2026-09-24 22:00:00
The software profession has spent years designing, developing, and shipping tools. Tools that, when learned, give people the power to create reports, videos, programs, and much more. But the pervasiveness of tools may have implanted the wrong instinct in our heads in a world of AI. Tool first, outcome second can now (and perhaps should) be flipped on its head.
Loads of AI use today is building a lot more of the tools we're used to, but much faster. With today's capabilities, though, we can actually skip the tools and jump straight to the outcomes they enable. A tool was always just a means to an end. If AI can get you to the end directly, why stop at the tool?
As usual, a concrete example helps. Two years ago, we built an AI-powered newsroom called Exposit. The system would find, aggregate, and report on global news. Behind the scenes AI agents would do the curating, writing, and editing that you'd find in a physical news room.
So it's not surprising that we presented the end result like a news site: headlines, articles, categories, etc. People could search, scroll, or navigate to find the news they were interested in. In other words, we built a news tool. Like all the other news sites out there, just run by AI.
As we continued to iterate on the product, we added a feature that allowed people to ask about a specific topic or news story and we'd compile a personalized report for them based on the latest news, related events, people, locations, and more. Really quickly this feature became the dominant way people used the site.
I've come to refer to this approach as just-in-time content: generated in real-time, for a specific person, with a specific need, at a specific moment. Instead of writing something once and hoping it fits everyone who comes along, you build a corpus that can be recombined endlessly and produce a timely, relevant answer on demand.
From the personalized report on Exposit, people could go deeper into articles, topics, entities, sources, and more. In other words, they started from the outcome: here's the news that you asked for. And if they wanted to, later engaged with the tool(s). Outcome first, tool second.
I do a similar thing on the Ask LukeW feature of this Website. Originally people had to ask a question before they got anything. Now each day I grab my most recent tweets, articles, and files and compile a "what's Luke thinking about now" answer automatically, so people get something to read without needing to ask anything. It's a small change, but it aligns with that larger theme: skip the tools and make the outcome. In this case, starting with an answer instead of requiring a question.
Now I ask myself (and pester others with): are you building another tool, or are you delivering the outcome the tool was supposed to produce? I've found just asking that question inspires new ways of solving problems.
2026-09-18 22:00:00
A persistent attribute of AI-powered applications is their propensity to generate text: lots and lots of text. Text requires scanning and scrolling for the useful bits and too much of it gets pretty monotonous pretty quick. So I've been working on more visual replies for my personal AI, Ask LukeW and just launched a big improvement.
Ask LukeW provides answers to digital product design and strategy questions using my corpus of thousands of articles, hundreds of presentations, and (more recently) thousands of images. To make the images I've created for my articles and talks searchable, an ingestion pipeline watches for new image uploads. When an image is added to my site, an AI model examines its contents and produces a title and description for the image. The title and description are both saved, and each is turned into an embedding so the image is also searchable semantically.
When someone asks a question, a retrieval system not only searches for any relevant images semantically (using the embeddings) but also using more traditional keyword search. This brings back a ranked list of images that the AI answering someone's question can choose to include in its response. The better the retrieval, the more likely an answer can include relevant images that break up what would otherwise be a wall of text.
For instance here's a comparison of the same question without a relevant image and with one. Most prefer the answer plus visuals version.
But with this system, images were rarely included in replies despite there being plenty of good candidates. Why? Looking at the titles and descriptions generated by AI during the aforementioned ingestion process provides some answers. Consider this image from an article about off-canvas responsive images.
When ingested this image was given a title of "Green block layout comparison". I mean, that's technically correct but who is going to ask a question about green block layouts? So despite a reasonable title, this image would pretty much never show up in results. Thankfully, we can learn how it should show up by looking at the article in which the image appeared.
For the past 30 years, when I've added images to my articles, I always included an ALT tag: a very common accessibility best practice that gives screen readers and more a useful description of images in Web pages. The ALT tag for this particular graphic was "Why Off Canvas Layouts?". Same image, totally different description. While neither is perfect, both descriptions are useful for retrieval.
As I often say "AI begets more AI" so the answer (of course) was to use a fast, yet smart, AI model to combine any existing ALT tags for images with their previously generated titles. For the image above that became: "Green block layout comparison showing why off canvas layouts are used". Wordy, but much better.
And since we can be wordy, the model writing the new title for each image can now also make use of the full visual description if it wants to. Here's another image to illustrate that.
The ingestion pipeline titled this image "Image Prompt Enhance Feature". The ALT tag was "Reve enhance feature". But the new title became "Reve enhance feature showing a prompt editor expanding a brief Spider-Man prompt into a detailed version" by pulling a bit from the full description. Much better.
So what's the impact of all this? More answers with images of course. Sticking with our example above, here's how images now show up in What are off canvas layouts?
Of course, this system needs to be dynamic. If I upload an image, it gets titled from the picture alone. If that same image shows up in a later article, it gets retitled. Updating ALT tags in old posts does the same thing. Lastly, If I ever rename an image manually, the pipeline won't overwrite it. AI begets more AI, but it should still defer to us humans for the last word (for now).
2026-09-10 22:00:00
As AI can agents tackle more work, we naturally assign more work to them. The most notable example this week was OpenAI's use of 10,000 concurrent agents to propose a solution to the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem. That's a lot of agents. How do you keep them all on task?
While I don't know how OpenAI coordinated their agents, I do know a lot about the large scale agent coordination techniques in Intent. Intent is primarily for software developers and therefore aligned with their workflows, but how it enables agent orchestration can underpin a wide range of domains. In fact, developers have used Intent's underlying system for reducing their electricity bill, making restaurant reservations, and more.
But first, what's agent coordination? I'd say: aligning lots of instances of back and forth messaging with AI models that have been trained to use tools in order to make progress on a unified task or goal. Coordination helps agents:
So how does Intent enable all this for developers?
Every task runs on its own copy of your files in a dedicated workspace. That isolation keeps agents from overwriting each other's changes. A living spec lives in each workspace and keeps the agents coordinated, recording what got decided and why along the way. The spec allows each agent picking up work to know what came before and what's next.
Human have different jobs (ideally based on what they're good at) and so should agents. Intent comes with a set of default agent roles: a coordinator breaks work into pieces and delegates them; implementer agents write the code; verifier agents check that code against acceptance criteria.
You can also add your own specialists. for example, if your team has conventions worth enforcing (a particular testing approach, a security review step), you can encode that as a reusable role and it shows up in the mix like any other agent.
When writing the spec for a task, a coordinator agent will outline how to get the work done: in what order, by whom, and how. As each agent makes progress, they can determine if need to wait for something else to happen and wake up only when needed. For instance, an agent can monitor a pull request in the background, answer review comments as they arrive, and push when everything's ready.
Handoffs can happen between agents as well. When an agent determines its work is done it can do a back-and-forth with a new agent to then move things forward. This allows new agents to only carry important information forward.
With isolated workspaces, focused context, agent roles, and handoffs, you can scale. Not just many agents per workspace, but many parallel workspaces, and many workspaces on multiple devices. Yes, that's a lot of work happening at once.
Not that long ago, a single agent finishing a coding task felt like magic. Now we're orchestrating thousands of them across devices. As with many things in AI, developer workflows and tooling are the most mature examples of large scale agent coordination. But the underlying approaches (focused context, agent roles, and intelligent handoffs) apply to a lot more than just writing code.
2026-09-08 22:00:00
Just about every chat-based AI application kicks things off with a question. What do you want to do? Ask anything! They just assume that people always know what to ask for and how. But what if we start AI-powered experiences with an answer instead?
To illustrate, the Ask LukeW feature on my Website (which answers digital product design questions using my writings and files) could follow the examples above and start with a seemingly simple interface: just a greeting and an open text field.
While it looks simple, it can be anything but. People regularly struggle with knowing what to ask. To address this, Ask LukeW includes an always changing set of suggested questions to give people both a place to start and a sense of the kinds of questions they can ask. In usability testing, we consistently found that even just reading suggested questions helped people understand the site's purpose and how they could use it.
But even with suggested questions, people still have to ask a question to get started. After updating the retrieval system powering Ask LukeW, I realized things could be different. The new system supported time-based questions like: what did you write about recently? After seeing the results for this question a few times, I decided to just turn it into an answer.
Each day, I grab my most recent tweets, articles, and files and compile a "what's Luke thinking about now" answer automatically. That answer shows up above the suggested questions and gives people something to read and/or respond to without needing to ask anything.
It's a small change but one that addresses one of the most common AI product issues: capability awareness. In other words, how do I know what this product can do? It also aligns with a larger theme I've been poking at: skip the tools and make the outcome. In this case, starting with an answer vs. requiring a question.
2026-08-31 22:00:00
Last year, I walked through the evolution of AI products to date starting with AI models behind the scenes and ending with an assertion that "the inevitable next step is for AI models to collaborate and interact to get things done." Today, we're firmly in that stage with agent orchestration. So what's next?
While an increasing number of software companies have adopted agentic features in their applications, as usual it is developers that are pushing things forward. The most forward leaning developers I work with today are supervising many agents on many projects at once. Hundreds and in some cases more agents coordinating to build, test, and ship software. Which, as you might expect, is a lot to manage. And developer applications born in the chat era of AI products aren't keeping up.
To account for this, we recently redesigned, rebuilt, and open-sourced our developer tool, Intent. Intent scales agent work by turning tasks into separate workspaces, each with an isolated copy of your files so agents don't step on each other's work. Each workspace runs on a living spec and a coordinator that breaks work down, delegates to specialized sub-agents, and keeps things moving without requiring babysitting. There's also a higher level agent to check-in and manage work across both multiple workspaces and multiple devices.
That's a lot of feature talk. But the point is between isolated workspaces, specialist agents, living specs, and more, the product is designed to provide observability (see what’s happening) and introspection (figure out why) over large amounts of agentic work.
While an increasing number of developers are now comfortable no longer manually reviewing AI agent code changes and just interacting with coordinator agents that manage other agents, they still need enough control to dive in, see what's happening, and course correct if needed. But as these systems mature and trust builds, we'll shift to another stage of AI product evolution.
Just like most computer users don't know or care about the code their applications run on their computer much less the deeper code their operating system runs to interact with a computer's hardware, they soon won't know or care how their agents use the applications on their computers. A new layer of abstraction will allow people to get work done in ways that don't require them to know about (and much less know how to use) the software we spend all our time interfacing with today.
In my last post, I highlighted how Apple's Knowledge Navigator video informed by John Sculley's conversations with Alan Kay (who was an Apple Fellow at the time) pointed the way toward human-centric computing. Increasingly feels like the next stage of AI products will feel a lot more like that vision as we inevitably add another layer of abstraction.
2026-08-27 22:00:00
Big AI models like ChatGPT and Claude get all the attention, but the continually increasing amount of fast, low cost models means today's software can embed little bits of intelligence anywhere they're needed. And when software can think, we can rethink the UI of software.
For most of its history, software has been deterministic. An application's behavior was thought through by developers and hard-coded in: how to check for errors, where to save data, and so on. This rigidity usually made its way to the user interface. Think Web forms with strict input requirements or a limited set of filters for search.
The end result was that people had to adapt their behavior to computers, not the other way around. We learned what little icons meant, remembered which menu item features were in, and tried to resolve (often cryptic) error messages when they came up. Not how most of us would want to spend our day.
Increasingly, though, we have technology that can flip this paradigm on its head. Fast and inexpensive AI models allow software to bend to humans instead. As always, examples help. Search and forms are a huge part of today's software, and both used to force people into computer speak. Today, semantic search replaces a rigid set of filters by turning your question into whatever query syntax is needed behind the scenes.
Multi-modal parsing does the same for input, taking images, documents, or web pages and turning them into the structured entries a database requires.
The common theme in both of these examples is the computer adapting to the human. Instead of making people speak and use computer, computer figures out what people want and gets it done. Add enough bits of intelligence into software and the process of using software becomes dramatically different.
The vision I keep coming back to (minus the bowtie) that illustrates just how different is Apple's 1987 Knowledge Navigator video. Put simply, it makes computing... natural.
There's no voice commands to memorize, it uses natural language. There's no query syntax to learn, it uses fuzzy search. There's no cursors, it uses direct manipulation through touch. All this together lets people act like people, not like computers. Which has always been the goal.
