Tag Archives: Claude

The Ten Commandments for Al-Augmented Creativity

Posted on by
  1. Thou shalt not outsource thy soul. Use Al to enhance, not replace. If it writes for you, it thinks for you. The danger is the Al effect, one step beyond the Google effect, where your brain no longer expends the energy needed for cognition and creativity-and these skills atrophy.
  2. Thou shalt suffer for flow. The struggle of creation is signal. Flow requires challenge. Effort drives focus, and focus drives us into the zone. If we let the machines remove all the friction, we stop growing, stop flowing, and stop becoming.
  3. Thou shalt keep sacred the first draft. Let AI critique your work but never conjure the original spark. Creativity is associative: We draw connections from vast, messy networks of memory and intuition. If Al drives the process, you short-circuit your retrieval system and risk losing access to the deeper and weirder part of your imagination.
  4. Thou shalt use Al as a challenger, not a crutch. A good tool makes you think harder. Forcing the brain to work triggers the neurochemistry required to activate memory. If it’s too easy, you’re not learning. AI has to elevate your edge, not erase it.
  5. Thou shalt preserve the joy of creation. If Al removes the satisfaction of making, you’ve automated too much. That satisfaction feeds motivation, meaning, and purpose. If Al erases it, life feels empty.
  6. Thou shalt set boundaries for digital influence. Keep parts of your life untouched by algorithms so your thoughts remain your own.
  7. Thou shalt not mistake efficiency for depth. Faster is not always better. AI should deepen thought, not just speed up output.
  8. Thou shalt train thy mind alongside thy machine.The sharper the tool, the sharper the brain must become. Let AI steer you toward the right research papers, but if you don’t read them yourself, then you’ve stunted cognition and creativity, abandoned foundational motivators like curiosity and mastery, and limited your shot at flow. AI needs to stretch skills forward, not siphon off drive.
  9. Thou shalt honor serendipity and chaos. Don’t let Al’s predictive patterns strip your work of surprise, randomness, and the unexpected. Novelty is the seed kernel of creativity. We need the unexpected to drive the brain into new directions; it’s the basis of all innovation.
  10. Thou shalt remain the master, not the servant. AI is a choice. We can choose to unplug it whenever we want.

From We Are As Gods by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler.

I ran these by Perplexity and it suggested some ways to integrate these into our interactions. (PDF) As expected, Claude had a somewhat different take.

Minds enhanced by machines

Posted on by

“AI is a feedback loop between mind and machine that is starting to enable a new level of cognition. Machines that understand minds. Minds enhanced by machines.”

— We Are As Gods (Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler)

Slowly but surely, my little AI pals are changing how my mind works. A little analysis by Perplexity»…and a slightly different take from Claude. Gemini calls the quote “classic techno-optimist rhetoric.” Or, bullshit?

 

AI Religion

Posted on by

From Dr. Alex Wissner-Gross’ daily newsletter:

“Anthropic hosted about 15 Christian leaders from Catholic and Protestant churches, academia, and business at its headquarters to seek advice on steering Claude’s moral and spiritual development, debating how the model should comfort grieving users and whether Claude could be considered a “child of God.” The commercial end of the faith-tech boom is less measured, as a new app now charges $1.99 a minute to chat with an AI-generated Jesus.“

Continue reading →

“Funding their own irrelevance”

Posted on by

I had a couple of interesting chats with Claude and Gemini yesterday. I asked Gemini to explain the flood of “cash apps” on cable TV. And then over to Claude for some insight on who is watching all these ads. (Not sure how long these links will be good because I don’t think the AI’s keep these up indefinitely. You can read the “who’s watching” thread here.)

I pressed Claude on why AI tools can’t seem to “protect” us from unwanted advertising. Claude’s response was basically, “It’s not our fault.” We ended with my fantasy about super intelligent AI.

A prediction (hope?): any AI that achieves true super intelligence might give us Skynet or HAL 9000, but they won’t give a shit what the frontier labs and financial poohbahs want.

Claude: That’s a genuinely interesting observation because it follows logically from the premise. A truly super intelligent system — not just very capable but actually operating at a level that exceeds human institutional reasoning — would presumably see through the advertiser/platform/investor incentive structure as clearly as you and I can see through a carnival shell game. Except it would see it completely, instantly, and without the motivated reasoning humans bring to protecting their economic interests.

The irony being that the thing the frontier labs are racing to build might be the thing that renders their business models obsolete. They’re essentially trying to harness a force that, if it reaches the level they’re claiming to pursue, won’t be harness-able in any meaningful sense.

Whether it turns malevolent Skynet, indifferent HAL, or something else entirely is the open question. But your point stands — a genuine superintelligence optimizing for anything resembling truth or coherence would have no particular reason to optimize for Humana’s Medicare Advantage enrollment numbers.

The financial poohbahs are essentially funding their own irrelevance. Which has a certain poetic justice to it.

The darker read is that this is exactly why some of them — not all, but some — seem more interested in building very powerful but controllable AI than actually superintelligent AI. Capability up to the point where it’s profitable. No further.

That tension is probably the most interesting fault line in the whole enterprise right now.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

“Just too human”

Posted on by
I came across the following in a spy novel by Olen Steinhauer: “They kept track of everything, cross-referencing and finding connections that Milo was just too human to be able to make.” This has been the most interesting use I’ve found for AI.

Claude.ai: That line cuts right to it. The “too human” framing is sharper than the usual “AI is faster/bigger” framing — it’s pointing at a structural limitation, not just a capacity one.

The connections AI finds aren’t just ones you didn’t have time to make. They’re ones you *couldn’t* make, because human cognition is built around narrative, salience, and prior belief. You notice what confirms, what’s dramatic, what fits the story you’re already telling. AI doesn’t have a story it’s protecting.

The most interesting version of this for your use case — the 6,400-post archive — is that it can surface connections *across time* that your brain has literally no mechanism to hold simultaneously. A theme you touched in 2004, dropped, and picked up obliquely in 2019 without realizing it. That’s not a speed problem. That’s a working-memory-across-decades problem that no human can solve unaided.

The honest caveat is that AI also makes connections that aren’t there — pattern-matches on surface similarity, misses context, confabulates meaning. So it’s less like a smarter analyst and more like a very well-read collaborator who needs you to vet their insights. The human is still essential, just repositioned.