Conceptualize Large Language Models as capable interns. They excel at tasks that can be explained in 10-20 seconds but lack the context and planning ability for complex projects. The key constraint is whether you can clearly articulate the request to yourself and then to the machine.
Related Insights
Frame your interaction with AI as if you're onboarding a new employee. Providing deep context, clear expectations, and even a mental "salary" forces you to take the task seriously, leading to vastly superior outputs compared to casual prompting.
AI's current strength lies in enhancing efficiency by handling tasks like summarization and data categorization. It is not suited for big-picture thinking or complex processes. The goal should be to make existing teams more effective—augmenting their abilities rather than pursuing wholesale replacement, which is a common misconception among business leaders.
AI excels at clerical tasks like transcription and basic analysis. However, it lacks the business context to identify strategically important, "spiky" insights. Treat it like a new intern: give it defined tasks, but don't ask it to define your roadmap. It has no practical life experience.
LLMs shine when acting as a 'knowledge extruder'—shaping well-documented, 'in-distribution' concepts into specific code. They fail when the core task is novel problem-solving where deep thinking, not code generation, is the bottleneck. In these cases, the code is the easy part.
As models become more powerful, the primary challenge shifts from improving capabilities to creating better ways for humans to specify what they want. Natural language is too ambiguous and code too rigid, creating a need for a new abstraction layer for intent.
A powerful workflow is to explicitly instruct your AI to act as a collaborative thinking partner—asking questions and organizing thoughts—while strictly forbidding it from creating final artifacts. This separates the crucial thinking phase from the generative phase, leading to better outcomes.
Despite marketing hype, current AI agents are not fully autonomous and cannot replace an entire human job. They excel at executing a sequence of defined tasks to achieve a specific goal, like research, but lack the complex reasoning for broader job functions. True job replacement is likely still years away.
Users get frustrated when AI doesn't meet expectations. The correct mental model is to treat AI as a junior teammate requiring explicit instructions, defined tools, and context provided incrementally. This approach, which Claude Skills facilitate, prevents overwhelm and leads to better outcomes.
Current AI workflows are not fully autonomous and require significant human oversight, meaning immediate efficiency gains are limited. By framing these systems as "interns" that need to be "babysat" and trained, organizations can set realistic expectations and gradually build the user trust necessary for future autonomy.
Don't blindly trust AI. The correct mental model is to view it as a super-smart intern fresh out of school. It has vast knowledge but no real-world experience, so its work requires constant verification, code reviews, and a human-in-the-loop process to catch errors.
