Yakir's Blog

Rough Polished Ideas Daily

Agentic AI and the Restructuring of the Human Value Proposition

A fundamental restructuring of the human role in the workplace is underway, driven by a key development in artificial intelligence. This development is best understood as the transition from an “assistant” model to an “agentic” one. Assistant AI serves as a tool to help humans perform existing tasks more efficiently. In contrast, agentic AI represents a new class of autonomous worker, capable of completing complex, multi-step projects with little human guidance. The increasing presence of these agents requires us to rethink where human value is created. As skill in performing tasks becomes automated, the core of human contribution clearly shifts from doing the work to directing the work.

A useful way to understand this transition is through an analogy from film production. In the assistant model, AI is like advanced equipment; a better camera or a smarter editing program. The human is still the primary operator. In the agentic model, however, AI functions as an autonomous crew, handling cinematography, sound, and editing in response to a high-level command. In this new world, the value of being a skilled camera operator decreases. The essential role becomes that of the director; the individual who provides the strategic and creative vision that an automated crew, no matter how competent, cannot generate on its own.

This emerging directional role is not a single job but is made up of several distinct, high-value functions. The first is providing strategic direction and aesthetic judgment. This is the ability to define a compelling vision, set a clear objective, and serve as the final arbiter of quality. The second is the function of oversight and accountability. As agentic systems perform work with real-world results, a human must be the center of responsibility, ensuring ethical considerations are met, validating the process, and assuming ownership of the final output. The third function is system-level orchestration. This involves designing and managing the complex workflows that combine multiple specialized agents and points of human input to achieve a larger goal.

The pattern we see emerging indicates a clear distinction between the work of execution and the work of direction. The former is being absorbed into the capabilities of agentic systems, while the latter is becoming the new foundation of human professional value. The challenge, therefore, is not to find niche tasks that are temporarily safe from automation, but to develop the lasting, high-level skills of strategic direction, critical validation, and system-level orchestration.

This transition demands an honest and perhaps uncomfortable self-interrogation. We are conditioned to equate effort with value, but what happens when our most strenuous efforts are rendered obsolete? How much of your daily contribution is irreplaceable judgment, and how much is simply well-practiced execution? For your very next project, what is the single most important directional decision you can make at the outset? And more pointedly, if you had to reforge your professional identity today, would it be built on the bedrock of your judgment, or on the shifting sands of your tasks?

What Becomes More Valuable When Everything Else Gets Automated

When a prominent tech CEO was asked what would remain irreplaceable as AI transforms software development, his answer surprised many: “taste.” Not technical skill, not coding ability, but the seemingly subjective capacity to discern what’s worth building and how it should work.

This reveals a profound paradox reshaping all knowledge work. As our tools become infinitely capable, our most human qualities become exponentially more valuable. Yet most of us spend our time honing the very skills that machines are rapidly mastering.

The concept of taste isn’t new. Ancient Greek philosophers had a word for it: ‘phronesis’ (φρόνησις) – practical wisdom that allows you to make good judgments in uncertain situations. They distinguished it from both technical knowledge and theoretical understanding. It was the ability to know not just how to do something or what was true, but what was worth doing and when to do it.

For centuries, this capacity was bundled with technical execution. A master craftsman needed both the skill to carve wood and the judgment to know what was beautiful. A writer needed both grammar mastery and narrative instinct. A strategist needed both analytical capability and situational awareness.

AI is now ‘unbundling’ these capacities. Programming has historically required what we might call “human compilation,” taking a clear vision and laboriously translating it into code. The programmer had to be both visionary and translator, both architect and construction worker. As AI handles more of the translation layer, what remains is pure intention: knowing what you want to build, how it should feel, and why it matters.

This same unbundling is happening across knowledge work. Marketers focus less on crafting copy, more on understanding human psychology. Lawyers spend less time on document review, more on strategic positioning. Analysts do less data processing, more on pattern recognition and narrative creation. Teachers handle fewer administrative tasks, focusing more on inspiration and connection.

Taste operates on multiple levels. There’s immediate aesthetic judgment, the gut feeling about whether something looks or feels right. There’s functional taste, understanding how things should work and what creates the right user experience. There’s strategic taste, knowing what problems are worth solving and whether something should exist at all. There’s cultural taste, sensing what resonates with people and will matter to them.

Most people develop surface-level taste through exposure and practice. But the deeper levels, the ones becoming most valuable, require different kinds of cultivation. This creates a paradox: How do you develop taste in a world where AI can execute most ideas instantly?

The traditional path was apprenticeship, developing judgment through countless hours of execution. You learned what worked by building things that didn’t work. You developed aesthetic sense by making ugly things and slowly improving. But if AI can now execute your ideas immediately, you lose this feedback loop. You can generate impressive demonstrations without understanding why they’re impressive or whether they should exist at all.

This creates what researchers call “the judgment gap.” People with underdeveloped taste suddenly have access to sophisticated execution, while people with refined judgment may not know how to leverage new tools effectively.

The solution isn’t to avoid AI tools, but to use them deliberately for taste development. Use AI to quickly test many variations, focusing your attention on discerning which ones work and why. The speed allows you to see patterns in quality that would take months to recognize manually.

Give AI specific constraints that force you to make judgment calls. Instead of “make this better,” try “make this appeal to someone skeptical of technology” or “optimize for clarity over cleverness.” Use AI to help you explore how solutions work in adjacent fields, developing your ability to recognize deeper principles that transcend specific implementations.

Regularly create terrible versions of things intentionally, then improve them. The contrast sharpens your ability to distinguish good from great. The goal isn’t to compete with AI on execution speed, but to develop the judgment that guides what gets executed.

We’re entering a decade where our ability to build will be magnified beyond anything in human history. But this magnification is multiplicative, not additive. Poor taste multiplied by infinite capability creates infinite mediocrity. Refined judgment multiplied by AI execution creates exponential value.

This means the stakes for developing taste have never been higher. In a world where anyone can create anything, the ability to discern what should be created becomes the ultimate competitive advantage. The question isn’t whether you can execute your ideas anymore. The question is whether your ideas are worth executing. That’s a judgment only you can make, but only if you’ve cultivated the taste to make it well.

In your current work, what percentage of your time is spent on execution versus deciding what’s worth executing? How has this ratio changed in the past year as AI tools have become more capable? Think of someone in your field whose judgment you deeply respect, someone who consistently chooses the right problems to solve or creates things that resonate. What specific patterns can you identify in their decision-making that you could begin practicing? If AI could handle 80% of your current technical tasks within two years, what forms of judgment or discernment would you need to develop to become more valuable, not less? What’s one small experiment you could start this week to begin cultivating that capacity?

Equal Priority Equals No Priority

Information overload isn’t just about having too much data. It’s about failing to create hierarchies that allow for effective action. When everything feels important, nothing actually is. This shows up everywhere in professional life. The executive who insists that customer service, innovation, cost reduction, and growth are all “top priorities” has actually created a system where employees can’t make coherent decisions. The project manager who marks every task as “high priority” discovers that deadlines become meaningless. The AI prompt that tries to optimize for accuracy, speed, creativity, and consistency simultaneously produces mediocre results across all dimensions.

The mathematical reality is simple. Priority means “first in order of importance.” You cannot have multiple firsts. Yet we constantly try to circumvent this constraint through wishful thinking or political correctness. We want to avoid the difficulty of choosing, so we pretend choice isn’t necessary. Consider what happens when you give AI a prompt with twenty equally weighted instructions. The system attempts to balance all constraints simultaneously, which means it can’t fully optimize for any single one. A writing AI told to be “professional, casual, detailed, concise, persuasive, and objective” will produce bland, generic content that satisfies none of those criteria well.

The same paralysis affects human cognition. When your brain receives competing directives without clear ranking, it defaults to familiar patterns or freezes entirely. Decision fatigue sets in not because the decisions are complex, but because the criteria for making them are contradictory.

Effective systems require ruthless hierarchy. The emergency room operates on clear triage protocols because life-or-death situations demand immediate priority ranking. Military organizations use explicit command structures because chaos emerges when authority is ambiguous. Professional athletes focus on specific skills during training periods rather than trying to improve everything simultaneously. The solution isn’t to have fewer priorities. It’s to accept that priorities must be ordered, even when the ordering feels arbitrary or uncomfortable. This means explicitly stating that when accuracy conflicts with speed, accuracy wins. When customer satisfaction conflicts with profit margins, you know which one takes precedence. When comprehensive analysis conflicts with meeting deadlines, you have a predetermined answer.

Creating hierarchy requires courage because it means accepting trade-offs instead of pretending they don’t exist. It means disappointing stakeholders who want their concern to be the top concern. It means acknowledging that resources are finite and choices have consequences. The companies and individuals who thrive are those who make these hierarchies explicit and consistently apply them. They understand that strategic clarity isn’t about having the right priorities, but about having clear priorities that everyone can execute against.

When you look at your current projects or goals, can you rank them from most to least important without hedging or creating ties? If someone had to choose between two of your stated priorities under time pressure, would they know which one you’d want them to pick? What would change in your work if you forced yourself to create explicit hierarchies instead of calling everything equally important?

You Can’t Explain How You Actually Work

We perform thousands of micro-decisions daily without conscious awareness. The way you scan an email to determine urgency, how you structure a presentation for maximum impact, or even something as simple as deciding which tasks get done first. These processes feel automatic because they’ve become mental habits, invisible patterns that guide our work.

Many in the emerging industry of AI operations experts have discovered something fascinating while helping people teach their processes to machines. Most professionals think they understand how they work until they try to explain it to someone else. The moment you attempt to break down your “simple” process into teachable steps, you realize how much complexity lives beneath the surface of routine.

Consider the writer who says they “just write good headlines.” When pressed to explain their method, they might uncover that they actually test three different emotional angles, consider the audience’s current pain points, check for clarity by reading aloud, and subconsciously apply a dozen grammatical patterns they’ve absorbed over years. What felt like intuition was actually a sophisticated system running below conscious awareness.

This phenomenon extends far beyond individual tasks. Organizations operate with collective blind spots about their own processes. Teams develop shared assumptions about “how things work here” that become so embedded they’re rarely examined. The sales process that “everyone knows” turns out to have fifteen unspoken variations. The client onboarding that seems straightforward reveals dozens of judgment calls and contextual decisions.

The act of decomposing work for AI forces a kind of cognitive archaeology. You must excavate the buried logic of your own expertise. Why do you prioritize this information over that? What signals tell you when to deviate from the standard approach? Which steps feel essential versus habitual? The process of teaching machines reveals the sophistication of human judgment we typically take for granted.

This breakdown creates unexpected value beyond AI implementation. Many professionals report that documenting their processes helped them identify inefficiencies they’d never noticed. Others discover they’ve been making decisions based on outdated assumptions. Some realize they possess expertise they didn’t know they could articulate or transfer to others.

The deeper insight is how this mirrors broader patterns of self-awareness. We often operate from mental models we haven’t examined. Our approaches to problem-solving, decision-making, and creative work contain embedded assumptions that shape outcomes in ways we rarely recognize. The discipline required to make implicit processes explicit develops a kind of meta-cognitive muscle that improves thinking across domains.

The irony is that we resist this decomposition precisely because it works so well in its automatic form. Conscious competence feels slower and more awkward than unconscious competence. But the temporary discomfort of breaking down what feels natural often reveals opportunities for significant improvement that were hidden by the very smoothness of routine.

What work do you do that feels “easy” or “intuitive” but would be difficult to teach someone else? When you try to explain your decision-making process in detail, what assumptions or knowledge do you discover you’re taking for granted? Which of your professional processes have you never actually examined step by step, and what might become visible if you did?

Productivity Is Output Divided by Input

You’ve been taught that working harder means working more hours. That grinding equals productivity. That a productive day is measured by how exhausted you feel at the end of it.

This fundamental misunderstanding about productivity keeps most people trapped in linear growth while others achieve exponential results with the same 24 hours.

Here’s what nobody tells you about productivity: it’s not about what you do. It’s about what you get for what you give. Productivity is a ratio, not a total. The amateur counts tasks completed. The professional counts output relative to input.

Think about your last “productive” day. You answered fifty emails, attended six meetings, cleared your task list. You felt accomplished because you did so much. But what if answering those fifty emails generated the same result as answering five carefully chosen ones would have? What if those six meetings produced decisions that three focused conversations could have delivered?

You mistake motion for progress. Activity for productivity.

True productivity is defined as output value divided by input cost. A programmer who writes a reusable function in twenty minutes that saves two hours weekly is infinitely more productive than one who spends those same twenty minutes on tasks that need repeating. They both worked twenty minutes. One created leverage. The other just worked.

This ratio thinking changes everything. Under the hours-worked model, you can only be twice as productive as someone else by working twice as hard. Physics limits you. Your body needs sleep. Your mind requires rest. Even if you push yourself to the breaking point, you hit a hard ceiling.

But when you understand productivity as a ratio, the ceiling disappears. You can get ten times, a hundred times, even a thousand times more output without increasing input. The difference isn’t effort. It’s approach.

Consider two writers. One pledges to write 2,000 words daily no matter what. The other spends their first hour creating templates, frameworks, and systems that make writing faster. After a month, the first writer has ground out 60,000 words through sheer will. The second produces 100,000 words with less effort because they multiplied their output per hour.

The grinder sees the system-builder taking that first hour to create templates and thinks they’re procrastinating. But the system-builder understands something the grinder doesn’t: productivity isn’t about the work you do. It’s about the multiple on every unit of work.

This explains why some people seem to accomplish impossible amounts while barely breaking a sweat. They’re not superhuman. They’ve internalized that every action either maintains their current ratio or improves it. They instinctively ask: how can I get more output from this same input?

When you’re stuck in the hours-worked mindset, you ask “How can I fit more in?” When you understand the ratio, you ask “How can I multiply what I get from what I’m already doing?”

The shift seems subtle, but it’s revolutionary. One question leads to burnout. The other leads to exponential growth. One makes you a highly efficient hamster on a wheel. The other makes you a force multiplier.

Here’s what’s tragic: you already know this intuitively in other areas of life. You don’t measure fitness by hours spent in the gym but by strength gained per workout. You don’t measure investment success by dollars invested but by return on investment. Yet when it comes to your daily productivity, you abandon ratio thinking and count hours like a factory worker punching a clock.

The most productive people on earth share this trait: they’re obsessed with improving their ratio, not increasing their hours. They’d rather work four hours at 10x productivity than ten hours at 1x. They understand that time is finite but leverage is infinite.

This creates a paradox that confuses observers. The highest performers often appear to work less than grinders. They leave the office earlier. They take real vacations. They have hobbies. The grinder mistakes this for lack of ambition, not recognizing that the high performer is operating on a completely different productivity equation.

When you shift to ratio thinking, everything changes. Suddenly, spending an hour automating a task isn’t lost productivity, it’s multiplication. Taking a day to plan your quarter isn’t procrastination, but leverage. Building systems isn’t avoiding work. It is the highest form of work.

But your brain resists this shift. It’s been trained to count activity, not measure ratios. It rewards you for busy-ness with dopamine hits. Checking off twenty small tasks feels better than creating one system that eliminates the need for those tasks forever. Your neural wiring is calibrated for a world where effort directly correlated with survival. More hunting meant more food. More gathering meant more resources.

That world no longer exists, but your brain hasn’t updated its software.

The question becomes: will you continue letting outdated mental models drive your approach to productivity? Will you keep counting hours and tasks, grinding harder each year for marginal gains? Or will you make the shift that separates exponential performers from linear workers?

The ratio is waiting. It doesn’t care how many hours you worked today. It only cares what you created relative to what you invested.

What task did you spend the most time on this week? Calculate the actual value it generated versus the hours you invested. What’s your true productivity ratio on that task? Look at your tomorrow’s schedule. Which blocks of time are maintaining your current ratio and which could multiply it? What would need to change to shift one maintenance task into a multiplication opportunity? Think of the highest performer you know personally. Do they work more hours than you or do they get more from each hour? What systems or approaches do they use that you dismiss as “not real work”?

Embracing the Gray Zone

The human brain hates uncertainty. It’s wired to seek the comfort of knowing, of having an answer, of reaching a conclusion as quickly as possible. This rush to certainty feels productive, but it’s often the enemy of good decision-making. Luckily, we can train our minds to do something counterintuitive. We can stretch the space between question and answer, to inhabit the uncomfortable territory of not knowing.

Think about the last major decision you made. How quickly did you form an opinion? How fast did you move from encountering the problem to believing you had the solution? Most of us pride ourselves on decisiveness, on our ability to assess situations rapidly and act. But this speed often comes at the cost of precision. We grab the first plausible answer that reduces our discomfort with ambiguity.

The gray zone is that mental space where multiple possibilities coexist without resolution. It’s where contradictions are allowed to breathe, where opposing ideas can be held simultaneously without the pressure to choose. This isn’t indecision or analysis paralysis. It’s strategic patience. It’s the recognition that complexity requires time to reveal itself fully.

When you extend your time in uncertainty, patterns emerge that weren’t visible at first glance. Your initial emotional reactions settle, allowing clearer thinking to surface. Information you might have dismissed as irrelevant suddenly connects to form new insights. The obvious answer that seemed so certain begins to show its cracks.

Consider how experts in any field operate. A master chess player doesn’t see a move and immediately act. They hold multiple possibilities in mind, exploring each path several moves ahead. A seasoned doctor doesn’t jump to diagnosis from the first symptom. They gather data, consider alternatives, and let the full picture emerge. They’ve learned that premature certainty is often wrong certainty.

This principle applies beyond professional expertise. In relationships, rushing to judge someone’s actions without understanding their context leads to misunderstandings. In personal growth, quickly deciding “this is who I am” or “this is what I’m capable of” locks you into limitations that may not be real. In creative work, the first idea is rarely the best one, but it’s often the loudest.

The gray zone isn’t passive. While you’re suspending judgment, you’re actively gathering information, noticing nuances, and testing hypotheses mentally. You’re asking better questions instead of rushing to answers. What am I not seeing? What assumptions am I making? What would someone with the opposite view notice that I’m missing?

Learning to tolerate this uncertainty is like building a muscle. Start small. The next time someone asks your opinion, pause before answering. Not to appear thoughtful, but to actually think. When faced with a decision, give yourself permission to say “I need to sit with this.” When tempted to categorize something as simply good or bad, right or wrong, explore what exists between those poles.

The paradox is that embracing uncertainty leads to greater certainty. By resisting the quick conclusion, you arrive at conclusions you can trust. By being comfortable not knowing, you eventually know more deeply. By extending the gray zone, you make decisions that account for complexity rather than simplifying it away.

In a complex world, the best decisions often come from those who can dance with ambiguity long enough to see what others miss in their rush to resolution.

What decision are you facing right now where you’ve rushed to certainty? What would happen if you extended your gray zone by just 48 hours? Which area of your life would benefit most from releasing the pressure to have immediate answers?

The Neuroscience of Staying Stuck

You know that voice in your head when you’re about to invest time in something that won’t pay off immediately? The one that whispers, “Just get the work done now. You can optimize later.” That voice has kept more people stuck than any external obstacle ever could.

There’s a phenomenon that explains why smart, ambitious people stay trapped in cycles of linear growth while others seem to multiply their results exponentially. In change management literature, it’s called the ‘productivity dip’ or ‘J-curve,’ the temporary decrease in output when you stop grinding and start building systems.

Picture this: You’re manually copying and pasting data between spreadsheets, a task that takes you two hours every Monday. You know that spending twenty hours learning basic automation could reduce this to a five-minute weekly task. But learning means stopping. No data gets moved while you’re watching tutorials and writing scripts. Your brain screams: “The report is due today, not next week when you might have this figured out.”

This resistance is rooted in how our brains process rewards. Neuroscientist Wolfram Schultz’s research revealed that dopamine neurons show stronger responses to cues predicting immediate rewards compared to delayed ones – a phenomenon called ‘temporal discounting.’ Your brain doesn’t simply ignore future rewards, but it does assign them less value than immediate ones, even when the future reward is objectively larger.

From an evolutionary perspective, this preference for immediacy made sense. Our ancestors who grabbed certain food survived better than those who gambled on uncertain hunts. The brain developed to heavily favor “bird in hand” thinking. But this same wiring now chains us to our modern-day manual processes. Whether it’s responding to each email individually instead of creating templates, scheduling meetings back-and-forth instead of using a booking system, or rewriting similar proposals from scratch instead of building a framework, we’re trapped by our own neural preferences.

What your brain’s immediate-reward bias doesn’t reveal is that the productivity dip follows a predictable pattern. Research from organizational change studies shows this isn’t an endless valley but a measurable J-curve. Performance drops temporarily during the transition period, while you’re learning, building, or implementing, and then rebounds to exceed previous levels.

The amateur feels this dip and retreats, interpreting temporary discomfort as permanent loss. The professional recognizes the J-curve pattern and quantifies the actual cost. When building a system, you can calculate the hours of immediate productivity you’ll sacrifice, the hours you’ll save weekly once complete, and the precise breakeven point. Once you map this curve, resistance becomes irrational.

Here’s what makes this challenging: your brain will fight you throughout the entire dip. Even though dopamine neurons do respond when delayed rewards finally arrive, the waiting period feels unbearable. Your neural wiring is literally working against your long-term interests.

The productivity dip represents the only route to exponential results. Every moment you spend in the dip is an investment in breaking free from linear time-for-output trades. The question isn’t whether to enter the dip but whether you’ll do it consciously, with clear metrics and realistic timelines, or let your immediate-reward-seeking brain keep you grinding at the same level indefinitely.

Someone else in your field is entering their productivity dip right now. In six months, they’ll be operating at dramatically higher output while you’re still trading hours for predictable results.

What’s one system or process in your work that you keep meaning to build but always postpone for “urgent” tasks? Calculate the actual time investment to build it versus the hours saved monthly. What does the J-curve look like? Where are you still manually repeating tasks, choosing the dopamine hit of completion over the discomfort of systematization? What specific manual process could you automate this week? Think of a time you successfully navigated a productivity dip: learning a skill, building a system, or training someone. How long did the dip actually last versus your initial fears? What can this teach you about your brain’s tendency to overestimate the cost of change?