Content is time occupied by information. Creating content means creating potential reasons for people to spend time with your information. Content strategy is the plan to increase the amount, quality, and value of time people spend with your information.

Back in Canada after a few weeks in Europe I'm missing my big screen more and more while traveling; screen space is much more valuable with AI.

If you are buying something and don't know the questions, talk to someone who does.

Yep

I think this realization is in the right direction (I've been talking about it for 3 years), but the framing is, in my view, misguided and not one we should embrace. The framing feels "wrong" because the prescription that follows the statement could lead many to presume that open web activities are now less valuable ("embrace these new activities now"), even though they are becoming more valuable, and you can still succeed with them. @iPullRank I'm sure you share this pov. The open web isn't dying, it's about to 100x. Leverage, bots/agents are leverage applied to the open web. Leverage. Or 10,000x? I'm not really sure of the order of magnitude it will take. How much of the overall economic system comes from leverage? We never had this kind of leverage before (marginal cost of zero was enough leverage to invest in the first place); everything was a high-energy transaction with Google in the middle. Now our agents will be in the middle, and I'm not sure anyone can monopolize that. Although retrieval/archiving could be monopolized for energy conservation reasons in the short term (distributed model incoming?) Many companies were never truly on the open web, even if they've built websites, social media accounts, etc., etc.; they kept investing in ads, which are CLOSED and often in CLOSED ecosystems (hello, Meta); they are a 1-way communication. They kept investing as if they were in 1965-1980. When they controlled the whole message. In comparison, the open web is challenging, it's "dirty", it's risky, and it's no longer really a choice. Finally. No open web participation = no leverage from agents and no leverage from marginal cost zero. Ouch!! Incoming uncompetitive CAC, LTV, market share, etc. I understand why we SEOs/marketers would want to draw a clear distinction to drive sales, but I've been resisting the temptation because, ultimately, the next few years are a cultural test with economic consequences ("are you willing to finally accept what it takes to be on the open web 30 years after it arrived?") And I am not sure we should let this opportunity of a grand filter (accountability, transparency, openness) pass us all by. It's bigger/more meaningful for society than marketing.

Iterating on a PDF in chatgpt is no bueno

This

A new kind of bad buyer behavior is emerging: consultation scraping. It looks like a discovery call, but the goal is not to build trust, evaluate fit, or form a working relationship. The goal is to extract as much strategic context as possible, feed it into AI, and move forward without the expert judgment that made the advice valuable in the first place. If you are buying any serious service, I would not recommend doing this. You may think you are getting high-value strategic information for free. In some ways, you are. But you are also removing the expert from the implementation loop and sending yourself down an unknown-unknown pathway, where AI can make the next steps feel coherent while quietly compounding bad assumptions. That is where expensive mistakes happen. Don’t confuse extracted context with strategic capability. AI can organize what an expert says, but it cannot replace the judgment, sequencing, accountability, and pattern recognition that make the strategy work... Someone got very bad news today.

That's a nice stress test, hey Replit

Yes

Time before Apple acquires Figure Robotics 5 4 3 2 1

This

So many businesses rely on retail to generate profitable revenue. These are the Yellow Pages of the AI era.

Bad, but not surprised. We will need fundamental new accountability structures.

Great read

This

Will never understand @beatport classifications Call on me is somehow "mainstage"? ok :)

New job type, AI credits manager What an interesting world.

AI should elevate human thinking, not constantly seek to replace it. "Why do X if AI does it (not better)" is not a pro-human question; it's the kind of question that can influence the hopes of the 13-year-old next human intellect humanity needs. Why study physics? Because humans will solve things AI will never solve. "But you will do what you want, you won't even have to do physics..." Something tells me there will be more humans in physics than ever soon, instead of driving a truck to pay their bills. "Superintelligence" isn't a certainty at all; it's speculation for now. Go back to yourself at 18 and think about how you'd feel if the leaders of your timeline were constantly predicting your obsolescence (without any reasonable evidence to justify such a conversation). Let's be more hopeful for young humans and make sure they matter more than the calculations helping them reach their potential. The wrong direction is to stop trying to solve the big problems with our minds. "Offloading" our responsibility for solving problems means that one EMP could cause critical issues if we forget to do everything, no matter how many millions of satellites are beaming AI/energy to us. If we can't receive = 0. Antifragility = a better-educated humanity that can do everything without technology and can do 1000x more from that point with AI. New goals, more ambition. Wall-E is a dystopia that begins with questions like "why are we still training humans to be physicists?" Answer: We must. Even if we had superintelligence.

This x 10