The ablation is the part I keep coming back to: role prompting moved it zero to zero, but structure that forced the model to name the situation and task first jumped it to 85.
Same model, same information, so the whole gain is elicitation rather than intelligence, which is a cleaner result than most prompting advice ever bothers to isolate. What I find myself curious about is how far the interview move generalizes. It reframes the model from answer-giver to question-asker, which feels like it's doing something closer to supervision than prompting.
Have you noticed whether the habit carries over once people internalize it, where they start specifying intent up front on their own, or does the magic mostly live in the prompt doing the asking for them?
The frame I keep coming back to. Don't ask for answers, ask for questions.
Early on people use my prompts as crutches. They paste them, get a better result, don't fully know why, then it clicks. They improve the prompt, and adopt it to their own work.
So I guess you could say it carries over. The prompt gets them moving, and they stop needing it.
The interview version is how people learn to think like that without anyone telling them to.
This is exactly why I believe the future belongs to people who understand both technology and human behavior.
AI can tell me how to wash my car. It can tell me the best route to the store. It can summarize a contract, write code, and analyze data in seconds.
But it still cannot replace curiosity, judgment, experience, and common sense.
After bringing more than 160 products to market, I have learned that information alone rarely creates success. Execution does.
The winners over the next decade will not be the people who blindly follow AI. They will be the people who know when to use it, when to question it, and how to turn its output into real world action.
AI is an incredible tool.
A hammer can build a house.
A hammer can also hit your thumb.
The difference is not the tool. It is the person holding it.
The opportunity is not to become dependent on AI. The opportunity is to become more capable because of it.
The ablation is the part I keep coming back to: role prompting moved it zero to zero, but structure that forced the model to name the situation and task first jumped it to 85.
Same model, same information, so the whole gain is elicitation rather than intelligence, which is a cleaner result than most prompting advice ever bothers to isolate. What I find myself curious about is how far the interview move generalizes. It reframes the model from answer-giver to question-asker, which feels like it's doing something closer to supervision than prompting.
Have you noticed whether the habit carries over once people internalize it, where they start specifying intent up front on their own, or does the magic mostly live in the prompt doing the asking for them?
The frame I keep coming back to. Don't ask for answers, ask for questions.
Early on people use my prompts as crutches. They paste them, get a better result, don't fully know why, then it clicks. They improve the prompt, and adopt it to their own work.
So I guess you could say it carries over. The prompt gets them moving, and they stop needing it.
The interview version is how people learn to think like that without anyone telling them to.
This is exactly why I believe the future belongs to people who understand both technology and human behavior.
AI can tell me how to wash my car. It can tell me the best route to the store. It can summarize a contract, write code, and analyze data in seconds.
But it still cannot replace curiosity, judgment, experience, and common sense.
After bringing more than 160 products to market, I have learned that information alone rarely creates success. Execution does.
The winners over the next decade will not be the people who blindly follow AI. They will be the people who know when to use it, when to question it, and how to turn its output into real world action.
AI is an incredible tool.
A hammer can build a house.
A hammer can also hit your thumb.
The difference is not the tool. It is the person holding it.
The opportunity is not to become dependent on AI. The opportunity is to become more capable because of it.
That is where the real advantage will come from.
This is months old. Update your content
I don’t focus on hype, I focus on principles ;)