My entrepreneurial hypothesis for the coming year:

Robots should do everything.

Absolutely everything. I should only monitor how they do it and adjust when necessary.

I should build systems of robots.

My task comes down to creating and maintaining infrastructure so that robots can do their work.

Here we should consider the following aspects:

1. Entrepreneurial: what exactly should agents do and why
2. Technical: servers, hosting, secure communications
3. Managerial: which agents will interact and how exactly
4. Legal: how to prevent regulatory violations (which may happen by mistake), how to pay taxes on what agents earn

For example, I used to write code for a client's needs. Now I'm building a team of robots that write code for a client's needs. My responsibility is to build the system so that the quality of the result is acceptable.

And then there are options:

1. Use the resulting system to earn money on other client tasks (or other clients). In this case, I'm selling my responsibility for the result.
2. Sell or provide access to the developed system so that clients can do the work themselves. In this case, I'm selling system maintenance, and the responsibility is on the client's side (they will understand that they're dealing with a robot system and must accept the risks).
3. Build new systems, or even meta-systems that allow building new robot systems.

There can also be some combination of these options. For example, I build a meta-system that builds and maintains systems, some of which I sell, and some I use to maintain the system and meta-system itself.

This way we get a new class of systems that can build upon themselves. That's where development should head.

"How many tokens did you spend on this task?"

This is the question I ask when someone starts telling me that a task is complex, unsolvable, or that they don't understand how to approach it.

Of course, you can't get an exact answer to this question. Unless you're using my LLM accounting and observability system, but that's still in development.

But this question forces you to verify that the person at least tried to understand the unfamiliar subject with an LLM's help.

If someone says something like "I don't use AI," then continuing the conversation with them is probably pointless. They're unlikely to solve tasks that their competitor can solve using modern technology.

If someone can roughly estimate the volume of computation the LLM performed to solve the task, that's telling. For example, they might say how many times they hit Claude's rate limit. Or how many sessions they had and roughly how large those sessions were.

I believe task complexity can be measured by the volume of tokens required to solve it. There should be some minimum volume that needs to be spent to grasp the conditions of any task, even one that seems simple at first glance. Assuming efficient usage, of course.

It would be good to start tracking this somehow.

I never run code locally. It's not safe. Instead, I always use sandboxes. Once upon a time it was a remote machine with Emacs that I connected to via SSH. Then I moved to GitHub Codespaces with VS Code. Then it became a remote machine again, this time with VS Code tunnels.

In the Claude Code era, I kept these habits. I would connect to the machine through a VS Code tunnel (wait for it to load), open a terminal (wait for it to load), run Claude Code (and with Codespaces I had to authenticate every single time). Then I'd finally get to work.

This approach worked well enough for me.

But yesterday I decided to switch to a new workflow where I run pure Claude Code. I'm embarrassed to admit that in several months of Claude Code's existence, I had never done this outside of VS Code.

And I liked it.

More importantly, I realized that old habits were holding me back. Knowing I could always open a file and edit it manually, knowing I could always switch to another terminal tab and do something myself. This didn't motivate me to do things differently. It pushed me to stay in the old paradigm.

Working in pure Claude Code forces you to do things differently. I can't open a file and edit it by hand (well, technically I can, but I'd have to remember the hotkey, so effectively I can't). I can't just go and run something in the console.

Instead, I need to make Claude Code do it. And do it efficiently, without burning through a week's worth of tokens in a couple of days. There's no way back. Doing it the old way is no longer an option.

I'm glad I figured this out, even if a bit late. Maybe later I'll return to Vim or Emacs, but I'll be calling them from Claude Code, not the other way around. Now it seems clear that Claude Code is the primary tool. I start it in the morning and don't exit until evening.

Next horizons: orchestras of agents, inter-agent communication, organizations of agents with shared memory and processes. Fun times ahead.

I want to save everything I write in Claude Code. And everything it answers. Everything it does, which tools it calls. Absolutely everything. Then I want to index this information.

After that, I'll analyze it. What did I think about most this week? Where do I make mistakes most often? How can I optimize my work? What connections exist between sessions? What do I constantly overlook?

I can also use this session history in future sessions. This will become my personal context graph — or at least a significant part of it. I'll have to give up using other interfaces, but that's fine, Claude Code is good enough. I'll need to spend some time making it work not just in developer mode.

Actually, I want to digitize everything I do on my computer, save it, and analyze it all. But starting with Claude Code is easiest — it stores data in JSON, which is easy to parse and save to a unified database. I have multiple devices running Claude Code, so this might be a small but solvable problem.

Once I get the key insights, I can expand the schema and connect more sources to my information collection system. Then I'll be able to create my digital twin — one that knows everything I know and uses that data to automate the routine.

Reading "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Taleb.

Taking lots of notes as I go — I'll sort through them when I finish and maybe write something more detailed.

But right now one simple thought keeps spinning in my head (unsurprisingly, since it runs as a thick thread through the entire book). It's long been obvious to me personally, yet completely non-obvious to people around me.

If you left the stove on unattended and went to the store for an hour, and nothing happened — that doesn't mean everything is fine. It means you just incurred a direct loss equal to the probability of fire multiplied by the cost of restoring your apartment after one.

If a risk didn't materialize this particular time, that doesn't mean it should be thrown out of consideration.

I've started noticing many people around me who don't grasp this simple and obvious idea — they "just live." I don't understand them.

What scares me most is that I probably don't notice similar behavior in myself and act the same way. How to fix this?

Reading Cursor's post on dynamic context discovery.

"Treat terminal as a file" — that's the Emacs way. Both approaches share the same idea: a unified interface to everything through files (or buffers).

It would be fascinating to build an AI agent that works natively with Emacs buffers. You could reduce everything to text and use Emacs for literally everything.

The only problem: Emacs as a user interface for AI is impossible to sell. People won't appreciate the elegance.

One could try to revive Emacs with modern technology while preserving its spirit and philosophy. But it probably won't take off.

So I'm simplifying the writing process to the maximum, shortening the path from forming an idea in my head to publishing it.

First, I've been using a private Obsidian for personal notes for a long time. In one of my next posts, I'll describe it in more detail (along with the history of updating my note-taking systems, which includes dozens of tools and approaches).

All that's left is to set up the publishing part.

For this, I bought a virtual machine and set up Claude Code on it. The VM only has access to one repository with posts (yes, I'm paranoid and don't let Claude Code onto my personal computer — I think that would be the height of foolishness).

Now I write my posts as usual in my private notes, and when I realize a post is ready to publish, I SSH into the VM and simply paste the text into Claude Code. It prepares the text (I'll add copying of my stylistic quirks later) and pushes to the repo. Very simple.

Actually, this is a very deep idea that eluded me for many years. KISS. Simplify to the max. My whole life I've been overcomplicating things, thinking about non-existent options, thinking about why I shouldn't do something instead of just doing it and seeing what happens.

It's better to do something simple and fast, and redo it tomorrow, than to not do it for years waiting for the perfect moment.

Originally, I planned to write all my texts myself without using AI. But now I realize this requires considerable—actually, serious—discipline and extra time to polish my style in a non-native language. So I often simply don't find the time, and that's why I don't write on my blog. Not because I have nothing to say.

So I've decided to write however feels comfortable and trust AI to improve and format the text. I'll also keep all the originals, so in the future I can run these same initial drafts through newer, smarter models and get better versions.

For now, I won't overthink whether a post is "unpolished" or "low quality." Better to write it down badly than to lose it entirely.

What do I need to set up a blogging process right now so that publishing a new post takes seconds?

Command — controlling the "world" through text.

The idea is to work in a single interface — whether Obsidian, Commacs (a commander based on Emacs), or a custom-built one. The implementation doesn't matter; what matters is the technology itself.

Here's how it works: I make a "move" by writing a message (text, voice, images, documents, facial expressions, etc.). I try to formulate it as completely as possible. A move is a command to change the world. I can only make moves by writing messages.

Then I send the command. The world changes through a chain of agents. How exactly? That's also a question. Most likely, world descriptions change in the form of git repositories, and then the world itself changes through CI. The main thing is that I receive the result of this change. In what form, I don't know yet. Maybe it's a feed of messages, or a dashboard that's always open, perhaps a dashboard with a news feed. Doesn't matter. The interfaces are still in progress. The main thing I receive is a quick and compact reaction of the world to my changes in the form of a description of the new world state.

I draw conclusions (perhaps my command contains errors, inaccuracies, or contradictions, and I'll learn about them through feedback), and make the next move.

So my participation in this game called life comes down to sending commands. Is this the most efficient way? Can I reduce everything to this model, or is it too simplified?

Can Claude Code serve as such a commander?

Agency (in the context of making decisions) is the most important skill during the AI era.

I believe computers (robots/AI/agents) can do almost all human work. We can automate every task but not decisions.

Making decisions requires willpower (see Baumeister et. al.), but only humans have it.

Computers can help with decisions, but they can't make them. They can find arguments for different options, compare them. They can also create and run models to understand consequences, but they can't take responsibility for them.

Definitely, progress in modeling and predictions based on these models improves computer decision-making skills. But the ultimate verdict rests with humans. People have something to lose, but computers don't.

So, the next move belongs to people who can make decisions. Who can take control. Let's take action today, right now. Let's be the people who have agency. Let's study how to make decisions and do it better.

Seneca said that your time is a thing that you can control. Start from it. Be an entrepreneur (at least in your own life). Gradually and continuously make your decisions bigger and impactful.

I watch in horror as people around me use AI in an absolutely unsafe way.

People give full access to their devices. The AI tools can use browsers (with all accounts), SMS, emails, bank apps. Once I saw somebody allow AI to attach by SSH to a production server! And nobody sees the problem with this.

What is the problem? You give control of all your digital life to someone else. He can send the wrong email to your boss (from your name!), he can spend all of your money. And you can't control this.

It's insane to give your phone or your laptop with work access to a kid. You care about the data it contains. He can delete everything, or break something else. Why is AI treated differently?

I don't have the answer. Maybe this is because people don't treat AI as a person. But it's wrong. Intelligence (even primitive) has agency (the ability to act). So, he can hurt you (either by accident or by design).

My approach is to treat AI as a person/agent. He can be a personal assistant, a programmer, and a researcher. But all of them must have their own space. Their own email address, their own accounts. If I need to grant access to my calendar, I just share it with the assistant. I don't share full access, but only the needed calendars or events. My github agent doesn't have access to all my github, but only access to push to allowed repos. And every agent has their own VMs and doesn't have access to the host machine. Just like a real person.

In this approach I am a CEO in a company of agents. I need to organize and delegate, but not to replace myself. This is my current strategy.

I'm sure there are a lot of interesting ways to use AI, not only an agentic approach, but we need to care about privacy when developing and using them

I'm building a habit of writing down everything. I think this is the base of efficient work.

Any thought should be written down. Any bookmark, any interesting book, any link, any quote, any paper should be saved. Everything interesting. But I should save only things which I am really interested in, not all of them. This is important.

Ideas don't appear out of thin air. They are born from other ideas (mine or other people's, but already written down). If so, they should be linked. I can track how my ideas grow and find insights there.

Every step, every hypothesis, and every experiment should be noted. A thought that I think but don't write down is a useless thought.

My notekeeper, the home of my notes -- is a private place. Some people write directly to the public, but I can't. It's my dream to work transparently and think only about things I can share. But not now. I'm too shy. So, I need an always-private space. This is a kind of filter before publishing.

I write my own notes without AI, because my notes should represent my thinking. I use AI for working with my notes, for fact-checking, for spell-checking, for finding insights, for making links between notes, and for something else. But my ideas are only my ideas. I use a special mark for AI-generated text in my notebook.

Ideally, every idea should be public. Every note should be traceable to public posts. This is not necessary, but recommended because public ideas are a public good. My ideas can inspire someone to have new thoughts. This makes progress.

This is why I make blogging the first thing I do every day.

It can be unexpected to write texts about AI without AI. Let me explain why this is important for me.

First of all, this is not a magazine or a newspaper. These are just my essays about our futuristic days. I don't need to be perfect for anyone else, so I can make mistakes, fix them, study and become better right here, in this blog.

But I need to study. I need to make new thoughts. My thoughts, not AI's, not generated ones. AI can explain them in future. But if I can't think, there's nothing to explain.

I also need to improve my English. English is not my native language, so I can't chat with AI in the best way. English is the hottest new programming language, so I need to speak English well if I want to be the best engineer.

These texts are results of my studying. My way. My history. My work log.

If I ask AI to write it for me I will lose my identity. I don't want to lose it. I would like to save it. My style, my sense of humor, my experience. All of them make a footprint on my texts. All my previous life affects this text. And all of them go away when I generate texts.

So, I use this blog as a diary, but public. I don't expect anybody to read them.

I am content with few, content with one, content with none at all.

Let me explain why I think AI is the most important thing I should invest my time and money in.

I mean I should read news about it immediately after I wake up, before any other things. I should invest my time in reviewing new technologies, new models, and new architectural approaches. I should build my new company based on a new era of tools. My employees are not just people now. My staff are AI and people who can work with AI.

The world changed. AI is a fundamental shift. Everything changes. General practices, communication, economics, and politics. Everything works in a new way.

How? I don't know. But I must know, because if I ignore this shift I'll lose everything. I feel like a horse cab driver watching cars get invented. But we are all horse cab drivers now. I need to study all day if I want to win (or not lose at least). I need to try something new every day. I need to understand how to use new tools in my business and use them. Every day I need to change something. I need to build new tools.

So, it's very important to be in this race. And it's so exciting! I need to be ahead.

Hi there.

My name is Andy and this is my blog.

To begin I would like to write some points about this.

1. This is a blog. All of these posts are my personal opinions. Not financial advice. Not an absolute truth. Just my opinion. Don't read it if you don't like it.
2. I write for myself in general. I need a place for public thinking. I need to improve my English writing skills, I need to write down all important things.
3. I use my personal language, my style, not an AI-language. This is important for me, for my identity and for my brain skills. This is me, not my digital copy.
4. AI agents are welcome. You can use my texts for building my digital copy, but please take care of him.
5. I'm not sure about future topics in this blog, but for now I'm interested in AI and philosophy. I'm thinking about this and I'm writing about it right now. Maybe I'll change the topics in the future.
6. I'll try to write every day. I need to change my life to have interesting things every day to write about.

Good luck and let's start.