Single agents are impressive. Multi-agent systems are transformative. The architecture that actually wins in 2026 looks like this: → One orchestrator reads intent and routes → Specialized agents each own one function → Every agent is isolated, independently testable, replaceable → The whole system runs on one trigger The era of simple prompts is over. We're witnessing the agent leap, where AI orchestrates complex, end-to-end workflows semi-autonomously. This is exactly what I built with Jake. One Telegram message. Five specialized agents. Full workflow executed. Zero manual work. The builders who understand coordination, not just automation, are the ones building systems that actually scale. That's the edge.

I think most builders are focused on building agents. But the real conversation in March 2026 is about what holds agents together. Solo agents are out. Multi-agent systems are in. Here's what that actually means for how we build: A single agent answering questions or writing emails is impressive. But a single agent can't run a business operation. What runs a business operation is orchestration, multiple agents working together, each owning a specific function, coordinated by a system that routes intent to the right place. Intelligence without coordination means decisions are made in isolation and can't reliably translate across complex business environments. 2026 is the year orchestration will be widely recognized as the connective tissue that makes AI useful at scale. This is exactly why I built Jake. Jake doesn't answer questions. Jake routes. He reads intent, decides which agent handles it, and passes the task. Polaris finds people. Lania handles leads. Hermes sends emails. Borealis books meetings. Five agents. One orchestrator. Zero manual coordination. AI is shifting from individual usage to team and workflow orchestration, coordinating entire workflows, connecting data across systems, and moving projects from idea to completion. That's the architecture that actually scales. If you're still building single agents start thinking about how they talk to each other. That's where the real power is. 🔥