Search This Blog

Sunday, July 5, 2026

Supertanker tycoon making millions on Hormuz shuttle runs

 Just a few weeks into the war, one of the Persian Gulf’s top oil producers quietly began sneaking its crude out of the Strait of Hormuz. Before long, the covert project became so successful that the United Arab Emirates was already approaching its pre-war rate of flows through the waterway by the time the US and Iran signed their interim peace deal.

The UAE’s aggressive push to get barrels safely out of the strait relied on tactics normally associated with sanctioned countries such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela: the ships travelled “dark” without their transponders (and often under the cover of literal darkness) before offloading their cargo into other tankers waiting outside the waterway, and then returning back to collect more.

Crucially though, officials in Abu Dhabi needed enough ships to make the risky transit – not just once, but over and over. And for that they turned for help to Ga-Hyun Chung.

The intensely private South Korean shipping tycoon rocked the tanker industry early this year as his Sinokor Group embarked on an unprecedented buying spree. Bloomberg reported in March that he stood to be one of the big winners from the turmoil in the oil trade from the Iran war, as rates for tankers surged.

Now, Sinokor has emerged as a major owner of supertankers moving crude out of the Persian Gulf.

The company started leasing ships to Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc) for its “shuttle runs” from at least mid-April. By June, almost half of Emirati crude shipments were sailing on vessels controlled by Sinokor, according to ship tracking data collected by analytics firm Vortexa.

This story is based on vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg, figures from Vortexa and Kpler, another leading analytics firm, and conversations with more than a dozen shipbrokers, traders and other industry insiders. The scale of Sinokor’s role in leasing ships for “dark” transits has not previously been reported.

Sinokor did not respond to requests for comment. Adnoc L&S, which is Adnoc’s shipping and logistics arm, said that it does not comment on matters related to the position, movements, or routing of its vessels, but noted that it has “an extensive fleet including owned and chartered vessels”.

While Adnoc also relied on tankers it owned directly, as well as from other owners, the deals with Sinokor were key to helping the UAE ramp up exports through Hormuz far faster than its Gulf neighbours. The shipments meant Adnoc was able to take greater advantage of surging oil prices earlier in the war, and helped alleviate the impact of the broader closure of the strait on global supplies.

The company has continued to ramp up shipments, with tankers travelling more openly through the strait with transponders on since the interim peace agreement.

But the deals have also created a huge profit opportunity for Sinokor, Chung and his new co-owner, Italian container giant MSC Group. Oil tanker markets are having one of the most lucrative years ever, and shipbrokers suggest that the premium for sailing into the Gulf during the war could have yielded three to four times the prewar rate.

The terms of the deals have not been disclosed, but the brokers estimated just three tankers doing shuttle runs since mid-April could have earned Sinokor somewhere around US$60 million to US$120 million.

Since the interim ceasefire between the US and Iran came into effect, Sinokor has sent a further stream of supertankers into the Persian Gulf ready to collect crude, including at least two that have already returned again after exiting to offload their cargoes. And it’s not just UAE cargoes; the company has been active in touting its services to shipbrokers as it looks to pick up barrels from elsewhere in the gulf.

“Sinokor’s moves during the Iran war are groundbreaking,” said Matt Wright, Kpler’s principal freight analyst. “By creating an environment that supports their negotiating position, they are lifting rates for all owners. They are also willing to go to corners of the market where shipowners might still be cautious about, and we are seeing initial signs of a market recovery because of that.”

Bold bets

Even in an industry dominated by larger-than-life characters, Chung’s bold bets have set him apart.

Sinokor, which is headquartered in Seoul, started out as a container shipper before expanding to become a smaller player in oil tankers. That changed dramatically late last year, when the company suddenly went on a dealmaking spree to buy and charter supertankers with backing from one of shipping’s biggest players, MSC.

By late February, Sinokor controlled about 150 very large crude carriers, according to industry estimates, nearly 40 per cent of the global fleet that was not either sanctioned or tied up on long-term leases or regular routes.

After the US issued licenses allowing the trade in Venezuelan oil at the beginning of this year, Sinokor deployed several of its vessels towards the US Gulf and the Caribbean in anticipation of the flood of barrels entering the mainstream market. At one point, the company controlled nearly all of the available supertankers that could reach the US Gulf within 30 days.

Sinokor’s aggressive buying combined with a swell in oil flows to send tanker rates surging even before the US and Israeli strikes on Iran led to the effective closure of the world’s most important oil shipping lane.

By early March, rates had soared dramatically higher, hitting unprecedented levels as the market adjusted to the reality that a large percentage of the global fleet was stuck inside the Persian Gulf.

Bloomberg reported in March that Sinokor itself had moved at least six empty supertankers into the Gulf in the weeks before the war, which meant the company was able to hire the vessels out at eye-popping daily rates to hold oil, as storage in the region filled up. (Around the same time, more details of the company’s tie-up with MSC became public, the world’s biggest container line had actually bought a 50 per cent stake in Sinokor Maritime)

Daring dash

In the early weeks of the war, the sparse traffic through Hormuz appeared largely dominated by tankers with links to Iran, while the UAE and Saudi Arabia quickly diverted crude flows to export terminals on the Gulf of Oman and the Red Sea via pipelines that bypassed the strait.

But while most ship owners and crews saw the journey as too dangerous, at least one firm, Greece’s Dynacom Tankers Management, quickly appeared to find a way through. Just 10 days into the war, a Dynacom-operated vessel popped up on tracking systems showing its location near India, after having last signalled from within the Persian Gulf.

Dynacom’s “dark transit” move would be one that many other shipowners and crude exporters would emulate in the coming weeks and months. Adnoc was one of them.

At least four of Sinokor’s ships appear on the Equasis maritime database as being managed by Adnoc, two of them since mid-April, though shipbrokers said privately that it’s possible some of them even began in March. The total number may also be far higher, as the already opaque practices of the shipping industry have been exacerbated by the risks of war.

To be sure, Adnoc also relied on ships from owners other than Sinokor, including tankers owned by Navig8, an Adnoc-controlled firm. By early May, several sources with knowledge of the matter said that Adnoc was also actively seeking tankers to purchase, to join the Hormuz shuttles – a practice that by then was already being jokingly dubbed the “Adnoc milk runs” by traders across the industry.

After collecting their cargoes at UAE ports such as Zirku and Das Island, it would take the tankers roughly two days to sail with their transponders off through the Persian Gulf and along the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman. There, they’d pull up alongside empty tankers waiting to receive the oil and then deliver it to global markets.

The ships would travel under cover of darkness, often in convoys that sailed close together and hugged the Omani coast, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Without transponders to follow, analysts and journalists have been left poring over satellite imagery from the region.

On average, Sinokor ships have transported at least 680,000 barrels a day of supplies from the UAE’s Persian Gulf ports since April, based on loadings that have been detected by both the Kpler and Vortexa platforms – though the actual figures could be far higher.

Those numbers accelerated in June to 1.4 million barrels a day, the data show. At least 10 Sinokor vessels have been engaged in shuttle runs from the UAE’s oil terminals inside the Persian Gulf before discharging in the Gulf of Oman, and three of the shuttling ships have been doing so since the middle of April.

Carrying such large volumes at a time when tanker earnings have been so high has been highly lucrative for the company, and would have already gone some way to paying back a multibillion-dollar bet on supertankers.

It also puts Chung and Sinokor among some of the biggest winners of the shock to energy markets from the Iran war, alongside other large tanker owners, as well as energy traders such as Vitol Group and Trafigura Group, which tend to thrive during times of disruption and volatility.

Dark rush

While the UAE was one of the earliest and most active shippers through the strait, by early June its tankers had been joined by an expanding stream of vessels carrying oil from neighbours including Kuwait and Iraq.

As the shipping industry gathered for a major conference in Athens, the growing flow of dark transits was one of the key subjects of conversation. Another, of course, was Chung himself.

Known in the industry for his love of arm wrestling just about everyone he encounters, the indefatigable tycoon was still in dealmaking mode – trying to convince other owners to sell him more supertankers, sources familiar with the matter said.

By then, many of the ships moving through Hormuz were supported by a US military programme that provided guidance and aerial protection as they sailed along the Omani coast to avoid potential mines in the middle of the strait, and as Iran controlled traffic through its own waters to the north.

The flow of dark traffic is one of the factors that helped explain why oil markets had weakened significantly by early June, together with a surge in exports from the US and pullback in buying by China.

But the covert nature of the transits meant the task of estimating the outlook for global supply got even harder. Some analysts at the time estimated that about two million barrels a day was exiting the strait, while JPMorgan Chase put the figure at just over five million. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Jun 12 that about seven million barrels a day of oil was making its way out.

The interim peace deal between the US and Iran that followed just days later would open up those flows even further.

But as a stream of stranded ships began exiting the Persian Gulf with their transponders turned on, the next question was whether empty vessels would be willing to re-enter and take on fresh loadings.

Again, Sinokor was well positioned. The company controls more than a third of the VLCCs that would be able to reach the Persian Gulf in the next two weeks, according to shipbrokers’ estimates. At least one tanker that has sat waiting empty for months near South Africa is already heading towards Hormuz.

In late June, the company informed shipbrokers it had provisionally booked a vessel to transport oil from the Persian Gulf to India at a rate that was among the highest so far this year. The communication was typical of the firm’s bold marketing tactics, brokers said.

Freight rates have dropped after an initial surge following the peace deal, as it becomes more apparent that more ships are entering the Gulf, but still remain high by historical standards.

Sinokor, again, continues to play a key role. In the last week alone, the company has sent at least 18 supertankers into the Gulf, enough to carry 36 million barrels of crude out of the world’s most important energy producing region.

“We can pass Hormuz Strait after loading,” Sinokor said in a message distributed to shipbrokers in late June, in which it urged brokers to book the company’s ships to load from an Iraqi oil terminal, adding: “Please let us know if you have any cargoes available.”

No, The Framers Would Have Hated The Billionaire Tax

 by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the bizarre claim of Gov. Gavin Newsom and others that the Framers would have supported wealth taxes, including the proposed Billionaire’s Tax. It is a claim that seeks to mask the economically unwise with the historically unfounded. The Framers sought to protect property from legislative redistributive impulses. James Madison wrote that the bicameral system, and particularly the Senate, “ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” That does not sound like an ally of Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.

Was James Madison the Zohran Mamdani of his time? Gavin Newsom appears to think so. In joining the growing number of Democratic leaders supporting a wealth tax, the California governor claimed that the U.S. Constitution and our Founders were all about wealth distribution: “The system America’s founders built,” he said, “was designed to prevent the concentration of power in a few hands, but we have allowed that concentration to happen anyway, slowly, in plain sight, over decades.”

The only problem with this argument is that it is utterly and demonstrably false. The Madisonian democracy is designed to avoid the concentration of political power, not the concentration of wealth.

The Founders were great believers in capitalism and the free market. In my recent book, “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss the economic philosophy of the Founders in exploring the history and future of this unique republic. This isn’t simply the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence but also the anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations,” which the Founders embraced.

Many of the Founders were themselves quite wealthy, including banker Robert Morris Jr., who was known as the “Financier of the Revolution” and would be a billionaire today.

Our revolution was the first true Enlightenment revolution, heavily influenced by writers such as John Locke, who believed in a natural right to property. That right came not from the government, but from God, and “excludes the common right of other Men.”

That Lockean principle was manifest in George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a basis for the Declaration of Independence. It extolled “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

James Madison drafted protections from government seizure of property, including the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires compensation for any property taken by the government.

The Constitution not only protects property, but was later amended to allow for income taxes rather than wealth taxes.

Far from supporting a wealth tax, the constitutional system referenced by Mr. Newsom makes a federal wealth tax unconstitutional.

Mr. Newsom’s recent endorsement of a national wealth tax was likely meant to blunt the outrage over his opposition to the resolution to create a state Billionaires’ Tax on the coming November ballot.

California has reportedly lost trillions of dollars in the exodus of billionaires and other wealthy taxpayers fleeing the high taxes and class politics of the state. Mr. Newsom knows that this draining of wealth spells doom for his state, which is already grappling with a massive, growing deficit. He offered a curious argument for opposing the state wealth tax: “You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do.”

The argument suggested that most citizens are effectively a captive population to be culled by California leaders, dupes who are unable to escape a state with a deadly combination of some of the highest taxes and highest living costs in the nation.

Unions and others pushed the Billionaire Tax to avoid budget cuts and fund the state’s runaway expenditures, from pension funds to projects such as the infamous high-speed train to nowhere.

To deal with California’s reverse Gold Rush, drafters made the proposed Billionaire Tax retroactive to claw back money from those who have escaped.

The national Billionaire Tax pushed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) seeks to cut off any escape for the wealthy short of leaving the country. When she ran for president, Ms. Warren warned the wealthy that she was coming for “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.”

Of course, this assumes that the wealthy would be little more than passive prey in a hunt by the Internal Revenue Service. That is precisely what socialists thought in France decades ago, before an exodus from the country that, along with other socialist policies, brought it to near economic ruin. It was later rescinded.

Nevertheless, wealth taxes make for great politics. What is concerning is that, in addition to a wealth tax, Democratic leaders like Ms. Warren are pledging to pack the Supreme Court if they retake power. A packed court with an insistent liberal majority would let the Democrats push through measures that would otherwise be declared unconstitutional, including a wealth tax.

Congress could then gradually lower the level of wealth needed to trigger the tax, opening up the homes and estates of citizens as an untapped reservoir of money for the taking.

You’re next” could then apply not just to office holders but to property owners in a push to redistribute wealth.

That strategy may well unfold in coming years, but it will be the realization of a Mamdanian, not a Madisonian, system.

Mr. Turley is a law professor at George Washington University and author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/no-framers-would-have-hated-billionaire-tax

OPEC+ Approves Another Oil Output Increase As Hormuz Exports Start To Recover

 OPEC+ agreed a further increase in output targets from August, the group said in a statement on Sunday, ‌adding to global supply at a time when oil prices are falling due to the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for oil exports. 

The oil-producing cartel, which recently lost the UAE as a core member, agreed during an online meeting to increase quotas by 188,000 barrels per day from August, on top of similar increases for June and July. That said, the producers reserved the right to increase, pause, or reverse the phase-out, including the November 2023 cuts already unwound. Furthermore, every country that overproduced since January 2024 still has to fully compensate for it, tracked monthly by the JMMC. 

The seven ​core members of OPEC+, which groups OPEC and allied producers including Russia, have hiked their output quotas from April through July ​by almost 800,000 bpd. Yet the increase has remained largely on paper because of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, ⁠which closed the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic for some of the most important OPEC+ members, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ​Iraq.

According to Reuters, OPEC+ output fell to 33.13 million bpd in May, according to OPEC data, from 42.77 million bpd in February. It began ​to recover in June thanks to U.S. efforts to help the UAE and other OPEC+ nations export more oil, but is still below pre-war levels.

Despite persisting supply disruptions, oil prices have returned to pre-war levels, pressured by sharply lower Chinese imports, higher exports from non-Middle East producers, and a record global strategic stock release coordinated ​by the International Energy Agency.

"The group of seven kept unwinding their production cuts as widely expected," UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo said. "The near-term focus ​will remain on how many tankers will manage to cross the Strait of Hormuz and how quickly demand and Chinese crude imports recover."

A memorandum of understanding ‌between Washington ⁠and Tehran to end the war, which has been breached on several occasions but is still holding, has also helped convince traders that supply will ultimately return to normal levels.

Brent crude prices traded near $72 per barrel on Friday, down from recent peaks of more than $120 per barrel and back to levels traded just before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.

Besides agreeing production targets, OPEC+ is also facing other challenges after the United Arab Emirates left ​the group and Iraq signaled it wants ​higher quotas.

OPEC+ includes 21 members ⁠including Iran, but in recent years only the seven nations - and the UAE until its departure - have been involved in monthly production management. Those seven producers, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Oman, are ​boosting output as part of the phased rollback of a 1.65 million bpd supply cut agreed ​in 2023, when ⁠the group still included the UAE.

In a stunning twist, the UAE quit the alliance in late April because it wanted to align its capacity more closely with its production, free of production restraints imposed by the group. From August, taking into account the UAE's exit from May 1, the seven core members will still ⁠have about ​379,000 bpd of the original cut to return to the market, according to ​Reuters calculations.

With the August increase now decided, they will have fully unwound the 2023 cut if they make one more hike of around the same size for September at ​their next meeting on August 2.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/opec-approves-another-oil-output-increase-hormuz-exports-start-recover

The Biggest Problem With AI Today

 By Christopher Penn, of Almost Timely News

What’s the biggest problem in AI today? Is it cost, with token budgets being blown out of the water by agentic AI? Is it sustainability, with AI consuming electricity and fresh water? Is it ethics, with tech companies cramming AI into everything?

I think it’s deeper than that. Those are all symptoms of a much deeper-rooted problem: nobody’s making decisions.

Or more correctly, we’ve abdicated far too much of our executive function to AI. We’ve surrendered our thinking

Let’s dig in.

Part 1: Where This Issue Came From

On Friday afternoon, I was mulling over what I wanted to cover in this week’s issue. It’s a holiday weekend here in the USA, so not as many folks will be reading, and that’s okay. (I appreciate that YOU are) And I’ve covered a ton recently:

So on a whim, I set up a NotebookLM with the last 180 days of conversations from over 40 different subreddits, like r/marketing, r/chatgpt, etc. - everything around marketing, business, and AI. I connected it to Claude Code with the NotebookLM command line tool (the most token—efficient way for Claude to talk to NotebookLM), and then put all of my 2026 newsletters year to date into an input folder.

I asked Claude to compare what I’ve written about thus far this year with what folks are finding their hardest problems are with AI. Claude spit out a list of 10 major things derived from over 800,000 words of foaming at the mouth on Reddit that it thought might be good newsletter topics:

  • AI Visibility challenges
  • Agentic oversight is degrading
  • AI deployment is broken
  • 40-60% of company budget is wasted on the wrong models
  • AI is a rental
  • AI sycophancy is screwing up synthetic focus groups
  • AI detectors don’t work
  • AI is hollowing out corporations and no one’s hiring junior staff
  • People measure AI by tokenmaxxing
  • Marketers are basically unpaid labor for AI companies training data

Claude was REALLY pushing for me to write about how measurement is broken in marketing and AI today, and I might do that at some point, but that’s not what I see when I look at this laundry list. Yes, there are measurement issues in many of them, data issues in many of them, but... measurement being broken is the symptom of what I said earlier - we’ve abdicated executive function.

For those who aren’t analytics nerds, you know that measurement is a trailing indicator. It’s not a leading indicator.

Part 2: Executive Function Recap

As a reminder, I bucket executive function into four categories that I call PODS:

  • Plan: you think about achieving something in the future and make a plan to get there from here
  • Organize: you take what you have and try to make sense of it
  • Decide: you take what you have and make decisions about it
  • Solve: you solve the problems you have

Yes, there is more nuance to executive function than this, but this handy, short list is an easy way to see what our brains are doing. That’s critical thinking, one of the worst-named practices we have.

Why? Because critical thinking isn’t about being critical, per se. It’s about metacognition - the definition of which is thinking about thinking. When you’re thinking about how you think, you open the door to improvements, to growth.

Thinking about thinking means asking questions and reflecting - is this the best way to do something? How could I do this better? How could I derive more enjoyment from this thing I’m doing? It’s not criticizing yourself as much as it is recognizing what you’re doing and whether it’s working or not.

When you’re planning, organizing, deciding, and solving, you’re inherently thinking about thinking. Every time you plan, every time you bring order to chaos, you have to check in with your own brain to see if what you’re doing is moving you closer to the goal posts.

Executive function is one of the things that defines our sentience as living creatures. Every sentient creature from a mouse to us does these tasks. You’ve read or heard stories about crows fashioning tools from wire to solve problems, you’ve watched dogs and cats make decisions and plan. I’ve watched my own cat measure optically whether or not she can make a particular jump.

Properly prompted, today’s AI tools are superb at executive functions as well. Given the right frameworks, harnesses, and data, they can plan, organize, decide, and solve better than we can at most language-based tasks.

And therein lies the actual problem.

Part 3: The Tale of the Tape

Let’s look at each of the 10 topics Claude suggested to see the threads that connect them.

AI Visibility challenges: when you read the verbatims of what people are saying about AI visibility measurement, you can tell they’re pretty much making it up. This is especially true of software vendors that are offering and peddling solutions that have very little grounding in reality - and yet, stakeholders eat this stuff up because they’d rather have certainty about a wrong number than accept uncertainty or no number at all. they are not thinking about their thinking.

Agentic oversight is degrading: the commenters on Reddit focused on the fact that as agents get more sophisticated, it’s harder and harder to follow along to see what they’re doing. So we just hit OK all the time - if we’re even thinking about a human in the loop. We’ve forfeit our authority here. In fact, some AI tools have this built in as a feature. Claude calls it dangerously skip permissions. Qwen calls it YOLO mode.

AI deployment is broken: here, the discussion is about stakeholders telling their stakeholders that the organization has deployed AI without any sense of the impact that it’s had. One poster cited a statistic that 29% of companies see significant ROI from AI, even though individual employees are claiming 5x productivity increases. The math doesn’t math. Here, people don’t want to think and reflect about what deployment even means. Katie’s been writing a lot about this in the Trust Insights newsletter the last few weeks. At its heart, we are confusing using AI with getting results out of AI.

40-60% of budget is wasted: here, folks are talking about how everyone just accepts the default model in AI tools, which is typically the most expensive one. Claude, for example, defaults to Opus 4.8, which is a much more expensive model than Sonnet 5 or Haiku 4.5. We’re not thinking. We’re not making decisions about cost trade-offs versus effectiveness. Another person pointed out that this is by design to create habits. It’s about habit formation for the most expensive models so that when the subsidization of today’s AI ends, we are accustomed to using the most expensive models. This is brain hijacking in a way.

AI is a rental: in this particular topic, the discussion centers around what you actually own in AI, which is very little if you are using today’s closed weights frontier models. Particularly Anthropic’s on-again, off-again rollout of Fable 5, thanks to U.S. export controls, was a wake-up call to the entire industry that you don’t own anything in SaaS, any more than you own music in Spotify or own videos in Netflix - but people think they do.

Sycophancy in focus groups: even though we have good academic research showing that properly prompted AI models can emulate human purchase intent with about 90% accuracy, the level of sycophancy in AI models steers them towards confirmation bias in most situations. This is especially true of synthetic focus groups; when people use AI to simulate consumer intent, what they’re really doing is reinforcing their own biases most of the time. There’s no reflection or questioning the AI output.

AI detectors don’t work: A perpetual favorite topic of mine. This thread of conversation revolved around how companies are using AI detectors to identify the use of AI in situations where it’s not appropriate, without recognizing that the detectors themselves are also broken. In testing I did 3 weeks ago now, AI detectors falsely flagged human outputs 1 out of 7 times. No one is thinking and reflecting enough about who’s watching the watchers.

AI is hollowing out companies: I really liked this quote from the agency owners subreddit:

What’s strange is nobody decided this. There was no meeting where we discussed this. We automated one annoying task, then another, and one day the job had hollowed out from the inside.

This erosion of tasks is all about a lack of cognition, a lack of reflection, a lack of a plan. No one’s making decisions - just leaving it up to the machines, a bit more each day.

Tokenmaxxing: this was reflecting on Meta’s most recent news story in which they were on track to spend several billion dollars in AI tokens because they measured AI productivity based on token spend, the dumbest possible way to measure AI.

Marketers as unpaid trainers: this was a whole bunch of ranting about how marketers are effectively unpaid trainers for AI platforms. The more content we produce, the more AI has to train on while simultaneously competing for the tasks we’re paid to do. Here, the thread was about how the average marketer isn’t thinking or reflecting about their relationship to AI.

And this laundry list of 10 items isn’t everything, not by a long shot. Think about how else people use AI without thinking, without thinking about their thinking. Go on LinkedIn and look at the endless streams of comment-bots all paraphrasing the same template over and over again. Look at the workslop flooding your inbox, read the reports your agencies send you that are clearly copy paste jobs.

When we put aside the direction that Claude wanted to nudge this issue of the newsletter, it becomes pretty apparent that it’s really about how much we think about thinking. How self-aware are we? How well and accurately do we perceive our relationship with AI?

Most of all, do we see the amount of executive function we’ve ceded to AI?

Part 4: The Antidote

“Nobody decided this” is haunting me. When you hand off executive functions to AI, who is making the decisions? No one. There’s no one accountable for a decision because the machine is making it for us. Whether it’s building a PowerPoint deck, assembling a report for a client, creating content for a newsletter, when the machine does it, there’s no accountability and there’s no decision making on our part other than approving it.

And this leads to a bunch of bad outcomes, everything from job loss to dissatisfaction with your own work. You know, when you use AI to offload a task, that you didn’t do the work - and you take no pride in it, any more than you’d take pride in the work that a contractor did on your behalf.

Think about this in the context of parents. Go to any parent’s house and you’ll likely see art that the kids made when they were young. The art is generally, objectively, pretty bad. But the parent values it not because of the quality of the art, but because of the level of effort made by the child. They take pride in their child’s efforts, and the child takes pride in what they did in their efforts. For good or ill, when people use AI, they themselves feel like they haven’t made an effort, and the person on the receiving end also feels like they didn’t make an effort.

Sometimes, you don’t even understand the work if you’ve outsourced it. You present it to your stakeholders, and the first question they ask that isn’t in the prepared materials leads to panic city because you can’t answer it, like buying a cake at the store instead of baking it yourself and then having someone ask if a specific allergen is in it. And you’re left scrambling, looking for the label to see what’s actually in the cake.

So my suggested antidote is this: for every task that matters, always start with someting you lead, and force the machines to educate you.

For example, when I compile monthly reports for Trust Insights clients, I turn on my voice recorder and I review the data myself. I talk out loud what I see, what I think, what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense, and then I have AI transcribe it. After the transcription is complete, I ask AI to review it and show me what I missed. I ask it to ask me questions, to record more information, to fish more information from me.

I also ask it, especially around anything in my subject matter expertise, to find me resources to learn and read about its recommendations. Recently, I was asking it to choose from a catalog I’d prepared of over 1,000 different analytical techniques, and it chose an interesting ensemble of 3 techniques, one of which I didn’t know well. So I had it teach me that, so that instead of me passively accepting its recommendations, I learned something. I got better as a professional. I grew my subject matter expertise.

If you think about it, this is not only rational from the perspective of delivering great quality work, it’s also rational from the perspective of my value. If I’m nothing more than a copy paste drone, a meat-based interface to an LLM, then why does my company need me? Why would my clients pay for me when they could just pay to ask ChatGPT or Claude the exact same things?

What they’re paying for is my expertise, my skills not only at using the technology, but the specific lens I direct it with, and the perspective that only I can bring. And if I’m using AI to constantly improve that expertise, to improve that domain knowledge, then they should keep paying for me.

Outside my subject matter expertise, I start with deep research, using AI tools to gather information and then having them create a synthesis. Once I’ve got that, then I have it create a checklist of what constitutes quality in the domain I’m working in. Finally, I sit down with the creations and I read and learn for myself. I have AI make infographics or podcast summaries to learn the domain so that I can connect it to my expertise.

Agentic AI - tools like Claude Code, OpenCode, etc. - are phenomenal researchers, far better than the web-based deep research tools folks have become accustomed to in the past couple of years. When you use a research agent, it has a lot more latitude to gather up sources, to take the time to write down notes and observations, and to synthesize conclusions from the data it has. If you use something like the Trust Insights CASINO research framework, you’ll get some amazing results from the tools that tend to have fewer hallucinations than their web-based counterparts.

Then with that research data in hand, you use it to become a better professional within your domain. You use it to level yourself up. You use it to add to your insights instead of substitute for your insights.

Part 5: Wrapping Up

The biggest problem in AI today is the delegation of our executive function to machines. Whether it’s accountability (machines have none), deskilling, or dissatisfaction with our work, the moment we forfeit executive function is the moment when AI becomes more problem than solution.

We can boil it all down to a simple set of questions:

  1. Does the use of AI make the output better?

  2. Does the use of AI make me better?

If the answer isn’t yes to BOTH, then you’re not using it well.

Properly used, AI is one of the greatest professional development tools ever created.

Improperly used, it’s one of the most destructive forces your career has ever known, because the moment you offload a task to AI, your own skills at that task get rusty.

And once something becomes rusty enough, it’s cheaper and easier to replace it.

More in the Almost Timely Newsletter

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biggest-problem-ai-today