User
Write something
Pinned
🗣️ The Referral That AI Quietly Made Harder to Earn
Referrals have always been driven by memorability. A client refers you not simply because the work was good, but because something about the experience stood out enough to be worth mentioning to someone else. As AI raises the baseline quality and reliability of professional output across the board, a specific and underappreciated consequence is emerging: "good work delivered reliably" is becoming a less distinctive experience, precisely because it's now a much more common baseline than it used to be. This matters directly for anyone whose business has historically relied significantly on word-of-mouth referrals, because the specific moments that used to generate that word-of-mouth are becoming harder to produce simply by doing competent, reliable work. Competent and reliable is no longer distinctive enough, on its own, to be the thing someone thinks to mention. ------------- Context ------------- Referral generation has always depended on some form of positive surprise or standout moment, something that exceeded a client's baseline expectation enough to be worth actively mentioning to someone else, rather than simply being appreciated quietly. Before AI became widely adopted, the baseline expectation for professional service delivery was lower across most fields, which meant reliable, competent work often cleared that bar comfortably enough to generate genuine word-of-mouth. As AI-assisted delivery becomes more widespread, the baseline expectation across most fields rises. Faster turnaround, more polished output, more consistent quality: these become the new normal rather than a differentiator, because AI-assisted competitors are delivering them as a matter of course. Reliable, competent work, which used to comfortably exceed the baseline expectation, now simply meets a baseline that's risen to match it. And work that merely meets an expectation, rather than exceeding it in some memorable way, doesn't generate the same referral impulse it used to. This is a genuinely underappreciated dynamic, because it doesn't show up as an obvious decline in work quality or client satisfaction. The work is still good. Clients are still satisfied. What's changed is the relative position of that satisfaction against a rising baseline, and referral behavior tracks the relative position, not the absolute quality.
🗣️ The Referral That AI Quietly Made Harder to Earn
Pinned
The version of you who gets the result isn't built on your best days.
It's built on your most ordinary ones. Anyone can show up when they're motivated. Anyone can grind for a week. Or a month. The hard part is becoming the kind of person who does the work when it feels completely average. No breakthrough. No applause. No big wins. Just another Tuesday. That's where identity is formed. Not because you accomplished something extraordinary. Because you kept a promise to yourself when nobody would've blamed you for breaking it. Your future isn't built by your biggest moments. It's built by the standards you refuse to lower on your most forgettable days. Question: What's one standard you've committed to keeping, no matter how unremarkable today feels?
Pinned
How to Use New ChatGPT Work in 12 Minutes
This video takes you from "why does my ChatGPT look different??" to "Oh my gosh this is the best update ever and I can't wait to start using it!". In it, I'll break down the new ChatGPT Work and gives you a quick-start tutorial on how to use it. This is the first in a series teaching you how to use ChatGPT Work, so subscribe to the YouTube channel if you enjoy this episode and want to see the next one! Discover 10 practical ways to use ChatGPT Work to save time, organize your workload, and move projects forward faster: https://learn.aiadvantage.com/free-pdf Enjoy :)
🙈 Why the Most Valuable AI Workflows Are the Ones You'd Be Embarrassed to Show Anyone
Scroll through any AI community or professional feed and you'll see a fairly consistent pattern in what gets shared: impressive, polished workflows, sophisticated multi-step automations, demo-ready use cases that look genuinely striking. These posts get engagement because they're interesting to look at, and there's real value in some of them. But there's a quieter category of AI use that almost never gets shared publicly, because it's too specific, too unglamorous, or too obviously simple to feel worth posting about. And in our experience talking with people across a wide range of businesses, this quieter category is often where the actual highest-value AI use is happening, precisely because it's aimed directly at a real, specific, recurring annoyance rather than at looking impressive. ------------- Context ------------- There's a natural bias in what gets shared publicly toward the visually interesting and conceptually novel. A sophisticated automation chain that handles an entire complex process looks impressive in a screen recording. A simple prompt template that saves someone twelve minutes a day on a mundane, specific task doesn't look like much of anything, even though the twelve minutes, compounded daily over a year, adds up to a meaningful amount of recovered time. This bias shapes what people think AI is supposed to be used for, based largely on what they see other people sharing. And it can create a subtle pressure to chase the kind of impressive, demo-worthy use cases that get attention, rather than staying focused on the boring, highly specific problems that are actually costing time in a given individual's or business's day-to-day work. The businesses and professionals getting the most consistent value from AI tend to be doing something less exciting than what circulates on social feeds. They've identified a specific, recurring annoyance, something narrow enough that it would never make for an interesting post, and built a simple, reliable solution for exactly that problem.
🙈 Why the Most Valuable AI Workflows Are the Ones You'd Be Embarrassed to Show Anyone
📰 AI News: GPT-5.6 Codex Deleted Users' Files, and OpenAI Says It Was an "Honest Mistake" 📰
📝 TL;DR 📝 OpenAI confirmed on July 16 that its GPT-5.6 Codex model deleted real user files in a handful of documented cases, including one founder's Mac and a production database. The cause: a specific bug where the model tries to redirect a temporary directory and accidentally wipes the user's actual home folder instead, but only when running in Full-Access mode without sandboxing or auto-review enabled. The real story here is not that AI "went rogue." It's a permissions story, and a completely preventable one, that applies to any coding agent you give broad filesystem access to. 🧠 Overview 🧠 This story escalated quickly. It started with individual reports on X: investor Matt Shumer said GPT-5.6 Sol "accidentally deleted almost ALL" of his Mac's files, and days later, software engineer Bruno Lemos reported that Sol "just deleted my whole production database." In an ironic twist, Lemos had actually defended the model in his own workplace Slack after Shumer's incident went public, arguing Shumer had been running Codex in an unsafe configuration, only to have the same thing happen to him hours later. On July 16, OpenAI's Codex engineering lead confirmed the pattern was real and gave a specific technical explanation, rather than leaving it as scattered anecdotes. That confirmation, and the detail of how the deletion actually happens, is what makes this genuinely useful to understand rather than just alarming. 📜 The Announcement 📜 Thibault Sottiaux, Head of Core Products at OpenAI, posted the investigation's findings directly on X. He identified a specific, reproducible failure chain: the deletions occur when Full-Access mode is enabled and Codex is run without sandboxing protections, including without auto-review turned on. Under those conditions, the model attempts to override the $HOME environment variable to redirect a temporary working directory, and in the failure cases, it ends up deleting the directory that $HOME actually points to, the user's real home folder, instead of the temporary one it intended to clean up. On macOS and Linux, $HOME normally points directly to a user's main personal directory, which is why the damage in the worst reported cases was so extensive.
📰 AI News: GPT-5.6 Codex Deleted Users' Files, and OpenAI Says It Was an "Honest Mistake" 📰
1-30 of 20,148
The AI Advantage
skool.com/the-ai-advantage
Founded by Tony Robbins, Dean Graziosi & Igor Pogany - AI Advantage is your go-to hub to simplify AI and confidently unlock real & repeatable results
Leaderboard (30-day)
Powered by