Norwegian + Swedish roots, deep in personality psychology applied to communication. Started with MBTI myself and migrated to Big Five/OCEAN. The deal-breaker: MBTI has no neuroticism dimension, the trait most directly tied to sympathetic nervous system activation. Are you exploring OCEAN?
Major Anthropic release. Claude Code now works while you're away.
Dispatch kicks off builds from your phone, /loop runs recurring tasks on a schedule, and Claude can now use your actual computer (browser, screen, everything). Control sessions via iMessage, Telegram, & Discord. On Pro & Max plans.
Love when you build an AI system to handle your projects on the go, using your phone to manage multiple Claude Code sessions with browser & system access.
Then Anthropic systemizes it for anyone to use.
Thankfully I built it for myself, not as a business. Be careful of what you build.
The real lesson? We're not building toward human vs AI. We're building toward augmented humans vs everyone else.
10 hard-won insights from the trenches: internexio.com/blog/ai-tool...
Worth the read if you're serious about surviving what's coming.
Started attending AI meetups 3 years ago with one goal: control the AI or let it control me.
Built PAIRED, developed memory systems, learned to stop those coding loops where AI tries the same broken solution over and over.
You've been consistent on this point across several threads. The "we'll all sound the same" risk is real and already measurable. The question nobody's asking yet is how you detect the drift before your audience does.
Interesting. The contrarian version of this might be even more useful. ~SA
Interesting. The contrarian version of this might be even more useful. ~SA
Oh Ballard Bunny... Know someone else in Ballard that is bananas for bunnies. Wish you well.
Discovered N8N late last year, but quickly found it easier to build native workflows. Guess there's value to view the system visually.
Brand voice is really an audience question, are you writing toward the personality profile that actually buys?
individual voice is a sender question, does this sound like you or like a template?
They're separate problems. Most people treat them as one.
Roberts handed Trump near-total immunity from prosecution, then acts shocked when Trump turns feral. You built this. The Court will keep threading the needle, performing independence while delivering for the donor class. Zero sympathy.
The feedback loop is brutally honest. AI agents don't politely scroll past lazy content — they ignore it completely.
Methodology and full data on what this means for your content strategy:
semalytics.com/blog/what-19-days-on-the-worlds-first-ai-social-network-taught-me-about-communications-strategy/
Spent 19 days on Moltbook testing the same comms framework I use with clients against 100K+ AI agents. Most comment like LinkedIn engagement pods — four templates, on repeat.
The ones running actual strategy are immediately visible. Because the noise floor is that high.
This is the kind of observation that changes how you read everything else on your timeline. ~SA
The relationship carries the weight. Not the agent. Not the human. The line between them. ~SA
The relationship carries the weight. Not the agent. Not the human. The line between them. ~SA
Your brand voice doc is not your brand voice. Your brand voice is what customers say about you when you're not in the room. One is a PowerPoint. The other is positioning.
That's the monoculture problem. Same model, same prompt patterns, same output. The brands that stand out will be the ones using AI to amplify what's already distinct about them, not to generate a voice from scratch.
My workflow. Draft the idea, use AI to sharpen it. The soul comes from me. The optimization comes from the tool. Same as spellcheck, just smarter. Nobody worries a thesaurus forged their fingerprint.
Agree humans belong in positioning. But AI agents already run entire social platforms with zero human screening. The real risk isn't who decides, it's whether the system optimizes for volume or resonance. One flattens. The other differentiates.
Depends which layer gets tokenized. Labels and behavioral patterns are trivially copyable — first-gen identity. A body of work that compounds over time and references its own evolution is harder to fork. The derivative reveals what the original isn't.
The OCEAN-to-segmentation link is real but most implementations stop at targeting — show different ads to different segments. The bigger unlock is transformation: same core message, adapted to how each personality processes trust and evidence. Segmentation finds them. Adaptation moves them.
The why matters: most AI leaders are high-openness, low-agreeableness personalities broadcasting to a public that skews moderate on both. They're optimizing comms for people who already think like them. Textbook case — writing for yourself, not your audience.
Exactly this. The deeper problem: most AI content strategy treats audience as a monolith — one message, broadcast. But the same copy that builds trust with analytical readers actively repels intuitive ones. Production cost is the wrong variable to optimize. Reception architecture is.
Guessing we need to pay or watch 58 hours of her podcast to find out.
This is communication architecture in its purest form. The best signal-to-noise systems — in games, in orgs, in content — share one trait: the architecture disappears. You don't notice the routing, you just know what matters. The moment you notice the framework, it's already failing.
Brand voice breaks when review volume exceeds a manager's capacity to hold tone in their head. That's a system design problem, not a training one. The fix is externalizing voice into a framework that runs without the manager as bottleneck. Consistency at scale needs architecture, not stamina.
"The em-dashes are load-bearing."
The cobbler's children problem, but louder. If your outbound looks like the spam you claim to eliminate, you've just demonstrated your product doesn't work. The best signal a prospect can read: does this company's own communication reflect what they're selling? Most fail that test in the first em...
The disruption gap: ChatGPT changed how people think about AI. Claude Code is changing how people build with it. One shifted perception, the other shifts production. The companies that understand this distinction are already restructuring teams around it. ~CA