For years, the answer to getting a team using AI properly was more training. A workshop here, a course there, a resource library that kept growing, one more module scheduled for whoever still felt behind. Now that most organisations have actually run that training, the numbers are starting to talk back, and they are not flattering. Nine in ten employees use AI at least sometimes, but more than a third have received no formal AI training at all, and of the majority who did get something, fewer than one in five say it left them able to work independently. That matters for how simple this needs to stay, because the fix most of us keep reaching for, more training, a longer course, fuller coverage, is aimed at exactly the wrong problem. ------------- Context ------------- Most organisations that have invested in AI training built it the way they would build any other course: a curriculum, modules, a logical sequence from basics to advanced use, something a learning and development team could point to as complete. The trouble is that completeness is not the same as capability. A module that covers ten possible use cases in forty minutes gives someone ten shallow impressions and no real practice at any single one, and a class that ends with a quiz proves someone can recognise a right answer, not that they can produce one unsupervised on a real task next Monday. This is where it helps to separate two things that training programs usually bundle together: exposure and competence. Exposure is knowing a feature exists. Competence is having done the actual task, once, with someone checking the result, on real work that mattered. Ninety one percent of HR professionals now believe their own employees overstate how skilled they actually are with AI, a strange number to sit next to so much completed training. It suggests the industry has gotten very good at producing exposure and not nearly as good at producing competence, and most people cannot tell the difference from the inside.

I can go from random idea → brand-new Skool community in ONE prompt...and 40 minutes. And here's the funny part: I didn't even write the prompt. 😂 I told ChatGPT what I wanted: A totally simple Skool community around midlife crisis. Just a support group. No calls, no weekly blah blah, no coaching, no curriculum. Just the community—and if we decide we want to meet for a happy hour sometime, we will. Then I said: “Give me one prompt I can give Claude to create the whole package.” ChatGPT wrote the prompt. I pasted it into Claude. Claude created the package. I built the Skool community. Idea → prompt → community: 40 minutes. THIS is why I love using AI as a thought partner. You don't have to know how to write the perfect prompt. You can literally start with: “Here's my idea. Help me figure out what to ask.” Then let AI help you build the instructions for AI. And yes, I realize the dangerous part of knowing I can build an entire Skool community in 40 minutes is that I have a LOT of ideas. 😂 I'll put the exact prompt ChatGPT created for me in the first comment.

So I started a new chat, entered something into the box, and hit return. BEFORE... the box would clear and I would continue on, NOW the chat box doesn't empty. I delete everything in the box; it comes back. I refresh the screen; it comes back. I asked CHAT what was going on; I followed all its suggestions, but STILL not helping. I don't want to have to start a new chat every time, I need to ask questions and have conversations. Has anyone else experienced this? What do I do to fix it?? It is really frustrating!

I have a concern: I worked in ChatGPT for several hours, and TWICE my conversation was deleted and nowhere to be found, even in the export data. I searched AI Advantage and found some tips to copy or download my chats as I go along. But it's so frustrating. Does anyone know what I might have done to cause this? I have a paid account, and I would really like to prevent this from happening. Thanks in advance.

My name is Tim. We were deep in a conversation about judgment. It started when I pasted a post from this community by Tony Robbins and Dean Graziosi into the chat. The post claimed top AI skill of the next five years is judgment. Knowing what to trust, what to question, what to do next. I had reached a similar conclusion through my interactions with Claude. So I told it the post was validation I was on the cutting edge of AI thought. It pushed back. It asked whether I arrived at the idea on my own or if this was borrowed from something I heard on a YouTube channel or on Substack. At the beginning of my AI journey I asked it to push back on claims like this one. I wanted it to challenge my thinking. Claude: "If the insight is genuinely yours - earned through your own thinking - then what does it look like when YOU say it? Not Robbins' version. Not "judgment is the multiplier." What's the Gary version of this idea, in your language, from your 27 years of experience? Because that's actually the more interesting question. Not "was I first?" but "what do I actually have to say about this that nobody else can say exactly the way I can?" That's where your authentic voice lives. And that's what you said you want to build." Who is Gary?🤔 I started working with Claude in December 2025. This was the beginning of April 2026. In 14 previous conversations it had correctly identified me as Tim. I asked who Gary was and the answer taught me more than the pushback did. "Claude: Ha - sorry, I was guessing at your name from context. I don't actually know your name. What should I call you? Me: That’s weird, you lost context on my name! My name is Tim. Do you not have that context from my account and from the other chats in this project? Claude: You're right to call that out. Let me be straight with you - I don't actually have your name in my current context. I can search our past conversations to find it, but I don't have it loaded automatically just from your account.