This is an amazing capability. The 'animal guesser' knows a few facts about a few animals and tries to guess the one you're thinking of by asking questions. But this also a rudimentary old school AI learning system - so if it gets it wrong it asks you for a question to help it guess that animal right next time. I remember coding this in BASIC (yes, that looong ago!) but I couldn't do it now. Thankfully, you only have to describe the behaviour and AI works it out. Two more points: [1] I used regular chat AI before I went to the app generator AI to noodle out what the input for that should look like (I always like to bootstrap AI dev by breaking it down in stages like that) - getting the spec right is key and a separate task; [2] I admit I didn't play fair with the game by thinking of crocodile right after I'd taught it alligator :-)

So far, working together, my agents and I have drafted about 73 pages (10 chapters, 27k words) of my book project. I find that it's like having a notebook that challenges you back - which is great. I also increasingly interact with AI almost entirely via uploads and voice. I'm nowhere near the first to say it but voice has turned out to be mega. It's funny that in the late 1980s I did computer understanding of language research - so I know how hard and how impressive what has been achieved is. I have four agents working with me on this: [1] The Commissioning Editor challenges me to clearly define the purpose and audience [2] The Content Coach helps me build the core logical arguments and ensure everything is correct [3] The Chapter Editor delves deep to assemble everything that is needed in each chapter, produces a draft, reviews it and redrafts it [4] The Critic challenges whether the book fulfills its promise Three important things: - There was a whole recursive process to first of all researching best practice in how to approach writing a book; boiling down disparate advice into one coherent set; dividing that process between different agents; specifying and developing the agents. I think having that deeper thinking will be more future proof as I may review any part of this set up at any time. I can already imagine further steps/agents I might add, like one to check for references for example - The agents challenge me to meet standards and it really feels like I'm being coached thru the process - whilst the ideas and the thinking are all mine - I know what we're producing is a draft that I will have to work on - not a finished product

From AI for Non-Techies (https://nontechies.ai/ ) They say: "We've put together 25 genuinely useful prompts for HR leaders that can help with everything from reviewing policies and onboarding plans to recruitment, performance conversations, people analytics and change management." https://nontechies.ai/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/AIFNT-25-Prompts-for-HR-Leaders.pdf

Here's something I don't hear people admit. AI saved them hours this month, and they can't point to a single thing they did with them. That's not a coincidence. When a task that took three hours takes twenty minutes, you don't automatically get two hours and forty minutes of freedom. You get a gap. And an empty gap in a busy person's day gets filled almost instantly. With more email. With more small tasks. With more tweaking of things that were already fine. The work expands to fit the room you made. It always has. AI just made the room appear faster than most of us have ever experienced. I've watched a lot of smart people get quicker at everything and not one bit closer to where they said they wanted to be. Here's what I've noticed: speed was never the goal. It was supposed to be the means. If you don't decide what the saved time is for before you save it, something else decides for you. Usually the loudest thing in your inbox. So try this... The next time AI hands you back an hour, name where it's going before you do anything else. One thing. Written down. Maybe it's the sales conversation you've been avoiding. Maybe it's the product you keep postponing. Maybe it's an afternoon with the people you actually work this hard for. Any of those is a fine answer. "Whatever comes up" is not. AI can give you time. It can't give you a reason to want it. That part has always been yours. Question: If AI gave you back five hours every week starting tomorrow, what specifically would you do with them?

✨💜 GRAND RISING, AIA! 👑🤖 Let’s stir the boardroom a little this morning. 👀🔥 Just because you CAN automate something… does that mean you SHOULD? AI is making it increasingly easy to automate more of the work around us. Emails. Research. Scheduling. Analysis. Follow-ups. Content. Decision support. Client communication. And somewhere along the way, I think we may need to ask a harder question: Are we measuring progress by how much we automate… or by how wisely we decide what deserves automation? Because I don’t believe every manual task is automatically a bad task. Some things are inefficient for a reason. Some conversations need human presence. Some decisions require judgment beyond a workflow. Some moments build trust precisely because a person chose to show up. And some responsibilities may be technically automatable while still being strategically foolish to automate. That’s the distinction I’m paying more attention to. ⚙️ Automation can create efficiency. 🤖 AI can create leverage. 👑 Leadership decides where neither should replace human responsibility. Here’s where I want to challenge the room: 👇🏽 If AI could automate 90% of your role tomorrow, what 10% would you REFUSE to hand over? And here’s the debate: Would refusing to automate that 10% make you a stronger leader… or simply a leader holding onto work AI could perform better? 👀 I can already see both sides. So AIA, where do you draw the line? 🔥 What stays human on purpose—and why? ✨💜 Grand Rising, AIA. Let’s debate.