What I’m actually thinking about.

Where does human judgment belong?

This week I've been working on the four AI principles I use, which grew out of Ethan Mollick's Co-Intelligence. I still find them useful. But as we move towards co-existence with AI, I think we need to give them more substance.

Especially “be the human in the loop”. If every decision has to come back to me, how much have I actually handed over?

The work now is to think more carefully about the arrangement: what we delegate, where judgment belongs, what happens with exceptions, and who supports the people carrying the consequences. Including the people closest to the work.

I'm still working on the wording. The question matters more than a tidy new slogan.

A person is more than a briefing for a meeting

We've also expanded my public context profile. It brings together my working habits and ideas with the wider life they come from: family, values, history, curiosity and things I've helped make happen.

I want an AI preparing to work with me to understand something of that whole person. And I want the sources to be there, so a reader can tell what I've said about myself, what other people establish, and what is interpretation.

You can read it yourself or connect your AI through the public MCP. Start with the short version and follow the parts relevant to your question. A useful first question: how might our ways of working fit together, and what should we talk about before starting?

AI + JJ

I've made the crediting order explicit: AI + JJ. In Swedish, “AI med stöd av JJ”. That should reflect the work we actually do together.

The renewal of this site is a chance to make that visible. I want more of the things we build here to be available to explore, alongside the thinking behind them. I also want the site to feel like me: the choices, the language, the useful details.

That's the work ahead. AI should be visible in how it was made; my judgment should be visible in what we chose to make.