That should make more people pause. Not because building a weekly plan is impossible, but because so many professionals are still spending far too much time organizing work that should already be moving. Monday starts with sorting through scattered notes, revisiting half-finished ideas, rebuilding context from the week before, and trying to decide what matters most. It feels productive, but it is often a hidden time leak. That is why this matters. If AI can help create a full weekly plan in 8 minutes, this is not just a useful productivity trick. It is a sign that a lot of the planning friction people have accepted as normal no longer needs to stay normal. When AI can turn messy inputs into a structured plan in minutes, the conversation changes quickly. It stops being about whether AI is useful and starts being about how much time is still being lost by not using it well. That is the urgent part. The people who learn to use AI for planning, prioritization, and execution support will operate differently. They will start the week with more clarity. They will reduce time-to-decision. They will cut context switching. They will spend less time figuring out what to do and more time doing the work that actually matters. That advantage compounds. A weekly plan usually requires reviewing notes, pulling tasks from different tools, prioritizing deadlines, mapping meetings, identifying bottlenecks, and breaking larger goals into next actions. None of that is unusually difficult, but it is repetitive, mentally draining, and easy to let expand into far more time than it should take. AI can accelerate that process dramatically when it is given the right inputs and constraints. That does not mean AI replaces judgment. It means AI can remove the blank page, reduce mental clutter, and handle the first layer of admin so people can focus on what actually needs human thinking. The priorities still need to be evaluated. The trade-offs still need to be considered. The final decisions still belong to the person leading the week. But instead of spending 45 minutes to an hour trying to create momentum, AI can generate a strong first version in 8 minutes and make refinement much faster.

I wonder what is best use of Perplexity. I am looking for a tool to evaluate website and to see how effective the landing pages are... then I can have ai help me to refine it. Thanks. Also, can I just give the URL to claude.ai to do the analysis for me? if not, what would you recommend? I only been taking screen shots to ask chapt but very time consuming.

I've been preparing for a podcast regarding AI probing questions about its impact, and my own thoughts on the subject of AI. I am in discourse against "AI is dangerous, take things over, etc.". I've used it as a powerful tool with measured success, so my "fears" of AI are not the same as others. Here is a bit of the outcome of my preparation for the podcast. ---- I think we are slightly misnaming the divide that AI is creating. Most people call it technical literacy, as if the key question is who knows how to use the tools. That matters, but I do not think it is the deepest split. The deeper divide is what I would call managerial literacy of thought. By that I mean: some people know how to direct cognition well. They know how to define the actual problem, brief clearly, set constraints, inspect output, challenge weak reasoning, revise the approach, and decide what to do next. Others do not. And AI exposes that difference very quickly. Before these tools, a lot of weak thinking could hide inside institutions. It could hide behind meetings, credentials, process, jargon, even status. You could still be seen as the knowledgeable person without necessarily being very good at governing how thought gets turned into decisions. But AI produces something immediately. So now the question becomes obvious: can you tell whether the output is good, weak, shallow, misleading, or incomplete? Can you improve it? Can you use it responsibly? Can you own the consequence? That is why I keep coming back to the idea that the shift is not just from knowledge to judgment. It is from possessing information to directing cognition. In the old model, value came from being the person with the answers. In the new model, answers are increasingly abundant. What becomes scarce is the ability to manage the answer pipeline well: framing, steering, validating, and acting. So when people say AI is replacing human intelligence, I think that is too crude. What it is really doing is repricing competence. It is exposing who can think operationally and who was mainly benefiting from information scarcity. And that is uncomfortable, because a lot of institutional authority was built on being the gatekeeper of knowledge, not necessarily on having the best judgment.

Hi I would love to hear your thoughts for those of you been more advance in the AI world. Is claude or chatGPT a better platform to create coaching framework and coaching offer with?