More from Jorge Arango
Last week, I spoke with a business leader who’s excited about AI. But as we talked, it became clear that there’s a wide gulf between enthusiasm and creating value for a particular business. Most people’s impression of AI is based on limited use and media hype. Take the recent Ghibli-fication mania: millions are smitten with the idea of seeing themselves as a Miyazaki character. (I’m one of them!) And it’s understandable: the outputs are impressive. But AI can do more than make beautiful drawings or write compelling essays. As I’ve argued before, these aren’t the best uses for AI. Instead, we should use it to augment our abilities. But how? It’s hard to see beyond the outputs — especially since doing so entails getting more abstract. I’m still thinking about how to explain it, but three ideas are key: Businesses consist of information flows. Information exists to support decisions. Information can be optimized for better decision-making. Let’s unpack them. First, your business consists of information flows. Whatever your business is, it runs on information: how it’s captured, produced, shared, and processed. A proposal? Information. The request behind it? Also information. A standup meeting? An exchange of information. Your business creates value when it uses information effectively. Sure, that’s not the only way it creates value: the things you make and services you provide are key. But information is essential. Why? Because of the second point: information is in service to decision-making. The proposal helps the prospect decide whether to work with you. Research helps you decide whether to enter a new market. The meeting helps determine next steps. Third, information can be optimized. When I say “information,” you may think spreadsheets and databases. But that’s structured information. Most business information — conversations, documents, emails — is unstructured. Consider that meeting. It may have some structure: an agenda, list of attendees, start and end time. But the stuff you care about — what people say — isn’t structured. Even if you transcribe it, you must still think about what it means for you. AI can help tame the messy information flows that make up real work. Efforts to formalize them often kill spontaneity, nuance, and context. And even if they didn’t, there’s so much information that it’s been hard to make sense of it. But now we have AI. Don’t let the charismatic drawings distract you. That’s only a superficial application — and commodifying art is bad for our souls. Instead, focus on using AI for tasks that were previously impossible or impractical: working with vast amounts of unstructured information, playing out what-if scenarios at scale, and augmenting your team’s expertise. Information architects can help. We’ve been mapping information flows and making sense of unstructured information for decades. If you’re exploring how AI could create real business value — not just flashy outputs — let’s talk.
Nicolay Gerold interviewed me for his How AI is Built podcast. Our conversation focused on information architecture – with an interesting angle: Nicolay’s audience consists primarily of engineers developing AI products. What can these folks learn from IA to create better AI products? Conversely, what can IAs learn from engineers? And does information architecture matter at all in a world where these technologies exist? Tune in to find out: Spotify Apple Podcasts YouTube
In Episode 6 of the Traction Heroes podcast, Harry and I explored Chesterton’s fence — a simple yet profound idea that has important implications for leaders navigating complex, high-stakes changes. The gist: when change is needed, don’t start by destroying what you don’t understand. Assume things are the way they are because of reasons. Once you understand the reasons, you’re more likely to avoid unintended consequences when making changes. Here’s the passage I read from Chesterton’s The Thing: In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. Catastrophic outcomes happen for many reasons. One of the worst is what Harry called stupidity: “a result of a series of actions that lead to an outcome that’s the opposite of what you say you want, under conditions of self-deception.” Perhaps if more people knew about Chesterton’s fence there would be less suffering caused by stupidity. As always, I learned a lot from bouncing these ideas off Harry. Among other things, he responded with an intriguing followup book. Perhaps that will be the subject of a future episode. Stay tuned for more!
Louis Rosenfeld interviewed Harry Max and me for his Rosenfeld Review podcast. The subject? Harry and my podcast, Traction Heroes. We recorded this conversation late in 2024, before we’d shared the first episode. This interview lays out Traction Heroes’s backstory. It’s fitting that we shared it in Lou’s show, since he published Harry’s book Managing Priorities and my Living in Information and Duly Noted. The Rosenfeld Review Podcast (Rosenfeld Media) · Traction Heroes with Harry Max & Jorge Arango Listen on SoundCloud
More in technology
Since my last piece about Bluesky, I’ve been using the service a lot more. Just about everyone I followed on other services is there now, and it’s way more fun than late-stage Twitter ever was. Halifax is particularly into Bluesky, which reminds me of our local scene during the late-2000s/early-2010s Twitter era. That said, I still have reservations about the service. Primarily around the whole decentralized/federated piece. The Bluesky team continues to work toward the goal of creating a decentralized and open protocol, but they’ve got quite a way to go. Part of my fascination with Bluesky is due to its radical openness. There is no similar service that allows users unauthenticated access to the firehose, or that publishes in-depth stats around user behaviour and retention. I like watching numbers go up, so I enjoy following those stats and collecting some of my own. A few days ago I noticed that the rate of user growth was accelerating. Growth had dropped off steadily since late January. As of this writing, there are currently around 5 users a second signing up for the service. It was happening around the same time as tariff news was dropping, but that didn’t seem like a major driver. Turned out that the bigger cause was a new Tiktok-like video sharing app called Skylight Social. I was a bit behind on tech news, so I missed when TechCrunch covered the app. It’s gathered more steam since then, and today is one of the highest days for new Bluesky signups since the US election. As per the TechCrunch story, Skylight has been given some initial funding by Mark Cuban. It’s also selling itself as “decentralized” and “unbannable”. I’m happy for their success, especially given how unclear the Tiktok situation is, but I continue to feel like everyone’s getting credit for work they haven’t done yet. Skylight Social goes out of its way to say that it’s powered by the AT Protocol. They’re not lying, but I think it’s truer at the moment to say that the app is powered by Bluesky. In fact, the first thing you see when launching the app is a prompt to sign up for a “BlueSky” account 1 if you don’t already have one. The Bluesky team are working on better ways to handle this, but it’s work that isn’t completed. At the moment, Skylight is not decentralized. I decided to sign up and test the service out, but this wasn’t a smooth experience. I started by creating an App Password, and tried logging using the “Continue with Bluesky” button. I used both my username and email address along with the app password, but both failed with a “wrong identifier or password” error. I saw a few other people having the same issue. It wasn’t until later that I tried using the “Sign in to your PDS” route, which ended up working fine. The only issue: I don’t run my own PDS! I just use custom domain name on top of Bluesky’s first-party PDS. In fact, it looks like third-party PDSs might not even be supported at the moment. Even if/when you can sign up with a third-party PDS, this is just a data storage and authentication platform. You’re still relying on Skylight and Bluesky’s services to shuttle the data around and show it to you. I’m not trying to beat up on Skylight specifically. I want more apps to be built with open standards, and I think TikTok could use a replacement — especially given that something is about to happen tomorrow. I honestly wish them luck! I just think the “decentralized” and “unbannable” copy on their website should currently be taken with a shaker or two of salt. I don’t know why, but seeing “BlueSky” camel-cased drives me nuts. Most of the Skylight Social marketing material doesn’t make this mistake, but I find it irritating to see during the first launch experience. ↩
I've seen a remarkable amount of misunderstanding out there on how Nintendo's game-key cards work. People are losing their ever loving minds over all things Switch 2, but this one really gets me because the people who are the most upset about it seem to not
A Minnesota cybersecurity and computer forensics expert whose testimony has featured in thousands of courtroom trials over the past 30 years is facing questions about his credentials and an inquiry from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Legal experts say the inquiry could be grounds to reopen a number of adjudicated cases in which the expert's testimony may have been pivotal.
What's that Skippy? Another Ivanti Connect Secure vulnerability? At this point, regular readers will know all about Ivanti (and a handful of other vendors of the same class of devices), from our regular analysis. Do you know the fun things about these posts? We can copy text from
Director James Mangold: talking about whether he'd want to put a post-credit scenes in one of this movies back in 2018 The idea of making a movie that would fucking embarrass me, that's part of the anesthetizing of this country or the world. That's