Request Options
“An A/B test needs a ‘B.’”
I’m proud of that line from my guest post on Kim Scott’s “Radical Candor” blog. It distills an incredibly important realization: the very act of comparative testing requires generating alternatives.
Far too often, a team only has one idea. But the masters of creativity have always known: best to request options.
David Kelley told me that legendary Stanford professor Bob McKim, who founded Stanford's human-centered Product Design Program in 1958, would answer inquiring students in the same way: “Show me three.”
If you wanted to know what McKim thought about a particular project direction, you had to give him options.
This is a fantastic way to force fresh thinking on a team.
Implicit in any new direction is the possibility (likelihood!) of failure. A great innovation leader, when presented with a nascent direction, will ask, “What else are we trying?” This is NOT to increase the workload on the team, but rather to acknowledge the underlying realities facing innovation endeavors, and to emphasize the importance of learning-by-comparison.
Related: Consider the Odds
Related: The Problem With Solving Problems
Related: Create A Portfolio
Click here to subscribe to Paint & Pipette, the weekly digest of these daily posts.
My new favorite diagnostic: if you cannot find ways to generate more than $200 of value from frontier AI over the course of an entire month, you're failing a basic creativity test.
This isn't about AI's limitations—it's about yours.
“Think:Act Magazine” was curious about how I incorporate AI into my own creative process as a writer, so they visited my home studio to observe my workflow. What followed was a fascinating exploration of how I use multiple LLMs as collaborative partners rather than just tools. Fun to be featured alongside heroes of innovation like Astro Teller, Amy Edmondson, and the legendary design duo Charles and Ray Eames!
A recent study by American Management Association revealed that 58% of professionals feel "behind" in their AI adoption journey. While most folks know me as "the Beyond the Prompt guy," here's what you might not know: I struggle with this stuff too.
Last week, I proposed a simple but fundamental shift: we need to stop thinking about AI as a technology rollout and start treating it like a new teammate. What I didn't fully explain is that this isn't just a semantic distinction. It produces measurably better results.
I’ve been seriously thinking about AI for over two years now, and I’m finally hitting my stride when it comes to my point of view. The fundamental shift I believe everyone must make is from thinking of AI as a technology, to thinking of AI as a teammate.
Still waiting on other people before you tap AI? Big mistake. This post exposes the silent tax of “AI inaction,” hands you the five‑rung ladder for turning any model into your on‑call mentor, and launches a seven‑day sprint that will hard‑wire the habit—so you can seize the advantage while everyone else is still scheduling meetings.
Last week, Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke released an internal memo that's been making waves. My take: this isn't just another tech CEO jumping on the AI bandwagon. It's the clearest articulation I've seen of a principle I've been exploring the past 18 months: the greatest risk with AI isn't failure—it's inaction.
I'm best known for my work on innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship. My “shift” toward AI might seem like a radical departure. But it's not a shift—it's an evolution. Having taught and spoken to tens of thousands from ~100 countries in the last two years, I’m more convinced than ever that AI isn't separate from innovation; it's the most profound innovation platform of our lifetime.
AI isn't coming for your job. But someone using AI almost certainly is. So why not take your own job before someone else does? It’s time to prioritize and systematize disrupting ourselves.
I thought I was running a standard innovation workshop with one of my favorite clients. Instead, I came to face to face with my own biases, and accidentally broke an entire organization's understanding of what's possible.