James King

This is a bit of a worry.

I have been getting into AI and finding it really good. There is hype but also surprising value. At the moment I am using Claude to clean up old content in Confluence and to summarise the outcomes of multiple workshops and interviews.

I have also just been watching Linear B deliver some powerful sprint based metrics and some excellent summaries of where teams can look for improvements in their delivery.

It is really powerful but sometimes surprisingly disconnected from reality, over-confident and dangerous in the assumptions it makes.

That is not the worry though. I have been given good advice that the better I get at prompting AI, the better the results I get. I have also been warned that people listen to AI without enough skepticism. Working on my prompting and applying healthy skepticism is really improving my results.

I have realised that AI always acts helpful, it speeds my delivery and it offers useful advice. But I also suspect it is lazy with validating its views, it does not really care about success and it seems condescending at times.

I am finding the experience great, even though there is hype and these lessons to apply. But that brings me to the worrying bit.

When I compare the challenges involved in working with AI, they seem very similar to the concerns people share with me about working with Agile coaches. It is not quite as bad as being involved in “Industrial Agile driven by evil agilistas” but it feels eerily familiar.

I wonder – am I just experiencing agile coaching from the side of the receiver?
I like to think I am in control with AI and that agile coaches are far more humanistic and authentic – but are there parallels here?

HI Warning: This content was produced by human intelligence and James does make mistakes. Please validate any information and be aware of bias and hallucinations.