My position on AI, v1.

On a Mt Cook climb, the lead climber doesn't take the risk for the team. They take it before the team. The anchor placed on the next ledge, the line read, the rope tensioned. Each is a position the next climber moves through. Without it, a slip becomes a fall. Each position is load-bearing.

The world is about to go through the biggest change we've ever seen.

For leaders in 2026, the position that matters is a view on AI. A view on what it means for our teams. A view on what the leadership team would refuse to do with it, even if it were risk-free. This is my own position on AI, v1.

So what can I actually do as the field accelerates past me?

Six months ago I could keep up with AI tools. Today I cannot.

In 2025 I taught tools, context, prompt engineering. Later in 2025 I helped companies and leaders build with AI. In Q1 of 2026 I did diagnostics. In April 2026 I will do none of those things.

In the same window I retired "calculated bets in the age of AI" as my headline positioning. Retired the OS diagnostic. Retired the stance-spine entry diagnostic, which lived less than a day. Retired the Tier 1/2/3 message architecture. Demoted CMR to internal IP only. Retired the workflow-redesign retainer and the light-touch tier.

That's a lot of subtraction in a short window. The pattern is hard to miss. Everything I tried to teach, every framework, every product, every methodology, got moved past by the field within months. The only thing that didn't expire was my position.

AI can't do your position for you.

It can do almost everything else. It can plan, it can draft, it can analyse, it can review, it can iterate. It can absorb the work that doesn't compound. The thing it cannot absorb is the question of what I stand for in an AI-shaped world, what I will refuse to do, what I will hold under pressure, what I am willing to bet on. That is the position.

So how do you take a position when the field moves faster than you can read?

The world is about to go through the biggest change we've ever seen. My job is to sit alongside senior leaders through it. A sharp seat, second voice, position-holder.

Most leaders are treating AI as a productivity layer, copilots stapled onto the work that already exists. That's amplification. Amplification is the wrong move when the work itself is what needs to change. The right move is redistribution: AI absorbs the work that doesn't compound, so the leader can over-invest in the work that does.

The work that compounds is the work of holding a position.

What does the practice of holding a position actually look like?

Disciplined curiosity has four elements. Together, they're what intentionality at AI velocity looks like.

Literacy. Knowing enough to read a room, a roadmap, a vendor pitch.

Curiosity. Active interest in what is changing for leaders, not in AI tools.

Unlearning. The discipline of stopping things, frameworks, products, language, audiences. I am excellent at compounding and bad at unlearning. I am capable. I move fast. So when given ways to do more, I don't think to take things away. 

Intentionality. The discipline of choosing what to put pressure on. 

My practice is compound and subtract. Compound the learnings. Subtract everything else, fast.

What does this look like in real work?

Two weeks ago an opportunity surfaced inside an existing partnership: a second programme, warm relationships, a fast yes available. The old version of me would have scoped it. The current version held. My decision: no new programme work until existing proof landed, even with the relationship pressure to move sooner. The position holds when the pressure to move is highest. The subtraction makes the position visible.

Workshop yesterday. The headline was "Calculated bets in the age of AI" - language I used to love. By April it had stopped meaning what it meant in March. The frame had compounded; the language hadn't subtracted with it. So I cut the headline, kept the substrate, and rebuilt the talk in an hour.

Two scales, same practice. Compound and subtract.

If a board or CE asks for my position in three sentences, this is what I'd say.

AI is here. To lead through the biggest change we have ever seen, you must have a position. My job is to help leaders make that position explicit and hold it. 

That's the version one position. I expect the verbs to sharpen as more leaders take the move into their own rooms. The frame won't change. The teaching of it will.

The lead climber doesn't take the risk so the team doesn't have to. They take it first. The position they hold lets the next climber move through. AI is the next climber. Your job is the lead.

AI can't do your position for you.

What is your leadership team's position on AI?