Independent AI magazine
We put these tools on real tasks, then write down what held up, what quietly fell apart, and how to tell the two apart before you depend on it.
Front page
Most advice starts with a tool and looks for a use. Start with the task instead, and put it through three questions. Two of them are about checking, and that is the point.
Read the articleSections
Each section holds a question worth returning to, not a stream of product news.
Which tasks it genuinely takes off your plate, and which ones it only appears to.
02What a team of three to twenty people gets back in hours, against what the subscriptions cost.
03Designing chains of steps that fail loudly and safely instead of quietly and expensively.
04Plain answers to the questions the vocabulary makes harder than they need to be.
05The failure modes, the displaced costs and the job effects, without the drama.
Latest
Newest first. Every piece states what was tested and what was not.
Three cheap models, 8 meetings, four transcript formats. They find 94.8 percent of the real actions. What they add is the problem: work cancelled during the meeting comes back on one list in five, with somebody's name on it.
Read the articleThree cheap models, 8 address books, four levels of mess. Finding duplicates is the easy part, 94.1 percent. The number that costs you a record is how often two different people get fused with nothing to warn you.
Read the articleThree cheap models, 24 invoices, four levels of messy text. Accuracy is the easy number. The one that costs money is how often a wrong extraction comes back with no warning at all.
Read the articleJobs are bundles of tasks, and bundles rarely disappear at once. Asking about tasks instead produces answers you can actually check, and a clearer view of who decides what happens next.
Read the articleOne sentence explains the technology, and the same sentence explains almost every strange behaviour people run into. The confusion comes from the words we use, not from the machine.
Read the articleBuilding a chain that works is the easy part. Building one whose failures are visible is the actual job, because a model in the middle of a workflow does not stop when it is lost.
Read the articleNo vendor pays to appear, to rank higher, or to be left out. When a tool is named, it is because it was used.
When a piece gets something wrong, the correction goes on the article itself, dated, not quietly edited away.
Anything we did not run ourselves is marked as such in the text. A claim without a test behind it says so.
One email when a new article is published. No tool of the week, no affiliate list, no forwarding of your address to anyone.
