THE MACSPARKY DISPATCH

Hi Friend,

The first movies were shot from a theater seat. The camera sat where the audience would have sat. The actors moved across the frame like they were on a stage, and the shot didn't change for the whole picture. You were watching a play that someone had happened to have filmed.

It took years before folks had the idea to put the camera on the stage. That single move turned a recorded play into cinema.

I think we're in the silent film era of AI right now.

Most of us approach a problem the way we did before any of this existed. We pick up the same tools we used yesterday and ask the model to make us a little faster. That's the camera in the theater seat. Useful, but limited. Not really cinema.

The most interesting moves are happening in the corners, where someone forgets the old rules and asks a different question. Rather than use the robot to drive a particular piece of software, you have it develop a system that meets your needs more specifically than the software ever could.

Those of us interested in automation have spent years building Rube Goldberg machines that kind of get it done. Hazel is watching a folder, a Keyboard Maestro macro firing in response. The whole thing held together with twine and chewing gum. AI lets you wipe the slate clean and replace complicated workflows with simple ones that happen in the background.

Instead of stringing five apps together to file your receipts, you describe what you want, and the robot watches your downloads and puts them where they belong. Instead of a tag system across three note apps to find old research, you ask the robot a question, and it reads the folders and answers. Instead of an inbox with twelve filter rules and half a dozen labels, you tell the robot what you care about, and the rest happens before you sit down.

None of those systems existed two years ago. All of them came from someone asking what the new way looks like, rather than how to speed up the old way.

That's the move I'm trying to make myself, and it's harder than it sounds. The pull to stay in the old frame is strong. My instinct is still to use the robot to do the same thing I would have done, just faster. When I catch myself doing that, I try to back up and ask the other question. What does this problem look like if I forget how I would have solved it last year?

It leaves me with one question for you. What problem are you still solving the old way because you haven't asked what the new way would look like?

Your pal,
David
​
​Read this post on macsparky.com​​

​This week's newsletter is sponsored by Shortform.

I've been using Shortform for a few years, and the thing I didn't expect to love most about it has nothing to do with books at all.

It's the Master Guides.

Shortform builds original pieces around topics, not titles. They pull from a dozen books on one subject, tie the threads together, and give you something no single author could.

I read one recently on the decline and rebirth of cursive writing in America. I sat down expecting a ten-minute read and came out twenty minutes later thinking about how we learn, how we retain things we practice versus things we just consume, and why handwriting still shows up in memory research. That's not a book summary. That's something they built.

The core summaries are good, too. Chapter by chapter, with editorial commentary that connects ideas across the field. I'll sit down to read one book and end up reading three because a thread in the first one led somewhere I didn't expect.

What I use it for most is the front end of thinking. When a topic starts pulling at me, I'll spend twenty minutes in Shortform before I commit to a stack of books. The triage alone is worth it.

If you've got a subject you've been meaning to think harder about, this is a good starting point. Sign up through my link, and you'll get a free trial and 25% off the annual plan.

Pick one Master Guide. Give it ten minutes. See what you come out with.