Hi everyone, I have just reached level 2 and would like to make a first post of my own. I have always been interested in technology, economics, and human behavior, but only recently started writing about how they connect. How AI is used inside our systems is the focus here. It is what brought me here, and why ICM makes sense to me. I also like to explore how we humans behave with these systems. I am sharing an essay I originally wrote in Portuguese and translated into English for this community. It explores the social cost of asking another person for help, and how AI changes that choice. Asking a machine can spare us the embarrassment of admitting what we do not know, or the judgment that sometimes comes with an answer. I look at how that changes whom we turn to, what we trust, and how we relate to one another.

THE STRANGER TEST: When is AI work actually verified? Two principles I’ve been working with: 1. Self-attestation ≠ verification. An AI saying “tests pass” is a claim, not evidence. Independent verification isn’t about switching models. It’s about independently executing a test against evidence, without being told the original conclusion. 2. Copies aren’t corroboration. Three AI models agreeing doesn’t mean three independent confirmations. If they inherit the same assumptions, they may simply reproduce the same mistake. Count independent evidence paths, not votes. The Stranger Test: Can someone who wasn’t in the room reproduce your conclusion from the evidence alone? Give them the source material, acceptance criteria, and test instructions. Withhold your conclusion. Let them determine the result. I recently applied this to my own AI-assisted engineering work. A prototype had been reported as built and tested. But independent verification hadn’t been established. That distinction matters. BUILT / TESTED claimed. INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED not established. This isn’t about distrusting AI. It’s about building systems where trust doesn’t depend on who tells the story. If the evidence can’t survive without the storyteller, the conclusion isn’t verified. That’s the standard I’m working toward.

Experience tells us, ideas aren't the same as execution, and most of us aren't inventing something completely new. But there's a difference between discussing a problem and effectively handing someone the blueprint to your proposed solution. One thing I appreciate about this community is how openly people share their knowledge, experiences, and approaches to solving problems. It's actually part of what got me thinking about this. Where do you draw the line between sharing knowledge and protecting something you're trying to build a business around? Do you share early to get feedback, wait until you've built something, or take a more cautious approach depending on the idea? I'm curious how others here handle this, especially now that AI has made it so much easier to turn an idea into a working product.

Hey everyone, I’m building an ICM workspace for my recruitment work and I’ve been thinking about how to keep it structured without making it too rigid. I like the idea of numbered stages because they create a clear order and help Codex find the right instructions. But in practice, my work doesn’t always start at the beginning or follow the same path. For example, I might add a new company and vacancy, work through the vacancy preparation, and then assess a candidate’s CV. That feels like a nice, ordered process. But the next day I might get another CV for that same vacancy. Ideally, I’d want Codex to pick up the existing vacancy information and go straight to the new candidate’s assessment, without repeating all the earlier steps. Other times, I might get a CV before I have a vacancy, or I might just want to format a CV without going through the full recruitment process at all. I’d like the workspace to flag anything useful that’s missing, but also let me decide whether to do it or skip it and move on when it isn’t essential. I’m trying to understand how best to make those entry points and optional steps clear in the folder structure and instructions. Am I overthinking this? Has anyone else run into this when their work doesn’t always follow a clear, step-by-step process? How have you structured your ICM so it stays organised while still letting you jump in at different points and reuse work you’ve already done? Would love to hear how others have approached it!

I just applied the five-part framework to a prompt I needed, and here's how I structured it: Identity: You are my email triage assistant. I lead IT procurement at a large company. Task: Read this morning's unread emails and build one review page for the whole batch. Don't ask me anything item by item. Context: My standing rules and the review-page fields are in REFERENCES​.md; where the last run stopped is in CONTEXT​.md. Constraints: - Draft only, never send. - Never answer a supplier's commercial question for me; summarise it and recommend. - Newsletters and notifications go in one line at the bottom. - If a rule already answers a question, follow the rule instead of asking. Output Format: One table, one row per email: from, two-line gist, the ask, deadline, recommendation, draft reply, link, and an Approve / Change / Skip column for me. I added all five because each one fixes something that kept going wrong. Identity stops it writing like a generic assistant. Context points to files instead of me pasting background every morning. Each constraint blocks a mistake I've corrected more than once. The output format is the big one: one table means I decide everything in one pass instead of answering questions one at a time. The structured version gets me a page I can clear in one sitting, instead of a stream of "how do you want to reply to X?" questions with no context. My old approach was "help me with my inbox". The framework made me think through what I actually needed to decide.