Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
What is this?
Less
More
NextGen AI

56.7k members • Free

Leadbase Free

15.1k members • Free

Engineers in Business

1.3k members • Free

Wealth Academy Lite

34.7k members • Free

AI Automation Club

1.3k members • Free

THE SKOOL HUB

5.6k members • Free

Amplify Views

28.5k members • Free

Selling Online / Prime Mover

36.7k members • Free

GoHighLevel w/ Robb Bailey

13.6k members • Free

43 contributions to AI Automation Society
I've been thinking about AI automation.
I've been thinking about AI automation less as “automating tasks” and more as building a business operating layer. Most businesses already have the tools. CRM. Email. Calendar. Database. Forms. Internal systems. The problem is that each system knows only part of the story. So people become the integration layer. Someone checks the CRM. Then opens the email. Then checks the calendar. Then looks something up in the database. Then decides what should happen. Then updates everything. That's expensive coordination. A better architecture is: Input → AI understanding → Business data → Decision → System action → Verification → Human escalation Now the systems aren't just connected. They're working together around the business process. That's where I see the bigger opportunity with AI agents and workflow automation. Not replacing the people making important decisions. Removing the unnecessary coordination around those decisions. The question isn't: “What task can we automate?” It's: “Where is our business still acting as the integration layer between its own systems?” That is probably where I'd look first. #AIAutomation #BusinessAutomation #AIEngineering #WorkflowAutomation #AIAgents #BusinessOperations
I've been thinking about AI automation.
0 likes • 5d
@MIles Z Exactly. The interesting part is that the “glue layer” doesn't have to be a massive system anymore. With capable, low-cost models, you can add intelligence between existing tools — interpret context, decide what needs to happen, and coordinate the next action. That makes the business operating layer much more practical to build.
0 likes • 3d
@Wasilis Paliakoudis Exactly
Here's an interesting question:
How many leads are actually lost after they enter the CRM? Not rejected. Not marked “lost.” Just forgotten. A lead comes in → someone responds → the conversation slows down → the CRM gets updated → everyone moves on. Weeks later, that opportunity is still sitting there. This is why I think lead automation should be designed around the entire lead journey, not just the first follow-up. Capture. Qualify. Score. Route. Follow up. Nurture. Reactivate. Book. Update. And most importantly, know what already happened. The goal isn't to make the CRM busier. It's to make the CRM operational. Your CRM should help answer: Who needs attention right now, why, and what should happen next? That's where AI-powered lead management becomes much more interesting than simply adding an AI chatbot to a sales process. #AIAutomation #CRMAutomation #LeadManagement #SalesAutomation #LeadGeneration #BusinessAutomation
Here's an interesting question:
0 likes • 4d
@Wasilis Paliakoudis Exactly. A real CRM system should react to both movement and the lack of movement. Most automations are built around events: lead created, reply received, meeting booked, stage changed. But silence is also data. If nothing happens for 3 days, 7 days, or whatever makes sense for that stage, the system should notice and decide whether to follow up, create a task, escalate to a human, or change the nurture path. Otherwise you’ve automated the intake — not the actual sales process.
0 likes • 4d
@Sakshi Gahlawat Exactly that's where automation works.
Most businesses start with the wrong question.
One thing I've noticed about AI adoption: Most businesses start with the wrong question. They ask: "What AI tool should we use?" The better question is: "Where does our business lose time, information, or opportunities?" Because the biggest AI opportunities usually aren't obvious. They are hidden inside: - slow decision-making - disconnected systems - repeated manual reviews - information that nobody can access quickly - processes that depend on one person's knowledge - AI is not valuable because it is new. It's valuable because it allows businesses to redesign how work gets done. The next generation of companies won't just use AI tools. They will build AI-native operating systems around their business. What business process do you think has the biggest opportunity for redesign with AI?
Most businesses start with the wrong question.
0 likes • 8d
@Sakshi Gahlawat 100%. I think the same principle applies to automation too. Teams often ask, “What can we automate?” before asking, “Where is the business actually losing time, money, or context?” Finding the real bottleneck first usually leads to much simpler—and more valuable—automation.
0 likes • 8d
@Ozan Dag That 19-point gap is the interesting part. It shows why simply adding “AI skills required” to a job description doesn’t really tell you much. The real value is measuring how someone actually applies AI to a problem, not how confidently they say they use it.
Here's an AI automation problem I don't see discussed enough:
Automation drift. A workflow can run perfectly for months and still become wrong. The business changes. The automation doesn't. Pricing changes → old offer gets sent. Sales team changes → leads go to the wrong person. Qualification criteria changes → old leads still get the same treatment. Company policy changes → AI agent keeps following the old instructions. Nothing crashes. That's what makes it dangerous. The system is technically healthy while the business logic is slowly becoming outdated. I think production automation needs another layer beyond reliability: Business correctness. We should be asking: “Did the workflow execute successfully?” AND: “Is this workflow still aligned with how the business operates today?” That means monitoring isn't just about errors. It's also about detecting when assumptions, rules, and decisions are becoming stale. Curious how others handle this. Do you have a process for reviewing automations after the business changes, or do you usually discover the problem when something goes wrong?
Here's an AI automation problem I don't see discussed enough:
1 like • 12d
@Igor Ganapolsky That’s exactly the gap I’m seeing. I version the workflow logic, but the business rules/source-of-truth layer isn’t always versioned and monitored for drift yet. The two-clock approach makes a lot of sense.
1 like • 9d
@Wasilis Paliakoudis Exactly. Event-driven reviews make much more sense than calendar-based checks. If the source data changes, the dependent automation should be flagged immediately—that’s where the real risk starts.
Hey guys AEO is the new SEO, people no longer use google
When is the last time you searched something on google SEO is ranking top on google Over the past few months i mastered AEO, basically ranking your business top on AI platforms Lemme know if you wanna discuss more about this
1 like • 10d
100%. I’d add GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) to the mix too. AEO focuses on getting your content surfaced as direct answers, while GEO is about getting your brand mentioned and recommended across AI engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini. SEO isn’t disappearing—it’s expanding beyond Google. And i am currently exploring both AEO and GEO i see the future in it.
1-10 of 43
Umair Rehman
5
265 points to level up
@umair-rehman-6133
Gen AI Developer

Active 2d ago
Joined Apr 23, 2026
Powered by